# Bf-109 vs P-40



## beaupower32 (Jan 1, 2009)

Going off of the Hurricane vs 110 thread, how about a bf-109 vs P-40 thread. To me, it is very hard to think which one is better, but I think it will have to come down to pilot in the end. Lets hear your thoughts.


----------



## renrich (Jan 1, 2009)

Whew! I think that the P40 was considered as dessert for the 109. The P40 would have to be well flown with mutual support tactics to survive against BF 109s.


----------



## MikeGazdik (Jan 1, 2009)

I will just wait till the Messerschmitt comes down to me in my Curtiss!


----------



## Njaco (Jan 1, 2009)

If you're in the P-40 I think the only advantage would be for _you_ to go down to the Bf 109s and then get the 'ell out of there!


----------



## MikeGazdik (Jan 1, 2009)

I think the P-40 (USAAF) in the MTO, had well over 500 aerial kills. Sure the Bf 109 has the advantage on paper. But it would not be dessert.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Jan 2, 2009)

At low alt, it was even. When the Germans realized that P-40 lost performance above 17,000 feet, they hunted higher and fought with energy and killed them pretty bad. 

The war department minimized the need for high altitude operations and retarded development of the two-stage supercharger for the Allison (by indicating that they weren't interested). Thus the P-40, the P-39, the P-51A and to a lesser extent the P-38 suffered from their short sightedness.

The P-40 was, in my opinion, a better AIRFRAME than the Me-109. Just the Me-109 landing gear (or operational lack thereof) is enough evidence for me. The DB 600 series engines were masterpieces though and elevated an inferior airframe to being a better overall fighter plane.


----------



## KrazyKraut (Jan 2, 2009)

I don't see where you get that from. The P-40s landing gear wasn't exactly a marvel either and its arrangement was aerodynamically inefficient. Most articles I have read describe the P-40's airframe as overly complex for a single engined fighter (e.g. 5 spar wing). I do think the P-40s, in its Kittyhawk variants, were decently armed and overall acceptable fighters, but inferior to Spitfire and Bf 109 not to even mention the Mustang.


----------



## beaupower32 (Jan 2, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> At low alt, it was even. When the Germans realized that P-40 lost performance above 17,000 feet, they hunted higher and fought with energy and killed them pretty bad.
> QUOTE]
> 
> 
> I will agree here. At low alt, pretty even. Up high, the 109 really shined against the P-40.


----------



## Soren (Jan 2, 2009)

The Bf-109F was much faster, climbed much quicker and turned much tighter. So the Bf-109F was no doubt the better a/c, but pilot skill can easily make up the difference.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Jan 2, 2009)

KrazyKraut said:


> I don't see where you get that from. The P-40s landing gear wasn't exactly a marvel either and its arrangement was aerodynamically inefficient. Most articles I have read describe the P-40's airframe as overly complex for a single engined fighter (e.g. 5 spar wing). I do think the P-40s, in its Kittyhawk variants, were decently armed and overall acceptable fighters, but inferior to Spitfire and Bf 109 not to even mention the Mustang.


1/3 of all 109s built were destroyed in takeoff and landing accidents. That's ridiculous. Nothing like that happened to the P-40.


----------



## KrazyKraut (Jan 2, 2009)

Where's the source for that? We recently had some numbers on landing accidents of German fighters here and they showed no extraordinarily high rates for the Bf 109. Certainly there were fighters with more robust landing gears, but the 109 was superior to the P-40 in much more relevant aspects.


----------



## renrich (Jan 2, 2009)

As stated in another thread, the P40 had 592 kills in the Med. I suspect that few of those were 109s. The "Star of Africa", I believe, on his best day claimed 17 kills. Most of those were P40s.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 2, 2009)

they had 592 claims


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 2, 2009)

Gotta go with Bf 109 here. 

I think it was a better airframe overall, better performance where it counted the most (later varients our performed it at all areas I believe but do not take my word on it, this is off of memory) and Armament was better.


----------



## beaupower32 (Jan 2, 2009)

renrich said:


> As stated in another thread, the P40 had 592 kills in the Med. I suspect that few of those were 109s. The "Star of Africa", I believe, on his best day claimed 17 kills. Most of those were P40s.




Here is what I found. Dont know about the times being accurate, but might give a indacation of how the day went down. 

On September 1st 1942 (ironically, a 3rd anniversary of outbreak of the war) Marseille down 17 allies planes in three sorties. His first encounter that day was with a P-40 which had attack Stukas. It went down in flames rather quickly. Then six Spitfires acting as escort to Kittyhawks dropped down on Bf-109s. Marseille lowered his flaps and throttling back almost staling his aircraft, causing Spitfires to shoot past him. The last got a full course meal from of Jochen's 20-mm canons and machine guns. The British fighter literally disintegrated in mid air. In the short skirmish which then transpired, another Spit was victimized by Marseille, as well as a second P-40 trying to escape on deck. 

Times of victories: 08:28; 08:30; 08:33; 08:39.

On his second flight that morning, Jochen flew top cover for Ju-87s. They ran into big party of DAF fighters and bombers. Marseille with his wingman intercepted eight P-40s on their dive for Stukas, and allies planes formed the circle soon after this. He shot down two of his opponents immediately and the circle broke up. As they scattered, Jochen knocked down three more. He took his sixth after short chase, with a very long deflection shot. Throughout all this, his wingman flew close cover. They both climbed up again only to spot another flight of unsuspecting Kittyhawks. Marseille approached alone and shot down his seventh. After turning home he came upon yet another P-40 trailing white smoke. It became his eighth in this flight and probably was his easiest victim. 

Times of victories: 10:55; 10:56; 10:58; 10:59; 11:01; 11:02; 11:03; 11:05.

Eight aircraft in ten minutes! Back in the base, as soon as he opened the canopy of his 109, he learned that Feldmarschall Kesselring was visiting his unit. Upon reporting to Operations HQ tent, Marseille declared 12 enemy aircraft shot down. Kesselring inquired of him the number he shot himself, and Jochen replied accordingly: "Twelve, Sir". His supreme commander did not say a word. Later, he admitted to being astonished. That was a very busy day for all pilots of the JG-27. After a meal and a short rest, Marseille departed as an escort to Ju-88s which were seeking to bomb British troops concentrations. The battle of Alam el Halfa was at its highest point. Fifteen P-40s attacked Junkers, which in turn were attacked by Marseille's pilots. A series of dogfights erupted which gradually brought fighting aircraft from 5,000 feet to almost ground level. In this aerial fracas the "Eagle of Africa" shot down another five P-40s.

Times of victories: 18:46; 18:47; 18:48; 18:49; 18:53.


----------



## slaterat (Jan 2, 2009)

The p 40 was too heavy and its climb rate too slow to be equal to the 109. Canadian P 40 ace Stocky Edwards had a chance to fly both and he considered the 109f superior. He states that it was difficult to fly the Kittyhawk to its strengths and lateral instability and jamming guns made it tough to succeed in combat involving violent aerial manueovres.

Slaterat


----------



## MikeGazdik (Jan 2, 2009)

1) 592 claims. Yep. If we are going to scrutinize those numbers, we must scrutinize ALL claims. Even Marseille's. I cannot remember where I read that number, but a significant number of the victories where Bf 109s.

2) I have read arguments either way, that the Warhawk could out turn the Messerschmitt, or vise-versa. My opinion on turning performance would depend more on the pilot, and the altitude of the fight.

3) Im sure the Bf 109 had a relatively high number of ground accidents, but I cannot believe 1/3 of the A/C. I have read that before in books, but frankly just don't think it is true.

4) I think for sure the P-40 is more tolerant of battle damage.

5) I am biased, but only a little. I obviously really like the P-40. But I also like the Messerschmitt. I am trying to be objective. Mostly.

6) Lasty Clay Allison's post made me really want to put a Daimler-Benz in a P-40 ! Just have to figure how to flip that upside down thing around!!!


----------



## Waynos (Jan 2, 2009)

Or put the scoop at the top, how cool would that look 

Now, a question posed through ignorance if you will forgive me;

It has always been my understanding that the RAF chose to operate only the best available fighters against Germany's 109's in the earlier years of the war and so dispatched its 'lesser' aircraft across the Empire to face the lesser threat (as it was percieved) of Italian forces in Africa and Japanese forces - but only then potentially - in the far east.

So whilst the Hurricane and Spitfire were retained in the UK, other types sent 'out of harms way' included the Buffalo, Gladiator and P-40. To me this has always signalled an inferiority in the P-40. I know that of the three types I mentioned the P-40 was by far the best and gave excellent service in Africa, but is that view broadly correct, or completely wrong? With explanations too please if you can?


----------



## MikeGazdik (Jan 2, 2009)

Waynos said:


> Or put the scoop at the top, how cool would that look
> 
> Now, a question posed through ignorance if you will forgive me;
> 
> ...



I know the Spit, and in particular the Hurricane was in Africa and the Pacific. I'm just not sure if it was after the deployment of the P-40. I do not find the thinking wrong in "saving" the Spitfires for the homeland defense. I know they did not want them in France prior to the Battle of Brittain, due to the fear of losing them. I think it may be national pride also, in sending lend-lease aircraft into harms way first. The RAF obviously had egos and pride, just as the U.S. officials, which is part of the delay in the P-51 coming on line. It wasn't "thier idea". (U.S. Army Air Corps)


----------



## beaupower32 (Jan 2, 2009)

Well, here is a question. Considering the 109 had leading edge slats, do you think they would help the plane in a low speed turning fight, considering it went to that type of fight. I know they helped with different aspects of the flight envelope, but would they be considered a advantage over the P-40?


----------



## Clay_Allison (Jan 2, 2009)

KrazyKraut said:


> Where's the source for that? We recently had some numbers on landing accidents of German fighters here and they showed no extraordinarily high rates for the Bf 109. Certainly there were fighters with more robust landing gears, but the 109 was superior to the P-40 in much more relevant aspects.


A program I watched on the Military channel last night, Top Ten Greatest Fighters.


----------



## Colin1 (Jan 2, 2009)

beaupower32 said:


> Well, here is a question. Considering the 109 had leading edge slats, do you think they would help the plane in a low speed turning fight, considering it went to that type of fight. I know they helped with different aspects of the flight envelope, but would they be considered a advantage over the P-40?



I didn't think the leading edge slats were that popular with the Luftwaffe pilots, having a tendency to flick open and shut at the critical time in the firing solution, 'bunting' the Bf109 on and off its target; didn't most of them get their ground crews to just wire them shut?

Even if they did, I still don't think a decent P40 pilot would have much luck with an equally decent Bf109 pilot; what did the P40 have on the Bf109? A better rate of roll and that was about it, wasn't it? I'm not underestimating rate of roll as a key factor in fighter warfare, I just don't think it's enough here.

I thought the low-speed handling characteristics of the Bf109 were better than most of their WWII contemporaries anyway, with or without the slats.

Isn't a fight 'down on the deck' something of a great equaliser amongst WWII fighters? I'd have attributed victory to nerve and pilot skill down there, over innate technical superiority of a particular machine.

Hi everyone by the way, new guy to shoot at


----------



## MikeGazdik (Jan 2, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> Isn't a fight 'down on the deck' something of a great equaliser amongst WWII fighters? I'd have attributed victory to nerve and pilot skill down there, over innate technical superiority of a particular machine.
> 
> Hi everyone by the way, new guy to shoot at



First of all hello and isn't this site great!! 

I cannot agree more. I think down in the trees is an equalizer. But the Bf 109 would still have a better climb rate I think. And, since thier speeds down low are likely similiar, the P-40 would have a tough time breaking off the contact, whereas the Bf pilot could if he wanted to leave.


----------



## Eurofighter (Jan 2, 2009)

Speaking about P-40s and Me-109s this week I visited a flight museum and fortunetly they had both the P-40 and the Bf-109, good looking warbirds by the way and since the P-40 is airworthy, I was lucky that it was in the museum and not in an airshow.


----------



## The Basket (Jan 3, 2009)

The early P-40s were in the 320mph range and had poor high altitude performance so their ground attack mission was always on the cards. Also they are quite rugged and more hardy than Spitfires.

The Spitfire was a far better fighter than the Kitty so let the Kittys do the ground work. Later P-40s did have greater performance than the Hurricane so if caught by a 109 in North Africa..the P-40 would do better than a Hurricane.

The F Model 109 was very good but I do agree that the engine made the 109.

I do like the Curtiss fighter. It always deserved more glory and it was never a second rate aircraft. Just inferior to newer machines that were not around in 1942.


----------



## Waynos (Jan 3, 2009)

Thanks for the answers guys. Yes, once the Germans sent 109's to Africa and the Japanese were fighting us in the Pacific sending Spits became a must, as far as I am aware the Hurricane was only sent to Africa for the ground attack role as well so I am in agreement with what you are saying basket about pilots having a better chance in a P-40 than in the Hurri which is tougher, but also a lot heavier I think. Would it be correct then to rank the P-40 above the Hurri, but below the Spitfire (and 109, natch)? Could we regard it as about equal to the Hurricane II?


----------



## renrich (Jan 3, 2009)

Curtis tried all sorts of measures to increase performance of the P40 including the Merlin engine. It's performance hardly improved. Look however at the performance improvement over it's lifetime of the 109!


----------



## Soren (Jan 3, 2009)

MikeGazdik said:


> 2) I have read arguments either way, that the Warhawk could out turn the Messerschmitt, or vise-versa. My opinion on turning performance would depend more on the pilot, and the altitude of the fight.



In actual fact the Bf-109F turns significantly better than the P-40. And we only need to look at the physics to confirm that.

The lift to weight and power to weight ratio are two of the most important factors to turn performance, and the Clmax of the Bf-109's wing is much higher than that of the P-40's wing, leading to the Bf-109's much higher L/W ratio. The reason of the Bf-109's higher Clmax was the automatic LE slats increasing the Clmax critical AoA by 25% in the covered areas, and the entire lift generated by the wing by about 12.5%. And since the Bf-109 had available more power whilst being lighter than the P.40 as-well, the Bf-109's P/W ratio was therefore also higher. 

Clmax = Max Lift Coefficient 
L/W = Lift/Weight ratio
P/W = Power/Weight ratio

So P-40 pilots certainly had their hands full in Africa. But we must also remember that it wasn't all Bf-109F's in Africa, there were Bf-109E's as-well, and the Emil had serious problems with its slats jamming (esp. in Africa because of the sand dust), and its performance wasn't significantly better than that of the P-40.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 3, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> A program I watched on the Military channel last night, Top Ten Greatest Fighters.



You might want to check out some more sources before coming to a conclusion.


----------



## Amsel (Jan 3, 2009)

To me it would have to come down to pilot skills and tactics as well as altitude. I think that the Me 109 has the advantage but not as much as some might think. The one thing that astonished the Germans and British was how quickly the USAAF pilots learned to fight in the air. Due to the bad start they did not expect as much from the Americans. 
The Me 109 had the altitude advantage and that is why it was able to perform effectively as an interceptor of the 8th AF heavy bombers, a role the P-40 would not be good at. But a Me 109 forced to fight on the P-40's terms basically had no advantages. The battles between the Me 109 and the P-40 in the MTO show how important tactics and skills are, even more important then A/C capabilities as long as the performance is in somewhat the same range.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 3, 2009)

Amsel said:


> The Me 109 had the altitude advantage and that is why it was able to perform effectively as an interceptor of the 8th AF heavy bombers, a role the P-40 would not be good at. But a Me 109 forced to fight on the P-40's terms basically had no advantages.



What you just described is air combat, and any two given aircraft.


----------



## Amsel (Jan 3, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> What you just described is air combat, and any two given aircraft.


You get the gist then.


----------



## MikeGazdik (Jan 4, 2009)

When I "dream" of flying one of these aircraft, in combat, I have two modes of thought. The offensive side wants me in the plane in which I dictate the attack. Something I can swoop in and slice and dice the opponent with. In that thought three planes come to mind first; Spitfire, Messerschmitt 109, and Mustang.
The other part of me wants the dirt and concrete bunker with wings. And one that can survive a hard crash landing. In that, I think of P-47, P-40 or F6F.

As far as this P-40 vs Bf 109 goes, I want to be in the German fighter so I can be the Hunter, when thinking on the offensive side. I want to be in the Curtiss, if I get raked with some rounds, because I think my chances of survival are better at that point. 

Regardless of the record the P-40, in my opinion, is the most important fighter the U.S. had in WWII. It was there in the beginning, and did a job in which you are destined to "fail" ; outnumbered, out-skilled, out performed. But there were enough of them with pilots that learned fast, to hold the line until better equipment arrived. Without the P-40, better equipment would have been of little use if its already over.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 5, 2009)

MikeGazdik said:


> As far as this P-40 vs Bf 109 goes, I want to be in the German fighter so I can be the Hunter, when thinking on the offensive side. I want to be in the Curtiss, if I get raked with some rounds, because I think my chances of survival are better at that point.



How do you expect your chances of survival to be better in a P-40 when you are being raked by rounds?


----------



## Marshall_Stack (Jan 5, 2009)

MikeGazdik said:


> Regardless of the record the P-40, in my opinion, is the most important fighter the U.S. had in WWII. It was there in the beginning, and did a job in which you are destined to "fail" ; outnumbered, out-skilled, out performed. But there were enough of them with pilots that learned fast, to hold the line until better equipment arrived. Without the P-40, better equipment would have been of little use if its already over.



Mike,
You are obviously a fan of the P-40. It is rare to find praise for the P-40 except for what you have said. I don't know if you have read this, but this former AVG pilot praises the P-40.....

R.T. Smith


----------



## Graeme (Jan 5, 2009)

MikeGazdik said:


> 1) I obviously really like the P-40.



G'day Mike. So too does Peter Bowers. He places the blame for the P-40's inadequacies squarely on the customer...


----------



## Amsel (Jan 5, 2009)

> All of the aircraft listed below are contemporaries of the P-40. As
> an added comment and question, why do many insist upon comparing
> apples and oranges. Surely there can be no doubt in anyone's mid
> that the F8F was superior to its forerunners, but it wasn't flying
> ...


 From Erik Shilling, a flight leader in the Flying Tigers and lifelong military aviator.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Marshall_Stack (Jan 5, 2009)

I just got done reading "Doomed from the Start" which chronicles the USAAF's operation during Japan's raids/invasion of the Philippines. I was surprised how well they did considering all of the things they had to endure. Most of the P-40s were lost to operational causes (accidents) and from being strafed on the ground. The AAF pilots quickly learned that they couldn't turn with the Nates and Zeros but had to fight in the vertical.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 5, 2009)

maybe need remember that P-40B was operational in summer 1941



p.s. i want tell that P-40B must compared with 109F, Spit V and one of new generation soviet fighters (LaGG3, MiG 3, Yak 1) not with the old 109E, Spit I and I-16


----------



## Skip M (Jan 5, 2009)

Nikolay Gerasimovitch Golodnikov - Major-General (Ret) Flew the P-40 on the Russian front. His opinion was that it was very good against the Bf-109. It is a long 4 part interview but very interesting and well worth reading.

Conversations with N.Golodnikov


----------



## MikeGazdik (Jan 5, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> How do you expect your chances of survival to be better in a P-40 when you are being raked by rounds?



Operative word "IF". If I get hit by enemy rounds, I would rather be in a P-40 than the Bf 109. 

Im feeling the need to jump into the defensive on this subject. My very first comment was that a P-40 wouldn't be easy meat for a Bf 109. I didn't say that a P-40 is superior. Just give credit where credit is due. Yes, I am tainted somewhat because it is my overall favorite. But half of it is simply as a kid I loved the looks of the plane too, and still do. If my life depended on my choice of aircraft, the Bf 109 would be at the top of the list of planes I would want to be in. As much as I love the P-40, it would be nowhere near the top.

I had not seen that link you posted Marshal, thanks. Nor have I seen the one posted by Graeme, but I have read similar accounts before. The P-40 and P-39 were both severly hampered by the US AIR CORPS' concept of Pursuit planes at the time, and that same thinking is what prevented those planes from being developed FROM THE START for working at the same altitudes the B-17 was designed to operate.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 6, 2009)

MikeGazdik said:


> Operative word "IF". If I get hit by enemy rounds, I would rather be in a P-40 than the Bf 109.
> 
> Im feeling the need to jump into the defensive on this subject. My very first comment was that a P-40 wouldn't be easy meat for a Bf 109. I didn't say that a P-40 is superior. Just give credit where credit is due. Yes, I am tainted somewhat because it is my overall favorite. But half of it is simply as a kid I loved the looks of the plane too, and still do. If my life depended on my choice of aircraft, the Bf 109 would be at the top of the list of planes I would want to be in. As much as I love the P-40, it would be nowhere near the top.



Hey now, chill out...

You do not need to go on the defensive here. I was asking a simple question, and nothing else. All I wanted was for you to explain why anyone would be safer in a P-40 than a Bf 109. It was just a question!

*Spend some time on these forums, and you might actually see that I am not someone that you usually need to go on the defensive with.*


----------



## MikeGazdik (Jan 6, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Hey now, chill out...
> *Spend some time on these forums, and you might actually see that I am not someone that you usually need to go on the defensive with.*



Eagle, I was feeling the need to be defensive about my positions on the P-40, due to several posts, not soley yours. I just chose to answer your question directly. I am not one to get upset, or get stupid on a forum for which I joined to have a good time. I will not flame or attack anyone, and I hope you didn't take it that way. We are talking about common interests we all have. I love this type of debate. And I have read back along way into old posts...but I only have so much time to spend on a computer.

I know I was heavily promoting an airplane that is commonly overlooked. Sometimes you read things that make the P-40 sound like a Cessna 152 with a couple of guns shoved in the wings.

So getting back to answer your question as to why; I feel the stronger structure of a P-40, would give the pilot a better chance of limping home with structural damage, than in the 109.


----------



## Soren (Jan 7, 2009)

MikeGazdik said:


> Eagle, I was feeling the need to be defensive about my positions on the P-40, due to several posts, not soley yours. I just chose to answer your question directly. I am not one to get upset, or get stupid on a forum for which I joined to have a good time. I will not flame or attack anyone, and I hope you didn't take it that way. We are talking about common interests we all have. I love this type of debate. And I have read back along way into old posts...but I only have so much time to spend on a computer.
> 
> I know I was heavily promoting an airplane that is commonly overlooked. Sometimes you read things that make the P-40 sound like a Cessna 152 with a couple of guns shoved in the wings.



 Great to have you aboard. Nice to have another sober member on the forum.



> So getting back to answer your question as to why; I feel the stronger structure of a P-40, would give the pilot a better chance of limping home with structural damage, than in the 109.



While I'm not sure wether the P-40's structure is stronger, I'd say that the cannon fire would make just as short work of it as it would with any other fighter (Except perhaps the P-47).


----------



## MikeGazdik (Jan 7, 2009)

Soren said:


> Great to have you aboard. Nice to have another sober member on the forum.
> 
> 
> 
> While I'm not sure wether the P-40's structure is stronger, I'd say that the cannon fire would make just as short work of it as it would with any other fighter (Except perhaps the P-47).




Thanks Soren!

I don't have any "proof" data, but in my readings the P-40 wing is incredibly strong. I have never read of a P-40 shedding its wings in a dive. However, if this fight occurrs at low altitude (which would have to happen for the P-40 to even be there), I doubt that either plane would get into enough dive speed to be concerned of structure damage from manuevers. Getting hit by cannon fire is another story obviously. I would still rather be in the P-40 if hit by either cannon or guns from the 109, than being in the 109 being hit by .50 cal fire from the P-40. 
Really the only deficiency with the P-40 was the lack of high altitude capability with the engine. IF it had altitude capability, it would be on par with the Spit MkV and 109F. And I am saying the P-40E and later variants. The early B/C Warhawks that had the mix of .50 and .30 cal guns would be at a distinct disadvantage.


----------



## Marshall_Stack (Jan 7, 2009)

Skip M said:


> Nikolay Gerasimovitch Golodnikov - Major-General (Ret) Flew the P-40 on the Russian front. His opinion was that it was very good against the Bf-109. It is a long 4 part interview but very interesting and well worth reading.
> 
> Conversations with N.Golodnikov



Interesting article, especially how he says that they ran the P-39s and P-40s above their the limits per the manuals. I guess if you are getting aircraft and engines for free you can abuse them all you want.

Does anybody have Clide Caldwell's opinion of the P-40?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 7, 2009)

MikeGazdik said:


> Eagle, I was feeling the need to be defensive about my positions on the P-40, due to several posts, not soley yours. I just chose to answer your question directly. I am not one to get upset, or get stupid on a forum for which I joined to have a good time. I will not flame or attack anyone, and I hope you didn't take it that way. We are talking about common interests we all have. I love this type of debate. And I have read back along way into old posts...but I only have so much time to spend on a computer.



Cheers 



MikeGazdik said:


> I know I was heavily promoting an airplane that is commonly overlooked. Sometimes you read things that make the P-40 sound like a Cessna 152 with a couple of guns shoved in the wings.



I too think that the P-40 is an underrated aircraft. However compared to the "top" fighters of WW2 (from any country and side), I do believe the P-40 was a step behind. In the beginning I think she could hold her own against anyone, but by 1943 she was a step behind.

I think if you took a P-40 and a Bf 109, put a pilot in each that was equal and had the same training the Bf 109 would come out on top 7 out of 10 times. Of course this is just my opinion, there is no way to actually prove this. Like I said above, you could trade out the Bf 109 with any of WW2's "top" fighters (Spitfire, P-51, Fw 190, P-47, etc...).

This of course in the end would matter where the fight was taking place. All aircraft had advantages and disadvantages over other aircraft at certain altitudes. It is possible the P-40 had a slight advantage over the Bf 109 at certain (lower) altitudes. Of course a trained Bf 109 pilot will know this and try to avoid getting into a fight at those lower altitudes.



MikeGazdik said:


> So getting back to answer your question as to why; I feel the stronger structure of a P-40, would give the pilot a better chance of limping home with structural damage, than in the 109.



What gives you the idea that the P-40 had a stronger structure?


----------



## Marcel (Jan 7, 2009)

MikeGazdik said:


> I know I was heavily promoting an airplane that is commonly overlooked. Sometimes you read things that make the P-40 sound like a Cessna 152 with a couple of guns shoved in the wings.



I have tried to persuade these nutheads that the Fokker G.I was the best fighter of WWII and they still don't believe me. 8)

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Skip M (Jan 7, 2009)

Marshall_Stack said:


> Interesting article, especially how he says that they ran the P-39s and P-40s above their the limits per the manuals. I guess if you are getting aircraft and engines for free you can abuse them all you want.
> 
> Does anybody have Clide Caldwell's opinion of the P-40?



The other side is if you do not abuse the engines the plane is shot down and you have to replace the whole plane instead of just the engine. This goes along with the Sherman tank that had a gun with a low enough velocity to last 4000 rounds. You replaced fewer guns but more tanks.


----------



## Graeme (Jan 7, 2009)

Marcel said:


> I have tried to persuade these nutheads that the Fokker G.I was the best fighter of WWII and they still don't believe me. 8)



C'mon Marcel we all know the Aussie Boomerang was the best  



Marshall_Stack said:


> Does anybody have Clide Caldwell's opinion of the P-40?



Of the two (Tomahawk and Kittyhawk), Caldwell preferred the Tomahawk...





Neville Duke (famed post-war test pilot), who at one point served under Caldwell, gives his view thus...





Ability to absorb damage? I think Wildcat posted the story of Jacklin's P-40, but here's the photo again...


----------



## MikeGazdik (Jan 7, 2009)

Speaking of Messerschmitts, I have been drooling over this video for the last half a year.


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nj77mJlzrc_

Two notes of interest to me: 1) When the pilot first starts the engine, it starts immediately, didn't spin any blades through to prime, no coughing. Is that common to the DB engine, or was it because perhaps it was warm already? That is one sweet sounding engine!!!
2) Most importantly. This pilot is obviously not concerned with the "poor" ground handling of the aircraft!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 7, 2009)

MikeGazdik said:


> Two notes of interest to me: 1) When the pilot first starts the engine, it starts immediately, didn't spin any blades through to prime, no coughing. Is that common to the DB engine, or was it because perhaps it was warm already? That is one sweet sounding engine!!!
> 2) Most importantly. This pilot is obviously not concerned with the "poor" ground handling of the aircraft!


I've seen white 14 (a 109E) start up and it did the same when it was warm. BTW - I met the pilot of that 109. He was in my pit during the Reno Air Races this year. I even had dinner with him and all the time really didn't realize who he was!


----------



## Marcel (Jan 8, 2009)

Graeme said:


> C'mon Marcel we all know the Aussie Boomerang was the best



Boomerang? Isn't that a traiterous piece of wood that'll hit you in the head when you throw it away?  :LOL:

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kurfürst (Jan 8, 2009)

MikeGazdik said:


> Speaking of Messerschmitts, I have been drooling over this video for the last half a year.
> 
> 
> _View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nj77mJlzrc_




Very impressive flying... 8)


----------



## pbfoot (Jan 8, 2009)

MikeGazdik said:


> Speaking of Messerschmitts, I have been drooling over this video for the last half a year.
> 
> 
> _View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nj77mJlzrc_
> ...


they sometimes use Quick Start or ether what ever the local equivilant is


----------



## foxrecon19d (May 20, 2009)

I read in several reports where German BF109 pilots would rather tangle with the British Hurricane than a P40 Warhawk. In fact, some German pilots claimed to have downed P40s during the Battle of Britain (they were mistakenly identified as P40s- actually, the typr shot down were Hurricanes) and the German pilots got considerably more accolades from their comrades. Although no P40s participated in that famous air battle, it would have been interesting to see how the venerable Warhawk would have fared compared to the British Hurricane.


----------



## airboiy (May 20, 2009)

I'd go with the P-40 due to the armament of the kittyhawk, the inherent stregnth, and because it was the sexiest plane during WW2.


----------



## Vincenzo (May 20, 2009)

IMHO 109 it's a superior fighter, with advantage up with years. P-40 would be a best attacker


----------



## Coors9 (May 20, 2009)

Beautiful bird, but even if John Wayne was flyin' it, i'd put money on the 109.


----------



## airboiy (May 21, 2009)

C'mon, the P-40 with a good pilot would have totally smoked a 109, especially late in the war-the 109 pilots were ussually green!


----------



## Soren (May 21, 2009)

Not a chance airboiy, the Bf-109 is simply a far superior fighter aircraft.


----------



## claidemore (May 21, 2009)

airboiy said:


> C'mon, the P-40 with a good pilot would have totally smoked a 109, especially late in the war-the 109 pilots were ussually green!



Pretty hard to shoot down a green pilot in a plane that is 50 mph (or more) faster than your own.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 21, 2009)

If we're talking a P-40 from the Bs through the Ns against a 109E, it could and did compete. The 109G and on, yes far superior.


----------



## drgondog (May 21, 2009)

airboiy said:


> C'mon, the P-40 with a good pilot would have totally smoked a 109, especially late in the war-the 109 pilots were ussually green!



Not sure P-40's engaged more than a smattering of 109s after 1943 - the USAAF replaced the P-40 with Spits, Jugs and finally 51s.

Net - few 'green' pilots were faced by P-40's. 

I suspect the air to air ratio of P-40s vs Me 109 was slightly higher than against the Zero in the PTO and CBI but it was the lowest air to air ratio in the USAAF inventory of fighters, even with AVG experience to jump start it.

This has been a hard airplane (P-40) for me to get data on relative to air to air ratios simply because the award systems were all over the place with respect to due diligence.


----------



## HoHun (May 21, 2009)

Hi Flyboyj,

>If we're talking a P-40 from the Bs through the Ns against a 109E, it could and did compete. The 109G and on, yes far superior.

Here is an analysis ... I picked the P-40E, the Me 109E-4 with DB 601A and "new-type" supercharger, and the Me 109F-4.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 21, 2009)

HoHun said:


> Hi Flyboyj,
> 
> >If we're talking a P-40 from the Bs through the Ns against a 109E, it could and did compete. The 109G and on, yes far superior.
> 
> ...



Good info, but consider this...

_*The 325FG* flew 128 combat missions with the P-40 in the MTO.
Results:
Shot down in air-to-air combat:
96 Me 109
26 MC 202
7 Me 323
3 Ju 52
3 Fi 156

In addition, the 325's P-40s dropped 329,000 lbs. of bombs.

Losses:
17 to enemy fighters
6 to flak
5 to unknown causes (probably weather, fuel or mechanical)
3 to engine failure
2 to mid-air collision
1 to small-arms fire
1 to hitting high tension wires.


On July 1, 1943, while on a fighter sweep over southern Italy, 22 P-40s
were bounced by 40 Me 109s. Results: one P-40 shot down, 20 Me 109s shot down.
On July 30, 1943, similar situation: 20 P-40s on a fighter sweep over Italy
bounced by 35 Me 109s. One P-40 shot down, 21 Me 109s shot down.
In these two battles, the 109s engaged the P-40s in classic, turning
dogfights--and lost big time. The Curtiss fighter could outmaneuver the German
fighter, take hits that would wreck the Me, and dish out much greater firepower
than the 109. The Me's only clear superiority was in the climb, which was not
helpful. It could not out-turn the P-40s, dive away from them or outrun them.
Nor could it outshoot them or take as much punishment as they could.
Add in the fact that the Mess. drivers faced a very aggressive bunch of pilots
(the motto of the 325 was "Shoot the Bastards"), and it's no wonder they found
themselves "screwed, blued and tattooed."

Never sell the P-40 short._
http://yarchive.net/mil/p40.html

http://us.share.geocities.com/raf_112_sqdn2/325thfghonor_roll.html

From the same page...

_The P-40B was. . .
40 mph faster than the AM6-2 (21) Zero. 
50 mph faster than the Hyabusa, or Ki-43.
70 mph faster than the fixed gear I-96.
195 mph faster than the cruise speed of the Ki-21 Sally.
130 mph faster in a dive than any Japanese fighter.
3 times the roll rate of the Zero.
P-40 was 5 mph faster than the Me 109 E-3 at 15,000 feet
P-40 was 9 mph faster than the Spitefire Mk.IA at 15,000 feet
The P-40 could out turn the Me. 109 E-3, and could out dive it.
The P-40 was not the dog that everyone seem to think it was.

The P-40B flown by the Flying Tigers had. . .
Self sealing fuel tanks. . . Japanese aircraft had none.
Armor plate that would stop any bullet fired from a Japanese
fighter or bomber encountered over Burma.
Bullet proof windshield that would stop any Japanese fighter or
bomber's machine gun bullets.
Very much stronger than the flimsily constructed Japanese aircraft.
A number of Zero's shed their wings at speeds slightly over 350 IAS
mph. Japanese would not even attempt a dive that approached 350
IAS. None of Japan's aircraft could even stand up to P-40's 30 and
50 caliber guns. It only required a few incendiary bullet, even
from our 30 cal. guns, to set fire or explode their aircraft.

Although subsequent model P-40s did fall behind the new model
Me.109s and British Spitfires in performance, however in every case,
each new model Zero that came out remained inferior to their
contemporary P-40. 

Now why in the hell would anyone consider the Zero to be the best
fighter of the war?

Hell it didn't even start out that way. . .
The above is not just my opinion, but garnered from available
facts, and flying the P-40 in combat.

What was truly obsolete happened to be the turning or dogfighting
combat that had been used during of WW I.

Erik Shilling

-- 
Erik Shilling Author; Destiny: A Flying Tiger's 
Flight Leader Rendezvous With Fate.
3rd Squadron AVG
Flying Tigers_


----------



## MikeGazdik (May 21, 2009)

No disrespect to Mr. Shilling, he is a hero. But he is a biased fan of the P-40. As Johnosn is of the P-47, and Hartmann of the Me109.

But the info from the 325th......hmmmm. Very interesting. Apparently they didn't read the book that says the Warhawk is no match for the Messerschmitt.


----------



## Njaco (May 21, 2009)

> ...A number of Zero's shed their wings at speeds slightly over 350 IAS
> mph. Japanese would not even attempt a dive that approached 350
> IAS....



Which is why the main attack by the AVG were to dive on the Zeros and climb for another pass, correct?

What were optimum atiltudes for the P-40 and Bf 109? In NA (where most P-40 vs Bf 109 engagements happened), wasn't most dogfighting at low altitude - what would be the comparison betwee the two then?


----------



## HoHun (May 22, 2009)

Hi Flyboyj,

>Good info, but consider this...

I consider "this" rubbish.

>The Me's only clear superiority was in the climb, which was not helpful. It could not out-turn the P-40s, dive away from them or outrun them.

The Me 109 clearly could outrun the P-40, and every model after the Emil could outrun it easily. It could just as clearly out-turn the P-40. Similar power, similar wing loading, the Me 109 about a ton lighter than the P-40 ... the result is fairly obvious.

Whoever came up with that "summary" is clearly biased, and the value of the entire piece is rather doubtful with false claims like that.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## vikingBerserker (May 22, 2009)

Didn't Marseille manage to get inside a group of South African P-40s flying in a Luftberry Circle and decimate them? I would think he could have only done that if his plane had a tighter turn radious then the P-40's.


----------



## Soren (May 22, 2009)

True viking.

And I fully agree with Hohun.


----------



## Waynos (May 22, 2009)

If the summary above was correct it would make the RAF's early decision to operate the P-40 only in the MTO extremely baffling.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 22, 2009)

HoHun said:


> Hi Flyboyj,
> 
> >Good info, but consider this...
> 
> ...




Consider it "rubbish," and take Shilling's comments with a grain of salt, I mean after all he only flew with the Flying Tigers. - the fact remains that on at least two occasion pilots from the 325th FG mauled Bf-109s and their combat history is fact. Pilot skill, luck or performance of the aircraft, the fact remains that P-40s DID on occasion take the fight to the -109 despite being shown inferior on paper.


----------



## Timppa (May 22, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Consider it "rubbish," and take Shilling's comments with a grain of salt, I mean after all he only flew with the Flying Tigers. - the fact remains that on at least two occasion pilots from the 325th FG mauled Bf-109s and their combat history is fact. Pilot skill, luck or performance of the aircraft, the fact remains that P-40s DID on occasion take the fight to the -109 despite being shown inferior on paper.



AFAIK AVG never met Zeros (let alone 109's) , so any perceived performance difference could not have been based on personal experience.

The 21 downed 109's (against III./ JG 77, 30 July 1943) is not a fact either. The true LW losses seem to have been 4 planes ( 1 KIA, 3 WIA). Good performance from P-40's, though.

Pls, help identify Jagdwaffe units involved - Luftwaffe and Allied Air Forces Discussion Forum


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 22, 2009)

Timppa said:


> AFAIK AVG never met Zeros (let alone 109's) , so any perceived performance difference could not have been based on personal experience.
> 
> The 21 downed 109's (against III./ JG 77, 30 July 1943) is not a fact either. The true LW losses seem to have been 4 planes ( 1 KIA, 3 WIA). Good performance from P-40's, though.
> 
> Pls, help identify Jagdwaffe units involved - Luftwaffe and Allied Air Forces Discussion Forum



Correct on all points Timppa. the point remains that the P-40 was no slouch even though on paper it seemed inferior to the 109E.

From your source...

_"18. April 1943:
I. and II. /JG 53 lost 4 Bf 109s in combat at Souk-el-Khemis and the Isle of Zembra with 2 pilots MIA and one POW.
One Bf 109 from II./JG 77 was damaged 15% in combat at Pl.Q. 97/4/4/2

10. June 1943:
II./JG 27 lost 11 Bf 109s in combat with Spitfire and P-40s in the Pantellaria-area with sevens pilots MIA and two KIA

30. July 1943:
III./JG 77 lost 5 Bf 109s in combat with Spitfires (1) and P-40s (4) SE of Alghero with 1 pilot KIA, 1 pilot MIA and 3 pilots WIA."_


----------



## claidemore (May 22, 2009)

In 1943 the 109s were most likely G6 variants, which were definately not as 'sprightly' as the 109F's, which the P40s faced in North Africa (where those who flew them maintained the P40 had slightly better turn capabilities). I don't doubt that a bunch of later model, heavier 109s would get in trouble in a big furball with P40's. A 4 to 1 kill ratio adjusted for 'actual'? losses (as opposed to claims) is pretty darn good for the P40s and shows that they were able to exploit the differences (advantages) they had over the 109. 

Had the 109s used their advantages, (speed and climb) they would have fared much better. 

The Finns also enjoyed good success with planes that were inferior on paper. I don't think anyone would argue that the Brewster was a better plane than the later designs they faced, and the Soviets definately weren't clamouring for the USA to give them some lend lease Brewsters rather than P40s and P39s.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 22, 2009)

claidemore said:


> In 1943 the 109s were most likely G6 variants, which were definately not as 'sprightly' as the 109F's, which the P40s faced in North Africa (where those who flew them maintained the P40 had slightly better turn capabilities). I don't doubt that a bunch of later model, heavier 109s would get in trouble in a big furball with P40's. A 4 to 1 kill ratio adjusted for 'actual'? losses (as opposed to claims) is pretty darn good for the P40s and shows that they were able to exploit the differences (advantages) they had over the 109.
> 
> Had the 109s used their advantages, (speed and climb) they would have fared much better.
> 
> The Finns also enjoyed good success with planes that were inferior on paper. I don't think anyone would argue that the Brewster was a better plane than the later designs they faced, and the Soviets definately weren't clamouring for the USA to give them some lend lease Brewsters rather than P40s and P39s.



Agree


----------



## airboiy (May 22, 2009)

See? I've learned (the hard way thanks to the older members of the forum) that a plane is only as good as its pilot.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 22, 2009)

airboiy said:


> See? I've learned (the hard way thanks to the older members of the forum) that a plane is only as good as its pilot.


To a large degree that's what it boils down to


----------



## airboiy (May 22, 2009)

However, due to the poor effeciency of the LW's pilot training program towards the end of the war, I still say the P-40 is better than a -109. 
Early on, the pilots of the 109's were good and the planes ok. Towards the end of the war, the pilots of the LW were ok and the planes good. This deffeciency is pretty bad, no? Even though the Germans had great a/c, the pilots weren't good b/cause the true masters of the machines were on the frontline dying, not behind the line training the new pilots effectively. The U.S., in particular, used the better pilots to train the newbs to fly better than their advasaries. And since the trainers had gone up against the enemy themselves, they usually had a good idea what the 109's, 190's, etc. were capable of and knew a way to defeat them. Somewhere I've heard "...that to train good pilots, you need good pilots." That maxim applies to everything.


----------



## Amsel (May 22, 2009)

I really can't agree that the P-40 was as good as the 109, especially late war. The P-40 could hold its own when using good tactics in the eary war but no way could the P-40N come even close to the Me109G6A/S or any of the later Gustavs or Kurfursts. I do agree that the Allies had more pilots in the late war, but this doesn't reflect the aircraft.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 22, 2009)

airboiy said:


> However, due to the poor effeciency of the LW's pilot training program towards the end of the war, I still say the P-40 is better than a -109.
> Early on, the pilots of the 109's were good and the planes ok. Towards the end of the war, the pilots of the LW were ok and the planes good. This deffeciency is pretty bad, no? Even though the Germans had great a/c, the pilots weren't good b/cause the true masters of the machines were on the frontline dying, not behind the line training the new pilots effectively. The U.S., in particular, used the better pilots to train the newbs to fly better than their advasaries. And since the trainers had gone up against the enemy themselves, they usually had a good idea what the 109's, 190's, etc. were capable of and knew a way to defeat them. Somewhere I've heard "...that to train good pilots, you need good pilots." That maxim applies to everything.


Don't sell the LW short. Although the quality of their pilots diminished in the latter part of the war, they had plenty of excellent seasoned veterans that were just as good and in many cases better than allied pilots. Additionally their equipment in many situations was better as well. The biggest problem the LW had was fuel and sometimes being overwhelmed in numbers.


----------



## airboiy (May 22, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Don't sell the LW short. Although the quality of their pilots diminished in the latter part of the war, they had plenty of excellent seasoned veterans that were just as good and in many cases better than allied pilots. Additionally their equipment in many situations was better as well. The biggest problem the LW had was fuel and sometimes being overwhelmed in numbers.



But the LW never used their experienced pilots to train the new pilots, did they? This resulted in the good pilots dissapearing in the later years of the war, which was a life saver to the Allies. Otherwise, the Allies would have lost air superiority over Europe (can anyone say another Battle of Britian?).


----------



## Soren (May 22, 2009)

claidemore said:


> In 1943 the 109s were most likely G6 variants, which were definately not as 'sprightly' as the 109F's, which the P40s faced in North Africa (where those who flew them maintained the P40 had slightly better turn capabilities). I don't doubt that a bunch of later model, heavier 109s would get in trouble in a big furball with P40's. A 4 to 1 kill ratio adjusted for 'actual'? losses (as opposed to claims) is pretty darn good for the P40s and shows that they were able to exploit the differences (advantages) they had over the 109.
> 
> Had the 109s used their advantages, (speed and climb) they would have fared much better.
> 
> The Finns also enjoyed good success with planes that were inferior on paper. I don't think anyone would argue that the Brewster was a better plane than the later designs they faced, and the Soviets definately weren't clamouring for the USA to give them some lend lease Brewsters rather than P40s and P39s.



Even the Bf-109 G-6 held the edge over the P-40 in every aspect of flight, that it was heavier meant nothing as the aerodynamics of the G-6 were much better than that of the 109E.


----------



## Colin1 (May 22, 2009)

airboiy said:


> Early on, the pilots of the Bf109s were good and the planes OK


That's very inaccurate when you take it out of context like that
Within its phase of WWII, the Bf109E was as good as anything in the world, ask the pilot of any Spitfire Mk I or II or Hurricane I - its contemporaries - the Bf109E was a dangerous opponent.


----------



## Colin1 (May 22, 2009)

airboiy said:


> ...the Allies would have lost air superiority over Europe (can anyone say another Battle of Britain?)


Yes, you can
but only if you promise to explain what you mean


----------



## renrich (May 22, 2009)

On the day that Marseille had his 17 kills, all single engined fighters, I thought that the majority were P40s.


----------



## JoeB (May 22, 2009)

renrich said:


> On the day that Marseille had his 17 kills, all single engined fighters, I thought that the majority were P40s.


Marseille was credited with 16 P-40's and a Spitfire Sept 1 1942. Total LW credits were 26. Total Allied single engine fighter losses were 20: 9 Hurricanes, 4 Kittyhawks, 4 Tomahawks, 1 USAAF P-40F, and 2 Spitfires, though not all certainly lost to German a/c. It's clear from the blow by blow that some of Marseille's opponents that day were Hurricanes he mistook for P-40's. See Ring and Shores "Fighters over the Desert". It's clear from that book that the exchange ratio of bf109 v P-40 (or Desert AF fighters generally for that matter) in that theater and period was distinctly in favor of the Germans, though the German credits were usually more exaggerated than is implied by the particular example above.

Before somebody mentioned 4:1 ratio in favor of P-40's adjusted for actual enemy losses. When did that happen? (in any significant sample).

Joe


----------



## HoHun (May 22, 2009)

Hi Flyboyj,

>Consider it "rubbish," and take Shilling's comments with a grain of salt, I mean after all he only flew with the Flying Tigers.

Against Messerschmitts? Come on! 

For a quote P-40 pilot with actual experience in fighting Me 109s, here is one from Hal Marting's diary, a 250th Fighter Squadron pilot who flew in North Africa:

"Although the Jerry guns along the Egyptian coast were out of range and everything seemed quiet and peaceful ... there wasn't a man of us ... who didn't know that a Messerschmitt could outrun, outclimb and outshoot us any day of the year. Our safety lay in sharp eyes, numbers and formation."

(Verbatim as reproduced in Humphrey Wynn's "Desert Egales", complete with the ellipses. Marting was killed in a flying accident in the USA after finishing his tour of duty, before the end of the war.)

>the fact remains that on at least two occasion pilots from the 325th FG mauled Bf-109s and their combat history is fact. Pilot skill, luck or performance of the aircraft, the fact remains that P-40s DID on occasion take the fight to the -109 despite being shown inferior on paper.

Hm, there are several things to consider:

- A superior performance aircraft doesn't mean an automatical victory.
- A historical victory doesn't mean the winner's aircraft had superior performance.
- Performance is a well-defined technical term (and invariably recorded on paper).
- Combat history should not be judged by claims of one side alone.
- An aircraft should not be judged by its most successful day.

Since it seems that the 325th Fighter Group received a Distinguished Unit Citation for the action on July 30, 1943 (Factsheets : 325th Operations Group : 325th Operations Group), during which (if Timppa's numbers are correct) they downed 4 Messerschmitts for the loss of 1 P-40, I'd tend to consider that a better-than-average day for the 325th, to put it mildly.

It's perfectly fine to look at combat result as long as it doesn't result in blindness to other factors ... and some guys deliberately turn a blind eye, which is why I didn't think much of your first quote block. 

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 22, 2009)

HoHun said:


> Hi Flyboyj,
> 
> >Consider it "rubbish," and take Shilling's comments with a grain of salt, I mean after all he only flew with the Flying Tigers.
> 
> ...



All points taken but as you plotted out, its obvious the -109 could out perform the P-40, but the limitations of the aircraft did not make it a "sitting duck," I think that's the point attempting to be made. If flown in numbers and in situations to exploit its strengths, it was able to compete.


----------



## tigercub (May 23, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> 1/3 of all 109s built were destroyed in takeoff and landing accidents. That's ridiculous. Nothing like that happened to the P-40.


This is only because the Me109 was forced to land and take off in the poor airfields of the USSR and narrow under carriage.....the spitfire suffered the same thing.

The p40 was only a little better fighter than the Hurricane!


----------



## tigercub (May 23, 2009)

claidemore said:


> In 1943 the 109s were most likely G6 variants, which were definately not as 'sprightly' as the 109F's, which the P40s faced in North Africa (where those who flew them maintained the P40 had slightly better turn capabilities). I don't doubt that a bunch of later model, heavier 109s would get in trouble in a big furball with P40's. A 4 to 1 kill ratio adjusted for 'actual'? losses (as opposed to claims) is pretty darn good for the P40s and shows that they were able to exploit the differences (advantages) they had over the 109.
> 
> Had the 109s used their advantages, (speed and climb) they would have fared much better.
> 
> The Finns also enjoyed good success with planes that were inferior on paper. I don't think anyone would argue that the Brewster was a better plane than the later designs they faced, and the Soviets definately weren't clamouring for the USA to give them some lend lease Brewsters rather than P40s and P39s.



The p40 would only have slightly better turn capabilities (maybe) if the me109g6 had wing mounted guns if there were not fitted the G6 would easy out turn the P40.Then the Germans used the Me109 a fighter (not with wing guns) or as a bomber attack aircraft (with wing guns 20-30mm,200m rocket)


----------



## claidemore (May 23, 2009)

tigercub:
According to the Rechlin trials (1940?), the Curtis Hawk (radial engine fighter with same fuselage/wing etc of the heavier inline engined P40) could easily outturn the 109E. Roll rate of the Hawk was better than either the 109 or the Spitfire. 
According to pilots who flew Tomahawks and Kittyhawks in North Africa, they could 'just' outturn 109Fs.
According to pilots who flew both 109Fs and 109Gs, the Friedrich was much more manueverable. 

If a P40 can just outturn the 109F, (and roll rate of the P40 was same as the Hawk75) then it follows that it would have an easier time manuevering against the 109G6. I believe the wing gondolas on the 109 added about 2 seconds to it's turning circle, so the advantage of the P40 in turn time would be even greater againt that variant. 

JoeB: I think your question was answered a few posts earlier, but: i was referring to a single combat with the 325th where a 4 to 1 ratio was achieved. (Claims were 16 to 1.)


----------



## HoHun (May 23, 2009)

Hi Claidemore,

>According to the Rechlin trials (1940?), the Curtis Hawk (radial engine fighter with same fuselage/wing etc of the heavier inline engined P40) could easily outturn the 109E.

According to my calculations, the Hawk at 2608 kg was able to turn at almost 25 deg/s at sea level.

However, the P-40E with the same wing weighed in at 3911 kg, resulting in less than 17 deg/s turn rate at sea level - which shouldn't come as a surprise.

The Me 109E (depending on exact variant and engine) turned at some 20 deg/s at sea level at 2690 kg, and the G-6 weighed in at 3090 kg at substantially increased power, losing hardly anything on the Emil in terms of turn rate.

>If a P40 can just outturn the 109F

No way 

>(and roll rate of the P40 was same as the Hawk75) 

Hm, why do you think so? From some British reports, I believe the aileron actuation system was revised when the P-40 was designed to gain high-speed roll rate at the expense of low-speed roll rate.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## claidemore (May 23, 2009)

> Hm, why do you think so? From some British reports, I believe the aileron actuation system was revised when the P-40 was designed to gain high-speed roll rate at the expense of low-speed roll rate.



Even better!  109 and Spitfire roll rates coincide at higher speeds, and RAE reports show the Hawk rolling better than the Spit at higher speeds, so any improvement there is a plus for the P40. 

The Finnish 109G6 manual shows turn time of 26 seconds at 400kmh. Thats only 13.8 degree/second. The P40N or P40F (1943) should have no trouble beating that, particularly with a superior roll rate at higher speeds.

I believe the following clip from the RAE report comparing the Hawk 75 to the Spitfire Mk 1 gives us a pretty good clue as to what happened when the 109s 'bounced' the 325th FG P40s.


----------



## JoeB (May 23, 2009)

claidemore said:


> If a P40 can just outturn the 109F, (and roll rate of the P40 was same as the Hawk75) then it follows that it would have an easier time manuevering against the 109G6. I believe the wing gondolas on the 109 added about 2 seconds to it's turning circle, so the advantage of the P40 in turn time would be even greater againt that variant.
> 
> JoeB: I think your question was answered a few posts earlier, but: i was referring to a single combat with the 325th where a 4 to 1 ratio was achieved. (Claims were 16 to 1.)


OK I subsequently saw that referred to one combat. The only completely conclusive combat between Zeroes and P-35's saw one Zero downed for a P-35 damaged (in all the others P-35's were shot up but none actually ever downed) .

The 325th FG's opinion was that the P-40 could out turn the 109. Calculated estimates are nice, but they aren't facts. I'm not saying the 325th's opinion was a solid fact either*, just these questions aren't solved (or shouldn't be to anyone who is thinking) by making a few inputs into canned software and throwing up a graph. The 325th believed that an effective tactic was to fly slightly below 10k ft and that in the typical opening moves of a combat by 109's diving from above, the P-40's could split ess away and 109's couldn't follow, presumably through some combination of superiority in horizontal plane, dive and roll.

In general though, 12th AF fighter units were facing an enemy with a lot more combat experience. We don't always have to stick with one head to head match up and argue what portion of the result was human factors. We could also look cross section-wise and see that early 12th AF real results in fighter combat weren't that impressive with P-38's or reverse Lend Lease Spit V's either. Even the typically more experienced RAF/CW fighter units didn't typically have favorable real ratio's v LW units in the MTO in late '42-early 43. We could study whether the results by type were *any* different at all, statistically significantly speaking. I haven't, but that's the kind of real research that could be done to actually advance such a discussion.

*although it wasn't purely subjective, also tested and demonstrated to new pilots using the 325th's Bf109G 'Hoimann' captured in Tunisia, with due caution to condition of captured planes, but again pointing out these are just not simple matters of fact to easily calculate *without* demonstrating that the calculation is correct at full scale.

Joe


----------



## HoHun (May 23, 2009)

Hi Claidemore,

>The Finnish 109G6 manual shows turn time of 26 seconds at 400kmh. Thats only 13.8 degree/second. 

At 400 km/h, I calculate the sustained sea level turn rate for the P-40E as just 9.8 deg/s, so 13.8 deg/s would make the Me 109G-6 look rather good. The speed of best turn rate is around 250 km/h for both types, after all.

However, there is no altitude given in the Finnish manual, and the manual actually quotes 13 s for 180 deg, not 26 s for 360 deg, so there is no telling if this is a sustained turn at sea level or a instantaneous turn at some relevant combat alttiude.

>I believe the following clip from the RAE report comparing the Hawk 75 to the Spitfire Mk 1 gives us a pretty good clue as to what happened when the 109s 'bounced' the 325th FG P40s.

Oh dear - you can't just pick one trait and explain any specific combat outcome with it. That's like picking one trait of a chess piece and using it to explain the outcome of an endgame when you weren't even there to witness the game.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Glider (May 23, 2009)

The following may be of interest re 325th FG

Ops Summary
Total Vic AC

I admit that I find the figures more than a little high. They seem to higher than any fighter unit of any airforce that I can think of and as they were an inexperienced unit when they entered action with the P40 it just doesn't feel right. There is no reason I can think of why they should have done so much better than any other P40 unit with their lack of experience.


----------



## renrich (May 23, 2009)

JoeB, Thanks for your post. In some ways, it seems as if some are trying to turn a sow's ear into a silk purse with a P40. Dean's "America's Hundred Thousand" gives a good appraisal of the various models of the P40 and pilot comments also. There were good reasons why the P40 was not used much later in the war in the areas where high intensity air fighting was going on. The AAF had better fighter aircraft to replace the P40, just as the USN had better AC to replace the F4F. The BF 109 seemed to be able to be adapted enough that it could compete with the latest models of Allied AC. If it had not been adaptable, the LW would have quit ordering it. Try as they might Curtis could not bring the P40 up to late war standards.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 23, 2009)

JoeB said:


> OK I subsequently saw that referred to one combat. The only completely conclusive combat between Zeroes and P-35's saw one Zero downed for a P-35 damaged (in all the others P-35's were shot up but none actually ever downed) .
> 
> *The 325th FG's opinion was that the P-40 could out turn the 109. Calculated estimates are nice, but they aren't facts. I'm not saying the 325th's opinion was a solid fact either*, just these questions aren't solved (or shouldn't be to anyone who is thinking) by making a few inputs into canned software and throwing up a graph. The 325th believed that an effective tactic was to fly slightly below 10k ft and that in the typical opening moves of a combat by 109's diving from above, the P-40's could split ess away and 109's couldn't follow, presumably through some combination of superiority in horizontal plane, dive and roll.*
> 
> ...



Great post Joe and that hits the nail on the head


----------



## Amsel (May 23, 2009)

The P-40 was a great aircraft in the early war. It easily outclassed most other aircraft in some ways except for a select few. I don't believe the P-40 gets enough credit for that. The main problem with the P-40 has been stated already and that is its failure to be upgraded so it could be more competative after 1943. The P-40 was only outclassed by the Spitfire barely and if one had to choose an existing Allied aircraft for 1940 to 1942 the P-40 was one of the best.


----------



## HoHun (May 23, 2009)

Hi Flyboyj,

>All points taken but as you plotted out, its obvious the -109 could out perform the P-40, but the limitations of the aircraft did not make it a "sitting duck," I think that's the point attempting to be made. 

To be made by whom in response to whom?

I at least was quite specific in pointing out that the P-40E was outperformed with regard to speed, climb rate and turn rate by the Me 109E and the Me 109F alike. One doesn't become a sitting duck merely by being out-performed, but it certainly is bad for your karma to fly an out-performed fighter ... and from the poll results, most forum members seem to have understood that well.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## HoHun (May 23, 2009)

Hi Amsel,

>The P-40 was a great aircraft in the early war. 

Against the Me 109 specifically?

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Amsel (May 23, 2009)

HoHun said:


> Hi Amsel,
> 
> >The P-40 was a great aircraft in the early war.
> 
> ...


No I didn't say that. The Emil and Franz outclassed the P-40. I was comparing the P-40 to the existing Allied arsenal in the early war. The Me109 was the best until the P-47.


----------



## HoHun (May 23, 2009)

Hi Amsel,

>The Emil and Franz outclassed the P-40. 

Hm, understood, but "Franz" is really a modern-day srcrew-up appelation for the Me 109F that is quite unfortunate.

The subtype designation was "F", which in the common German phonetic alphabet also used by the Luftwaffe was coded "Friedrich", a name that might be shortened to "Fritz" outside of a formal context. Note that the German phonetic alphabet had a civilian origin and that it was (and still is) universally used outside of the military context naturally.

I don't think I have ever seen a mention of the wrong "Franz" coding that is older than the 1980s.

As a phonetic code, you won't usually find "Friedrich" or other phonetic codes mentioned in contemporary documents since on paper, there was no ambiguity with regard to the identity of the latter. However, unlike sometimes claimed, "Emil", "Friedrich", "Gustav" and so on were no nicknames but simple phonetic codes.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Amsel (May 23, 2009)

HoHun said:


> Hi Amsel,
> 
> >The Emil and Franz outclassed the P-40.
> 
> ...



I agree, and good point. I meant Freidrick but I am guilty of using both." Unfortunate"?


----------



## HoHun (May 23, 2009)

Hi Amsel,

>" Unfortunate"? 

LOL! OK, I meant to say it's unfortunate that a bogus name like "Franz" has managed to become popular because the same old internet texts get copied again and again. Through sheer repetition, stuff like that tends to creep into one's system even if one knows better - has happened to me, too!

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Amsel (May 23, 2009)

That makes sense!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 23, 2009)

HoHun said:


> Hi Flyboyj,
> 
> >All points taken but as you plotted out, its obvious the -109 could out perform the P-40, but the limitations of the aircraft did not make it a "sitting duck," I think that's the point attempting to be made.
> 
> To be made by whom in response to whom?



No one - just a point being made 


HoHun said:


> I at least was quite specific in pointing out that the P-40E was outperformed with regard to speed, climb rate and turn rate by the Me 109E and the Me 109F alike. One doesn't become a sitting duck merely by being out-performed, *but it certainly is bad for your karma to fly an out-performed fighter *... and from the poll results, most forum members seem to have understood that well.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Henning (HoHun)



Especially if shot down! But what boost for your ego if you're completing the mission with a sub-performing aircraft


----------



## HoHun (May 24, 2009)

Hi Flyboyj,

>>To be made by whom in response to whom?

>No one - just a point being made

A point made by no one?

Here is an another assessment by a P-40 pilot of the MTO, James Troy Johnson:



> For some reason, or lack thereof, about that time [Mid 1943] the U.S. Congress, studying war progress, put out the word that P-40's were OK -- the air to air score was 2 to 1 in our favor. We had lost many of our friends and were pretty uptight. That press release, as far as we know not questioned by anyone, made us cussing mad. We thought everyone knew the P-40's were substandard. Our only hope in combat was to spot the Jerries as they came out of the Sun -- spot them in time to turn about for a climbing head on attack! I guess there just wasn't anyone in Washington at that time who could or would describe to the Congressmen that combined frustration, anger, helpless aws**t feeling you would get when you made your turnabout in time, but stalled out trying to climb into range for a shot -- while the ME-109 easily climbed out of range and retained the capability to yo-yo at you any time he chose. Talk about a game of chicken; but that was no game, fighting under those conditions was our only chance for survival! Jerries rarely followed through if you could get around in time to make a head-on pass. They preferred, wisely, to climb back up out of your range and try to pull another surprise later; or split up flights and kill stragglers. What we desperately needed was some of the new P-47's or P-51's we had heard would come sooner or later.
> 
> Written by James Troy Johnson, Col. USAF (ret.) - last Squadron Commander of the 316th Fighter Squadron 1942-1945, flying P-40F in the MTO.



The quote is from a 2002 post in Oleg Maddox's Ready Room forum, which apparently closed down recently.

A short biographie of Johnson:

http://www.p47pilots.com/P47-Pilots...e.cfm&vm=BIO&pilotid=276&p=James Troy Johnson

More on Johnson's WW2 experience:

Table of Contents

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Timppa (May 24, 2009)

JoeB said:


> The 325th FG's opinion was that the P-40 could out turn the 109. Calculated estimates are nice, but they aren't facts. I'm not saying the 325th's opinion was a solid fact either*, just these questions aren't solved (or shouldn't be to anyone who is thinking) by making a few inputs into canned software and throwing up a graph.



Aircraft performance can be calculated by pretty straightforward formulas. It is really not rocket science and it predicts the performance with sufficient accuracy.
That said, of all performance parameters, the turning performance is most dependent of the pilot, who (in Yeager's words), "have to fly an airplane close to the ragged edge where you've got to keep it if you really want to make that machine talk."


----------



## JoeB (May 24, 2009)

Timppa said:


> Aircraft performance can be calculated by pretty straightforward formulas. It is really not rocket science and it predicts the performance with sufficient accuracy.
> That said, of all performance parameters, the turning performance is most dependent of the pilot, who (in Yeager's words), "have to fly an airplane close to the ragged edge where you've got to keep it if you really want to make that machine talk."


Depends on what 'sufficiently accurate' means. If taking a common sense approach and viewing say a 20mph (just to pick a number) calculated difference as basically negligible, when considering variation among a/c and among type's of a/c as to degradation of performance in field conditions, then OK. 

But if trying to read too much into small differences, then let's agree to disagree how useful the calculated graphs we often see on the internet really are. Original sources often differ noticeably as to tested speeds of a/c and tested speeds and real combat speeds weren't necessarily the same and didn't necessarily differ as much between a/c types. One approach to uncertainty is to make a best effort to decide what's the 'best' data, then take that as the 'fact', use consistent software to calculate and use those results as 'fact'. It's basically a computer simgame mentality. A simgame has to be programmed with something definite (or I don't know of games which randomly vary the characteristics of the a/c). When studying air combat history, a different topic than simgaming though they overlap, we can recognize that performance characteristics contained an element of uncertainty. We can admit we just don't fully know in all cases what the actual performances would be of particular a/c in particular combat conditions.

I definitely agree though on turn relative to other characteristics, much more uncertain and relative to not only the pilot but the particular maneuver in question under the umbrella of 'turn'. The flat statement that the 109 out turned the P-40, based on calculated estimates, is the most questionable use of calculated estimates in this thread. In this particular case, P-40F/L (say, the 325th's P-40's) and early series Bf109G there's no doubt that 109 was tactically usefully faster. But as mentioned, the 325th used its own captured 109G to show new pilots joining the group that *they* could out turn the 109 flown by one of the group's experienced pilots, it wasn't just a matter of master P-40 pilots being able to. This is just one piece of evidence, but trying to brush it off with ' my estimated graphs from canned software show that's not true' is not a very worthwhile response, IMHO.

Joe


----------



## Vincenzo (May 24, 2009)

imho also "the 325th used its own captured 109G to show new pilots joining the group that *they* could out turn the 109 flown by one of the group's experienced pilots, it wasn't just a matter of master P-40 pilots being able to" is not a very worthwhile response you can outrun all planes if the pilots are agree


----------



## drgondog (May 24, 2009)

Timppa said:


> Aircraft performance can be calculated by pretty straightforward formulas. It is really not rocket science and it predicts the performance with sufficient accuracy.
> That said, of all performance parameters, the turning performance is most dependent of the pilot, who (in Yeager's words), "have to fly an airplane close to the ragged edge where you've got to keep it if you really want to make that machine talk."



Timppa - I agree the equations as used are a.) not rocket science and b.) will provide useful estimates.

Where the departure between useful approximations/applied equations occurs from real world is than an airframe does not simply reduce to linear equations when describing behavior of complex wing body shapes in curvilinear motion in a statistically unstable medium. Lab and wind tunnel results for two dimensional airfoils differ from the theoretical results - particularly with respect to WWII state of the science in Fluid Mechanics and applied math.

Aeroelatic effects on wings and tails under loads were not well understood. Assymetrical loads, while understood, are not easily modellled in the context of the differential equations required to describe the equations of motion for a free body in the complex medium described as 'air'.

For example each element in the equation for induced drag is an approximation of sorts - such as the Lift Coefficient and dependency on Aspect Ratio (another applied 'fudge factor' to account for the difference in planform efficiency between one wing config and another), the 'e' factor of the airframe lifting contributors (wing as it deviates from elliptical, rudder/elevator and aileron trim drag, etc) relative to changes in relative angle of attack.

Obviously a mere change in reality of a true airframe set of rigorously obtained data in contrast to an 'approximation' of 'e' can easily be off +/- 10% from theoretical or even 'common knowledge' and be further in error under asymmetrical load conditions encountered in a turn.

Parasite Drag is FAR more complicated and particularly for bodies immersed in a propeller stream tube. In level straight flight it is different from turning flight in which the axis of the stream tube changes and results in a change of pressure and flow conditions further influencing a continuous free body dynamic motion.

Net- if all the factors (you personally use in the non rocket science equations are correct for that specific airframe (CL, AR, e ), then your equations of motions for straight flight will usefully return Induced Drag within perhaps 5% of similar results obtained and validated with flight tests under rigorous controls.

The accuracy will quickly depart when one tries to use level flight calculation results and apply them to a dynamic, non linear, analysis of that same body in a rapidly changing set of conditions right up to perceived stability in a sustained rate of turn. 

The difference between 'simple applied theory approximations' and actual flight results diverge quickly when complex wing-body interactoions in non symmetric flow and load conditions occur relative to the 'simple equations'..

That is why there were so many suprises exposed from airframe preliminary design and actual performance when the 'as predicted' was translated to the 'as built'.

JoeB offered another set of challenges - namely not every aircraft flown and engaged was within manufacturer specs - and certainly the biggest variable of all was pilot skill and experience.

I respect your opinion but IL2 and other fashionable computer games, etc, are far from reality. 

To get close you need to have a lot more modelled sophistication and reliable flight test/wind tunnel results to plug for a specific airframe in the VERY expensive Flight Simulators used for pilot training.


----------



## HoHun (May 24, 2009)

Hi Flyboyj,

>>The 325th FG's opinion was that the P-40 could out turn the 109. Calculated estimates are nice, but they aren't facts. I'm not saying the 325th's opinion was a solid fact either*, just these questions aren't solved (or shouldn't be to anyone who is thinking) by making a few inputs into canned software and throwing up a graph. The 325th believed that an effective tactic was to fly slightly below 10k ft and that in the typical opening moves of a combat by 109's diving from above, the P-40's could split ess away and 109's couldn't follow, presumably through some combination of superiority in horizontal plane, dive and roll.

>Great post Joe and that hits the nail on the head

Better be careful about who you applaud there.

I told Joeb in no uncertain terms here on this forum:

>>My advice is to ask "May I see your math, please?" the next time you're about to launch a post that tries to downplay the significance of a quantitative analysis.<<

He never asked. 

This means that he is neither ready to deal with engineering facts in a rational manner, and lacks the good sense to stop sniping against something of which he is guilty of self-chosen ignorance.

Here is a telling bit from the paragraph of his post which you applauded:

"these questions aren't solved (or shouldn't be to anyone who is thinking) by making a few inputs into canned software and throwing up a graph."

You should be aware that Joeb doesn't know my methods. The "knowledge" that I'm making 'a few inputs into canned software' is fake knowledge - he doesn't know what I'm using because he avoided to ask when challenged.

And his bracketed "shouldn't be to anyone who's thinking" - oh well, anyone who is thinking would have first asked "May I see your math please?", and had a look at it, before posing as a scholar and making comments on their value. (Or he would have admitted that the math is above his head and stopped the sniping.)

However, Anyone who's just trolling wouldn't have minded the bigotry and continued the sniping from his position of ignorance - did you notice the entirely uncalled for "canned" attribution to insinuate I'm not aware of what the software actually does?

If you'd like to check the challenge to Joeb (and more examples of his typical behaviour) look at post #130 in this thread:

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/spitfire-mk-vb-seafire-vs-zero-12810.html

If someone can prove to me with engineering methods that the P-40E can out-turn the Me 109F in a sustained turn, he's welcome to try - it will be an interesting learning experience regardless of the final conclusion. However, considering that with otherwise very similar parameters, the P-40E is a ton heavier than the Me 109F, I don't expect too many volunteers.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## drgondog (May 24, 2009)

HoHun said:


> Hi Flyboyj,
> 
> >>The 325th FG's opinion was that the P-40 could out turn the 109. Calculated estimates are nice, but they aren't facts. I'm not saying the 325th's opinion was a solid fact either*, just these questions aren't solved (or shouldn't be to anyone who is thinking) by making a few inputs into canned software and throwing up a graph. The 325th believed that an effective tactic was to fly slightly below 10k ft and that in the typical opening moves of a combat by 109's diving from above, the P-40's could split ess away and 109's couldn't follow, presumably through some combination of superiority in horizontal plane, dive and roll.
> 
> ...



Glider and I asked and I am well prepared to discuss your 'methods' - and in particular the P-38L-25 and above using manuevering flaps in curvilinear motion? 

I offer zero proof or even opinions (except for P-38 results) regarding any of the results because I a.) do not have truly reliable data for a perfectly flown airframe for any version of any aircraft you have modelled, and b) I don't care to attempt to develop a full blown and rigorously correct model of any of those aircraft in both transition and fully developed flight motion, with attention to detail of propeller/wing-body effects, asymmetric flow and trim drag changes to Parasite Drag. 

I suspect you do not either - and certainly not to the points I just posed to Timppa above.

So, trot out your model?


----------



## HoHun (May 24, 2009)

>So, trot out your model?

You will remember that you aggressively accused me of forgery over on LEMB when MY figures were perfectly accurate while YOU blew the mph to km/h conversion, and that you then denied me an apology when I was proven right and you were proven wrong.

If you had politely asked "May I see your math please?" back then - before or rather instead of launching your attack -, you'd perhaps not be on my ignore list now, so I'd not have to ignore your request now.

That I read your particular post here at all is not due to any inclination on my part to remove you from my ignore list, but just to prevent potential confusion among other readers not aware of this bit of background information.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 24, 2009)

HoHun said:


> Hi Flyboyj,
> 
> >>The 325th FG's opinion was that the P-40 could out turn the 109. Calculated estimates are nice, but they aren't facts. I'm not saying the 325th's opinion was a solid fact either*, just these questions aren't solved (or shouldn't be to anyone who is thinking) by making a few inputs into canned software and throwing up a graph. The 325th believed that an effective tactic was to fly slightly below 10k ft and that in the typical opening moves of a combat by 109's diving from above, the P-40's could split ess away and 109's couldn't follow, presumably through some combination of superiority in horizontal plane, dive and roll.
> 
> ...



Did you ever consider the HISTORICAL facts and the final outcome despite what you could prve mathimatically???



HoHun said:


> Here is a telling bit from the paragraph of his post which you applauded:
> 
> "these questions aren't solved (or shouldn't be to anyone who is thinking) by making a few inputs into canned software and throwing up a graph."
> 
> You should be aware that Joeb doesn't know my methods. The "knowledge" that I'm making 'a few inputs into canned software' is fake knowledge - he doesn't know what I'm using because he avoided to ask when challenged.


And that's his opinion - have you challenged any of his coments based on actual combat reports and final outcomes? I have and for the most part the man is a wealth of knowlege and have tried to bring an accurate unbiased picture to a discussion that is more historical then scientific.


HoHun said:


> And his bracketed "shouldn't be to anyone who's thinking" - oh well, anyone who is thinking would have first asked "May I see your math please?", and had a look at it, before posing as a scholar and making comments on their value. (Or he would have admitted that the math is above his head and stopped the sniping.)


Well Henning, maybe he should, but does that make any of his less significant when he provides actual results of battles involving these aircraft?


HoHun said:


> However, Anyone who's just trolling wouldn't have minded the bigotry and continued the sniping from his position of ignorance - did you notice the entirely uncalled for "canned" attribution to insinuate I'm not aware of what the software actually does?


Henning, I think you need to relax, an I'll elaborate that in a minute


HoHun said:


> If you'd like to check the challenge to Joeb (and more examples of his typical behaviour) look at post #130 in this thread:
> 
> http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/spitfire-mk-vb-seafire-vs-zero-12810.html
> 
> ...


And you probabaly won't find many challengers on that one either. The point being made is P-40s operating out of North Africa and the ETO made a decient show of them selves against as you so adamently pointed out a more superior aircraft. With that said, as I do find your graphs extrememly informative and have compared them to some performance charts contained in some flight manuals I own and for the most part that are spot on and I commend you on your imputs. Now with all that said, I am suggesting that you tone down some of your rhetorical comments to those who have a different opinion about using computer models or those who point out that despite the most detailed calcualtions, "things could actually come out opposite as planned." (A man named MacNamara leared that that hard way diring a little skirmish called Vietnam). Let's face it, the the superioty shown in your data the Bf 109 should have cleared the skies over the MTO and it didn't, and we could detail numerous reasons for why that happened...

So please, for the sake of harmony within this discusion and not wishing to escalate this any further (and cannot put me on your ignore list if this angers you), please be a bit more tactful in your response when you find that someone may not be presenting an agrument to you in a manner that coinsides with your technical ability.

Thank you...


----------



## drgondog (May 24, 2009)

HoHun said:


> >So, trot out your model?
> 
> You will remember that you aggressively accused me of forgery over on LEMB when MY figures were perfectly accurate while YOU blew the mph to km/h conversion, and that you then denied me an apology when I was proven right and you were proven wrong.
> 
> ...



The 'background' you should pay attention to is that absent showing others the 'math', you come across as a potential BS artist. I would never claim that you are an ID10t but you seem to feel that any challenge to your self proclaimed 'engineering competency' or comparative performance conclusions, should be unquestioned.

You are a smart, but exceedingly arrogant, fellow. 

Ho Hum you bring a lot to the forum but, equally, your personality sucks. I will confess that mine is not exactly stellar so perhaps we fit similar profiles of 'obnoxious'. 

You are desparately trying to avoid presenting me the math - so present it to Glider and 'ignore' me?


----------



## lesofprimus (May 24, 2009)

I too would like to see the math, just to appease the others here....


----------



## HoHun (May 24, 2009)

Hi Flyboyj,

>Well Henning, maybe he should, but does that make any of his less significant when he provides actual results of battles involving these aircraft?

I didn't comment on his statements on his research, I commented on his statements on my research, which were intellectual dishonest.

The question you in your function as moderator should be asking Joeb is:

- Why are you making up things about HoHun's "canned software" you can't possibly know?

You might also want to ask "And why are you lining your statements with thinly veiled insults like 

- "these questions aren't solved *(or shouldn't be to anyone who is thinking)* by making a few inputs into canned software and throwing up a graph."

There is just one thing I need to know from you now: Is the kind of insult Joeb posted tolerated on this forum or not?

Kind regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 24, 2009)

HoHun said:


> There is just one thing I need to know from you now: Is the kind of insult Joeb posted tolerated on this forum or not?
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Henning (HoHun)



I don't think JoeB's comment was an insult and if it was meant to be, I'd be dealing with him as well. As you said, he doesn't know how you het your figures - why not provide that (or a portion there of) and reply "so much for canned hardware?"


----------



## drgondog (May 24, 2009)

lesofprimus said:


> I too would like to see the math, just to appease the others here....



Dan - I suspect that Ho Hum is both familiar and conversant, with the practical Flight Mechanics equations often used, and approved for, teaching pilots and students the fundamental principles of Aerodynamics.

If that is what he is using they are reasonable within a band of uncertainty due to lack of specific and proven data values - in general comparisons. The Thrust = Drag derivative has been cussed and discussed many, many times in this forum. 

I went through the same process in attempting to build a similar level turn and climb performance model - until I realized I would never be able to validate Parasite Drag values over many different speed and altitude ranges - and the thrust (THp) values over a range of Hp values by altitude are hard to come by.

So, 'reasonable' approach to reasonable accuracy falls apart at the very beginning in these long winded debates.


----------



## Glider (May 24, 2009)

HoHun said:


> Hi Flyboyj,
> 
> >Well Henning, maybe he should, but does that make any of his less significant when he provides actual results of battles involving these aircraft?
> 
> ...



An observation.
Henning you are the one who produced turn charts that showed the Beaufighter matching and beating the La5 and Fw190 and the Fokker G1 turning inside the Zero and the Ki43 not anyone else. These outcomes would raise a question mark to anyone.

Re the canned software. You have also produced graphs that showed the drop of various weapons over differing ranges. However you spoiled your pitch when later you showed a total lack of understanding of the most basic aspects of ballistics. The only way you could have produced such graphs, is by the use of canned software or the most blatent guesses.

The thing is that there is no shame in the use of such software, I have used similar software/tables in target shooting a direct comparison to your ballistic tables a lot of people do. The sad thing is trying to pass it off as all your own work.


----------



## HoHun (May 24, 2009)

Hi Flyboyj,

Thanks for providing the answer I asked for, even if it was unsatisfactory.

Kind regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 24, 2009)

HoHun said:


> Hi Flyboyj,
> 
> Thanks for providing the answer I asked for, even if it was unsatisfactory.
> 
> ...



Unsatisfactory to who? You? Are you going to rant off in one of your little tizzies now?!?!? As stated, you need to relax. Your participation here is appreciated but I am sick and tired of seeing your little rants and pouts when someone disagrees or challenges you, so with that said the next move is yours, however if you don't tone down the BS you will be dealt with. Now I hope I made myself abundantly clear satisfactory to your likings or not.


----------



## lesofprimus (May 24, 2009)

Henning, why not just come clean with how and what u use to gather the data u present in ur excellent charts and quiet all the naysayers????

I for one would love to see how its tabulated and converted into the hard data....


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 24, 2009)

lesofprimus said:


> Henning, why not just come clean with how and what u use to gather the data u present in ur excellent charts and quiet all the naysayers????
> 
> I for one would love to see how its tabulated and converted into the hard data....



And I agree as well....


----------



## Matt308 (May 24, 2009)

As an engineer by profession, I demand it. Show your cards, Henning.


----------



## HoHun (May 24, 2009)

Hi Les,

>Henning, why not just come clean with how and what u use to gather the data u present in ur excellent charts and quiet all the naysayers????

Well, here it is as a parting gift ...

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Njaco (May 24, 2009)

A few points that might or might not help - maybe get back on track alittle....

from The Checkertail Clan by Ernest R. McDowell and William N. Hess, 

pg30....
"It (The 325th) had flown (_by August 1943 - my addition_) 110 missions, 3,233 sorties, shot down 128 enemy planes and lost only 34 P-40s. This was kil lratio of about 4 to 1....."

pg34
"'Hoimann', a liberated Me 109G, that the Group had obtained....served an important purpose as a confidence builder. By flying with it younger pilots could be shown how easy it was to get on the tail of a 109 in a turn, if the turn was tightened up. The 109 would just go over the top of a turn on the outside and spin out..."


----------



## Vincenzo (May 24, 2009)

that points were already show


----------



## drgondog (May 24, 2009)

HoHun said:


> Hi Les,
> 
> >Henning, why not just come clean with how and what u use to gather the data u present in ur excellent charts and quiet all the naysayers????
> 
> ...



Comments - In third person reference as if you have left us in a huff.

Best doumented methods I have seen in a very long time. If I spent a couple of months I might be able to duplicate similar rigor with respect to not only the equations and variables, but also the limitations. I have identified a couple of areas that might be interesting to debate. I might debate compressibility effects 'dismissal' for high performing fighters at altitudes above 20,000 feet.

Critical Mach occurs when Cd as a f(M) increases .0020 and this is the start of typical Drag Rise (ref RML7C24 "effects of combination of AR and Sweepback at high subsonic mach numbers", A.A. Adler 1947

He well dentifies the 'gotcha's and the very difficult, unimpeachable, data points which usually must be 'swagged' such as Oswald efficiency, true Cl max particularly for turns, reynolds number effects to Cd0 as the aircraft reduces level speed maximum to turning speed sustainable, etc etc. I identified a lot of such issues in several above posts - both here and elsewhere.

Calculating variations to propeller thrust as different airframe speeds and angles of attack, symmetric and asymmetric flight conditions, caculating a 'close' Clmax for a high G sustained level turn in which elevator and rudder deflections are large, upwing and down wing CL are 'different due to aileron deflections and slat deployments, major changes to lift related drag components for such conditions as well as major changes to Cd0 in the same manuever life cycle ---- are way beyond Excell spread sheet models.

Net - damn good science, speculative application of assumptive values, good identification of variables and influences to theory, and very difficult validation opportunity for turn manuevering for many of the plots he has presented. At least climb can mostly be assumed in a symmetrical flight and flow conditions for iterative methods to triangulate max climb for different altitudes and RN.

I suspect from the 'parting gift' comment that we are exiting stage right (but proudly, no doubt).

At any rate Ho Hun - your work product is excellent and my hat is off to you.


----------



## Matt308 (May 24, 2009)

HoHun said:


> Hi Les,
> 
> >Henning, why not just come clean with how and what u use to gather the data u present in ur excellent charts and quiet all the naysayers????
> 
> ...




Henning that is a nice set of cited parameters for an enthusiast. And I applaud your dedication to your armchair aviation hobby. However, as a professional citation, there is zero insight into your algorithms and their applications for a specific airframe that leads to any conclusions that support your positions. Surely that is not your parting shot. For if it is, you have dug your own grave of engineering infamy on this forum.

If you do not return, have a good life. If you do, expect to have your "paper" thoroughly criticized.


----------



## Waynos (May 24, 2009)

Why do some people put so much effort into trying to put some planes, whether reasonable (P-40) average (P-39) or poor (F2A) higher up the pecking order than they belong? Surely it is established fact by now that the top tier fighters of 1940-42ie the Spitfire and Bf 109 were clearly superior to anything coming out of America and that was why so much effort went into procuring the P-47 and 51. The exploits of some excellent pilots are somehow diminished when they are used to try and say that the plane (of whichever model) was better than it really was. No, the pilots were heroes, the plane (in this case the P-40) was middling to reasonable. No more no less.


----------



## Matt308 (May 24, 2009)

Frankly, I would agree with you, Waynos. It is the rationale for those statements that get the peanut gallery in an uproar. And that is the point of this thread, is it not?


----------



## JoeB (May 24, 2009)

Vincenzo said:


> that points were already show


Yes, and I took pains, twice, to state that the 325th's use of 'Hoimann' as a demonstrator for new pilots, to show them they could out turn the 109 in their P-40's was *not* the single killer piece of evidence that absolutely *proves* the P-40 could out turn the 109. Again as I mentioned the second time, responding to Timppa, 'turn' or 'out turn' is a less well defined concept than say, velocity where everyone means exactly the same thing whenever 'velocity' is mentioned. Not as true with 'turn'. All that said, IMO, and I said it was just my opinion, the 325th's experience with their captured 109G would weigh more heavily in my mind than graphs of unknown provenance.

Also in general on credibility of 'stuff you read on the internet', note that the post you responded to quoted the same info I gave from the same source as I did, the McDowell and Hess book on the 325th FG. The graphs just come from, well wherever they come from. That's not to disparage original efforts, but there is a difference between a 'trust me' source and pointing to a book or other record. 

What's needed to verify a calculation (I'm also an engineer by training) is to show that it's predictions agree with full scale results over the whole range of applications in which you claim it's authoritative. It's not just to present 'the math' and effectively claim everyone who can't disprove that particular math must believe the calculation's accuracy. All engineering calculations are models of reality. Whether they model reality sufficiently for all the cases in which you use them is shown by agreement to full scale results. 

Again I think a difference that creeps in here is that some people's aim is really to create a virtual reality for sim games which is well defined and predictable, and not wildly out of whack with the real world of WWII fighter a/c. Their goal is not really to fully explore the reality of WWII fighter a/c, with all its uncertainties and anomalies, which may just not be suited to a single answer. And sometimes that difference in goal shows.

Joe


----------



## Matt308 (May 24, 2009)

Well said.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 24, 2009)

JoeB said:


> What's needed to verify a calculation (I'm also an engineer by training) is to show that it's predictions agree with full scale results over the whole range of applications in which you claim it's authoritative. It's not just to present 'the math' and effectively claim everyone who can't disprove that particular math must believe the calculation's accuracy. All engineering calculations are models of reality. Whether they model reality sufficiently for all the cases in which you use them is shown by agreement to full scale results.
> 
> Again I think a difference that creeps in here is that some people's aim is really to create a virtual reality for sim games which is well defined and predictable, and not wildly out of whack with the real world of WWII fighter a/c. Their goal is not really to fully explore the reality of WWII fighter a/c, with all its uncertainties and anomalies, which may just not be suited to a single answer. And sometimes that difference in goal shows.
> 
> Joe



From page 13 of the "parting gift."

4.1 Limitations of historical data

Generally, when dealing with historical performance data, there are several factors
to keep in mind:

• Aircraft performance is not uniform. Engines often have several percent
tolerance, and general condition of the airframe and surface finish can
make a difference, too. Power tolerances do not carry over linearly to all
performance parameters, they are less noticable in top speed, but more
pronounced in climb rate.

• Performance tests are always partially theoretical in order to determine
the performance of the aircraft under standard conditions for comparative
purposes. Atmospheric conditions, air temperature and engine performance
could vary in reality, so the test results had to be transformed
theoretically to stand for an idealized aircraft performing under standard
conditions.

• Real-world performance tests often contradict each other. Sometimes it’s
possible by using quantitative analysis methods to determine the reason
for the contradiction, sometimes it’s not. A lot depends on the level of
detail given by the historical reports.

• The engine charts historically used for generating idealized performance
charts are typically based on theoretical methods themselves. They are
usually accurate for the well-tested low-altitude region, but tend to be inaccurate
at higher altitudes. This is a reflection of the state of contemporary
technology: only the wartime pressure for higher engine performance
lead to a better understanding of engine physics towards the end of the
Second World War.


----------



## Matt308 (May 24, 2009)

...and this specifically:

"Real-world performance tests often contradict each other. Sometimes it’s
possible by using quantitative analysis methods to determine the reason
for the contradiction, sometimes it’s not. A lot depends on the level of
detail given by the historical reports.
"

... "A lot depends"? In a technical document? "A lot"? If the quantitative analysis has the merit to stand on it's own, then historical reports become irrelevant. If it cannot, then the quantitative analysis is subjugated to being only another data point for discussion. Not a fact. Just another data point for debate by the masses.


----------



## drgondog (May 24, 2009)

JoeB said:


> e between a 'trust me' source and pointing to a book or other record.
> 
> What's needed to verify a calculation (I'm also an engineer by training) is to show that it's predictions agree with full scale results over the whole range of applications in which you claim it's authoritative. It's not just to present 'the math' and effectively claim everyone who can't disprove that particular math must believe the calculation's accuracy. All engineering calculations are models of reality. Whether they model reality sufficiently for all the cases in which you use them is shown by agreement to full scale results.
> 
> ...



aero is complicated. I didn't spend 6 years in the academic side of the business and conclude that it was straightforward. It is a science and an Art... both structural and fluid mechanichs of a real airframe.


----------



## Marcel (May 25, 2009)

HoHun said:


> Hi Les,
> 
> Well, here it is as a parting gift ...
> 
> ...



I hope you're not actually leaving, Henning, as I enjoyed your contributions.


----------



## renrich (May 25, 2009)

Some comments from observers on the P40 during WW2: " The P40 was behind the times when introduced and never caught up. But it was the best available fighter at the time."
" The P40 could be very effective, and if well flown could even best an ME109 at low altitude."
" Stalin to Roosevelt, October 7, 1942: " It should be borne in mind that the Kittihawk planes do not stand the fight against present German pursuits."
" The primary disadvantages of the P40s were lack of range and altitude capability."
" No matter what we did we just couldn't make an ME109 out of a P40."
" The Germans in North Africa found that the P40 turned quickly and well against the ME109 while the latter was faster and climbed better. The German aircraft could intially dive more quickly as well,but in a long dive a P40 could catch a ME109."


----------



## Njaco (May 25, 2009)

JoeB and others - I apologize if my post was redundant. I was trying to contribute after slogging through the previous posts. I neither on one side or the other but as I happened to have that book, I thought some passages would be a good addition. Sorry, Joe if it seemed like beating a dead horse.


----------



## claidemore (May 25, 2009)

I like HoHuns graphs. 
I don't always agree with them, I don't always interpret them the same, but I like them, and I appreciate how much work must go into making them. I know I can't make them. 

The graphs I would like to see would be a comparison of the Spitfire Mk IX and XIV (18 lbs boost)to the 109G6 and K4 (1.45 ata). 

I suspect those plottings would generate some discussion.


----------



## Watanbe (May 25, 2009)

Whenever I read about the P-40 a common theme seems to appear. It seems that it was a plane that could get good results if flown by someone who really knew how to fly it. It the hands of an average, inexperienced pilot it wouldn't be able to compete with a Me-109 on an even level.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 25, 2009)

Watanbe said:


> Whenever I read about the P-40 a common theme seems to appear. It seems that it was a plane that could get good results if flown by someone who really knew how to fly it. It the hands of an average, inexperienced pilot it wouldn't be able to compete with a Me-109 on an even level.


I think that's the message many of us were sending here....


----------



## Watanbe (May 25, 2009)

Probably should of read the whole topic then


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 25, 2009)

Watanbe said:


> Probably should of read the whole topic then



No worries


----------



## Juha (May 27, 2009)

Hello 
According to Soviet tests time to make 360deg turn at 1000m: Bf 109F-4 20,5 sec, Bf 109G-2/R6 (with 20mm underwing gun gondols) 23sec, Bf 109G-2 21sec.
Curtiss P-40C 18sec, P-40E 19,2 sec.

Juha


----------



## Matt308 (May 27, 2009)

Interesting.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 27, 2009)

Juha said:


> Hello
> According to Soviet tests time to make 360deg turn at 1000m: Bf 109F-4 20,5 sec, Bf 109G-2/R6 (with 20mm underwing gun gondols) 23sec, Bf 109G-2 21sec.
> Curtiss P-40C 18sec, P-40E 19,2 sec.
> 
> Juha


Very interesting!


Do you have a source for that Juha?


----------



## airboiy (May 27, 2009)




----------



## Juha (May 27, 2009)

Hello Flyboyj
easest way probably still is Table of ftrs 1943
but I have seen the same figures also in Soviet/Russian literature.

Juha


----------



## MikeGazdik (May 27, 2009)

Thats an interesting table, thanks for sharing that Juha! I can see why the Soviets liked the Bell P-39 too! Its too bad there are no roll rate comparisons in that. I think that would be the deciding factor in conjunction with the 360 turn rate. If for example the Me109F rolls faster and then can begin its turn a little sooner it may be a tie. But Im not sure the 109 will out roll the P-40 either, at least down at low altitudes. So if the P-40 could out roll and out turn the Messerschmitt, that would certainly somewhat counter the better speed and climb of the Messerschmitt. And again, the P-39 with a little more speed than the P-40 is even better, though it still would not climb like the Me109.


----------



## Cromwell (May 27, 2009)

I think that the P40 was a useful plane but when it British service it lacked a Merlin powerplant which I think held it back.

The Allison engines were not particularly good from what I have read elsewhere, and so the plane was almost doomed from the start with its powerplant.

A lot of WWII planes seemed to get stuck at a certain point, and the only way to move on was to make a brand-new plane !

It seems that if a plane is fundamentally flawed like the Helldiver or the Defiant or the Short Sterling even, you are never going to get much improvement even with endless tweaks.


Comments please ! (and welcomed)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 27, 2009)

Cromwell said:


> I think that the P40 was a useful plane but when it British service it lacked a Merlin powerplant which I think held it back.
> 
> The Allison engines were not particularly good from what I have read elsewhere, and so the plane was almost doomed from the start with its powerplant.
> 
> ...



Actually some mis statements. The Allison was a good engine, it depended on the airframe and the configuration of installation. As far as Merlin powered P-40s, I believe those powered by the allison were actually faster.


----------



## Colin1 (May 27, 2009)

Cromwell said:


> I think that the P40 was a useful plane but when it British service it lacked a Merlin powerplant which I think held it back.
> 
> The Allison engines were not particularly good from what I have read elsewhere, and so the plane was almost doomed from the start with its powerplant.
> 
> It seems that if a plane is fundamentally flawed like the Helldiver or the Defiant or the Short Stirling even, you are never going to get much improvement even with endless tweaks


There was nothing wrong with the V-1710 within the context of its performance spec; it possessed 1,040hp vs 1,030hp of its contemporary version of the Merlin. It took 10 years to develop vs 4 years for the Merlin but people tend to conveniently forget that the Merlin's development was funded by the government whereas the V-1710's development was only company funded.

A V-1710 with the bugs eventually ironed out (for 'eventually' read company funded - above) proved to be a very reliable engine in service at the altitudes it was rated for and Allison can take part-share over the blame for the absence of a supercharging arrangement, the USAAC can take the other part; prior to 1938 the USAAC had committed to the use of engines with turbochargers and Allison, to make production easier, manufactured all the V-1710 units in a common standard form (thus enabling all marks of engine to be produced by one, single line). The only way to fit a two-stage supercharger now was as a separate unit and external to the engine.
The USAAC obviously weren't happy about this but Allison enlisted Curtiss to help persuade the USAAC to use the V-1710 with its integral mechanical supercharger. Once accepted, it gave the required performance at the requiremented altitudes and no further development of the supercharger took place.

A turbocharged version of the V-1710 was fitted to Lockheed's P-38 and in the Allison's -F5R and -F5L versions they were as powerful as equivalent two-speed, two-stage Merlins above 25,000ft and even more powerful at higher altitudes than that.

I can't speak for the Helldiver but the Defiant was as much a victim of British conservatism and lack of imagination, as technical shortfall. It was clearly never going to compete with a Bf109 with a lumping great four-gun turret strapped to its back but with a little vision and a few modifications (radial engine, armour tub for the pilot, up-gunned armament) what a superb battlefield close-support platform it might have made against troop concentrations and soft-skinned vehicles; rather than being confined to head-on passes, it could have orbited its intended target with a moving turret constantly hosing it down - bet the Soviets would've bought it... the world's first AC-designated gunship?


----------



## Cromwell (May 27, 2009)

Thank you chaps for your robust and informative responses. A number of thoughts spring to mind :

Merlin Obsession
---------------------

Firstly, I do think that Whitehall was 'Merlin Obsessed' to the point that it actually partly-sabotaged the development of other engines like the Napier Sabre.

For example, Napier were forced, by the MOD, to give copies of their engineering drawings to Rolls-Royce - imagine that ! No wonder they struggled.


Merlin P40 - Why ?
----------------------


Taking note of your comments - why did they make a Merlin version of the P40 ? (Warhawk, Kittyhawk etc) ?

If the Allison was satisfactory, why produce a Merlin powered variant, especially with Packard at full stretch producing Merlins for the P51 Mustang


Defiant - Naval Version ?
-----------------------------

I agree that the Defiant was totally mis-used and abandoned too easily IMHO. After all, it was actually a *good* plane to fly - well balanced and quite powerful.

With its wide 'cart and robust construction I have often thought that a Naval version of the Defiant could have worked with the following adjustments

1. Replace the top-heavy dustbin turret with a twin gun mount (twin Lewis or Vickers)

2. Give the pilot 2 or 4 forward firing Brownings or even some 20mm Cannon

3. Fit racks for Bombs / Depth Charges or 3" Rockets on Zero-zero launchers (as also fired by the venerable if vulnerable Swordfish).

4. Hook - obviously

Lets face it, it could not have been any worse than the Barracuda or Helldiver 


Note. part of the problem with the Helldiver was that the USN insisted on a Short fuselage to get it down standard elevators.

That is why it was always directionally unstable.


Matthew


----------



## Juha (May 27, 2009)

Hello Mike
P-40C and F outrolled Bf 109F easily at 10.000ft, P-39D-1 outrolled Bf 109F at speeds over 330mph IAS at 10.000ft but at slower speed 109F was better. On later P-39s i have no data, P-63A was better than P-40F.

Juha


----------



## Juha (May 27, 2009)

Hello Cromwell
You must remember that UK was at war at that time, Bristol helped Napier to solve Sabre's sleeve valve problems, so it was 2-way road.

Juha


----------



## Colin1 (May 27, 2009)

Merlin Obsession
---------------------

Firstly, I do think that Whitehall was 'Merlin Obsessed' to the point that it actually partly-sabotaged the development of other engines like the Napier Sabre.
For example, Napier were forced, by the MOD, to give copies of their engineering drawings to Rolls-Royce - imagine that ! No wonder they struggled.

*The progress of the Sabre was far from sabotaged, I'd go as far as to say it was kept on life-support until it could (almost) stand on its own two feet; 'almost' because even in-service it was plagued with reliability issues. 
It was propped up to the point that it borrowed sleeves from Bristol Aircraft Co Ltd to assist in solving the warping problem that was preventing the Sabre from passing even the most basic of run tests, Bristol quite obviously weren't happy about this in light of their 2,000hp Centaurus that they were trying to sell to the Government. 
The Government's 'Merlin obsession' could be more correctly applied to the fate of the Westland Whirlwind that was running the Rolls-Royce Peregrine. The latter engine's program was axed in favour of the Merlin, which doubtlessly had more potential (as shown by history) but at the time, the Merlin was really no further along the development line than the Peregrine which could have spelled trouble if the Merlin ran into any problems further down the program.*



Merlin P40 - Why ?
----------------------

Taking note of your comments - why did they make a Merlin version of the P40 ? (Warhawk, Kittyhawk etc) ?
If the Allison was satisfactory, why produce a Merlin powered variant, especially with Packard at full stretch producing Merlins for the P51 Mustang

*Why not? It it worked, they'd just got a new lease of life out of a venerable old fighter and in terms of developmental costs, the work was already done on both the airframe and the powerplant - a bargain. As regards the Allison being 'satisfactory' you are only asking half of the right question; the V-1710 was satisfactory within its requiremented specification ie it was a good low-altitude engine. The Merlin was comparable at the same altitude but far better than the V-1710 at higher altitude.

The P-40F and L revealed little in the way of performance gains for the type utilising a Merlin powerplant, even with the attempts at shedding weight employed by the L.*



Defiant - Naval Version ?
-----------------------------

I agree that the Defiant was totally mis-used and abandoned too easily IMHO. After all, it was actually a *good* plane to fly - well balanced and quite powerful.
With its wide 'cart and robust construction I have often thought that a Naval version of the Defiant could have worked with the following adjustments

1. Replace the top-heavy dustbin turret with a twin gun mount (twin Lewis or Vickers)
2. Give the pilot 2 or 4 forward firing Brownings or even some 20mm Cannon
3. Fit racks for Bombs / Depth Charges or 3" Rockets on Zero-zero launchers (as also fired by the venerable if vulnerable Swordfish).
4. Hook - obviously

*I'm glad you got rid of the turret, the shear on the fuselage as the 'plane bounces down hard on the deck would have been enormous - repeat until broken in half (I'd imagine). If things got really out of control eg the plane missing everything and disappearing over the side could have proved fateful for the turret operator, who may not be able to get out in time.
I'm not sure the twin mount m/c would have solved the firepower problem.
I think the wide cart would have lended to its unprepared landing strip capability, rather than any Naval application but the idea of underwing ordnance is a good one, supporting a pretty versatile battlefield close support role.*


----------



## Cromwell (May 27, 2009)

Hi Colin

Yes I think we agree that the Dustbin was a Bad Idea - I am all for recycling. They could have taken them and fitted them to Lancs or anything else suitable !

Close support ? Why not - I only mention Naval application as a wide-track is better than a narrow one vis a vis the Seafire etc etc

Twin Gun for 2nd crew member is not supposed to be a full solution or perfect answer - but something to fill the gap at the back left by the absent Dustbin !

I am just trying to give some back-facing defence and also good for strafing Subs perhaps after making a bombing run ?

Flak suppression ?




Colin1 said:


> ---------------------
> 
> *I'm glad you got rid of the turret, the shear on the fuselage as the 'plane bounces down hard on the deck would have been enormous - repeat until broken in half (I'd imagine). If things got really out of control eg the plane missing everything and disappearing over the side could have proved fateful for the turret operator, who may not be able to get out in time.
> 
> ...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 27, 2009)

Juha said:


> Hello
> According to Soviet tests time to make 360deg turn at 1000m: Bf 109F-4 20,5 sec, Bf 109G-2/R6 (with 20mm underwing gun gondols) 23sec, Bf 109G-2 21sec.
> Curtiss P-40C 18sec, P-40E 19,2 sec.
> 
> Juha



I can buy that at 1000m, but what would it be at other altitudes. That is the problem with stuff like that. I am sure the Bf 109 could turn faster at other altitudes.


----------



## Juha (May 27, 2009)

Hello Adler
Finnish tests were in line with the Soviet ones. Bf 109G-2 at 1.000m 360deg turn, speed at beginning 450km/h, at the end 330km/h, time 18sec, but if speed was kept constant 360km/h from the beginning to the end, 360deg turn took 22 sec. Most probably Soviet times were times for turns without speed or altitude loss.

Juha

POSTSCRIPT: Forgotto mention that the Soviet flown Gs seemed to have been in excellent condition if one looks the max speed and climb but the F-4 was on slow side and maybe a bit lazy in climb.


----------



## fly boy (May 27, 2009)

ok say a p-40 can't shake a 109 how much damage could it take?


----------



## Cromwell (May 27, 2009)

I think that if a 109 got a cannon shot in, then most ww2 planes would be severely compromised inc the p40

The Brit 20mm Cannon would shred most enemy planes in double-quick time (as used in Beaufighters) so I should imagine that the German large calibre machine-cannon would be equally effective.


----------



## claidemore (May 28, 2009)

Juha said:


> Hello Flyboyj
> easest way probably still is Table of ftrs 1943
> but I have seen the same figures also in Soviet/Russian literature.
> 
> Juha



Hmmmm, that link isn't working for me. _edit _[OK, IT'S WORKING NOW.]

EDIT: Just wanted to add some stuff without making another post. 
I don't think it's quite fair to say that putting the Merlin in the P40 didn't provide much of a performance increase. Usually the comparison is made to the more dramatic increase achieved in the P51, but the P51 was given the V1650-3 (2 speed 2 stage), while the P40 only had the V1650-1 (2 speed single stage). 
Neverthe less, when comparing P40E to P40F, climb time to 20,000 feet was reduced from 13 minutes to 10.9. Range was increased by 145 miles, and endurance from 2.72 hours to 4 hours (on main tanks alone). Power loading went from 7.5lb/hp (at mean weight) for the P40E to 7.2lb/hp for the P40F. Max speed went from 340 mph to 354 mph. Keep in mind the P40F max speed is at 20,400 ft and the P40E is at 12,500 ft and the F pretty much matches the E's speeds at low altitudes. All this was done with a slight weight gain.


----------



## claidemore (May 28, 2009)

Here is some info on roll rates of P40 from Perils P40 site: 

http://www.raafwarbirds.org.au/targetvraaf/p40_archive/pdfs/Allied AC rollrate.pdf

Note the difference between P36 and P40 ailerons and control system.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 28, 2009)

Juha said:


> Hello Flyboyj
> easest way probably still is Table of ftrs 1943
> but I have seen the same figures also in Soviet/Russian literature.
> 
> Juha



Thanks


----------



## MikeGazdik (May 28, 2009)

fly boy said:


> ok say a p-40 can't shake a 109 how much damage could it take?



That is probabley the big question. I believe the P-40 to be way more tolerant of damage than the Messerschmitt. Now for sure the 20mm cannon is more devestating than the .50s of the later P-40's, but I still believe the Curtiss pilot would survive a couple of hits from the 20mm as long as it wasn't in the cocpit, fuel system, or coolant section, but that works the other way as well for if the 109 is hit in any of those areas by the .50 he too is in a bad way.

I have seen alot of gun-camera footage of 109's losing wings (or large portions of them) after being struck by blast from .50 cals.

Your question leaves me with another couple of questions. In a bounce scenario, where the other pilot is caught unaware and takes some good strikes, which is more likely to survive that first punch? And the second is which aircraft, once it has the other on its tail, is more likely to be able to shake its opponent? My guess at those two are in the first scenario, I think the P-40 has a higher probablility of survival. But in the second, I think the Me 109 would be more difficult to shake off of your tail. ( in any plane for that matter! , P-40 included )


----------



## claidemore (May 28, 2009)

Mike:
Judging from the 90 degree/sec roll rate of the P40, the Soviet tests of turn times, and historical accounts, I think the P40 has a very good chance of shaking off a 109 on it's tail. It's gonna roll into a turning bank quicker than the 109 can follow (without taking into consideration the reaction time of the 109 pilot), it's going to pull into a slightly tighter turn, and in a bounce situation the attacker is usually at a higher speed so he can't turn as tightly or as quickly. 
This fits with what WC James 'Stocky' Edwards and other North Africa RAF pilots have related and with the tactics of the 325th FG which waited till the last second to break when attacked by 109s.


----------



## Colin1 (May 28, 2009)

claidemore said:


> I don't think it's quite fair to say that putting the Merlin in the P-40 didn't provide much of a performance increase. Usually the comparison is made to the more dramatic increase achieved in the P-51, but the P-51 was given the V-1650-3 (2 speed 2 stage), while the P-40 only had the V-1650-1 (2 speed single stage).
> Nevertheless, when comparing P-40E to P-40F, climb time to 20,000 feet was reduced from 13 minutes to 10.9. Range was increased by 145 miles, and endurance from 2.72 hours to 4 hours (on main tanks alone). Power loading went from 7.5lb/hp (at mean weight) for the P40E to 7.2lb/hp for the P-40F. Max speed went from 340 mph to 354 mph. Keep in mind the P-40F max speed is at 20,400 ft and the P-40E is at 12,500 ft and the F pretty much matches the E's speeds at low altitudes. All this was done with a slight weight gain.


Hi Claide
I believe it was 364mph
introduced in 1942, the P-40F did provide significant gains in performance over preceding versions.
When compared to other fighters in 1942 however, the P-40F was still falling short, the Bf109F, the Fw109A, later that year the Spitfire Mk IX turned up to redress the balance for the RAF and of course, the one you mentioned - in 1942 the P-51 was fitted with a Merlin; the P-40F wasn't comparing favourably with any of these, its contemporaries, for level-flight speed or rate of climb.
Whether the P-40 would have benefitted further from the installation of the V-1650-3 is, I believe, unquestionable but once again only in terms of performance comparison with earlier incarnations of the P-40; a more powerful engine would undoubtedly get more speed, higher, out of the airframe but the parasitic drag of that same (and pretty dirty) airframe would be a significant limiting factor.


----------



## Marshall_Stack (May 28, 2009)

Colin, I think you hit it right on the head. The P-40 was getting long in the tooth as a fighter but found a good life as a fighter-bomber like the Hurricane by 1942.


----------



## Cromwell (May 28, 2009)

Quite right, imho, 

I would put the P40, with the Hurricane and also the Martlet as 2nd string planes that could still put in a good show for ground attack or shooting up submarines from Jeep carriers

- well the P40 was never used by the Navy - although perhaps it should have been 

Maybe P40 Cam Fighters !! 

I mean they used clapped out Hurris and even Stringbags after all 





Marshall_Stack said:


> Colin, I think you hit it right on the head. The P-40 was getting long in the tooth as a fighter but found a good life as a fighter-bomber like the Hurricane by 1942.


----------



## claidemore (May 29, 2009)

Hi Colin,

Yup I agree with you 100%. The P40 airframe just wasn't competitive against other 'cleaner' designs (and it was heavier). 
The P51 on the other hand, was alreay doing around 400 mph with the Allison engine, so the installation of the Merlin gave it both altitude performance, long range, and a big speed increase. The Mustang was after all the product of North Americans claim that it could design and build a better plane than the P40 for the RAF (rather than tooling up to produce P40s), and that is exactly what they did.


----------



## Cromwell (May 30, 2009)

It is strange (but true) that with some planes or tanks or cars you reach a point where no amount of 'improvements' or tweaking can change the basic fact


The Design has just Run out of Steam - End of the Line !


I actually think that the P40 would need to be totally re-designed especially on the weight front to have gone anywhere i.e. New Plane 




claidemore said:


> Hi Colin,
> 
> Yup I agree with you 100%. The P40 airframe just wasn't competitive against other 'cleaner' designs (and it was heavier).
> The P51 on the other hand, was alreay doing around 400 mph with the Allison engine, so the installation of the Merlin gave it both altitude performance, long range, and a big speed increase. The Mustang was after all the product of North Americans claim that it could design and build a better plane than the P40 for the RAF (rather than tooling up to produce P40s), and that is exactly what they did.


----------



## tigercub (Jun 1, 2009)

who are the 12 who said the P 40 OMG....

Tiger!


----------



## Demetrious (Jun 2, 2009)

claidemore said:


> Mike:
> Judging from the 90 degree/sec roll rate of the P40, the Soviet tests of turn times, and historical accounts, I think the P40 has a very good chance of shaking off a 109 on it's tail. It's gonna roll into a turning bank quicker than the 109 can follow (without taking into consideration the reaction time of the 109 pilot), it's going to pull into a slightly tighter turn, and in a bounce situation the attacker is usually at a higher speed so he can't turn as tightly or as quickly.



Heartily agreed. 

Consider- US Army trials of the P-51 Mustang found that it could turn nearly as good as a P-40, with the P-40 having, perhaps, a slight advantage at low altitudes. (This is from the P-51 technical trials on wwiiaircraft.net.) Now, the opening anecdote to Bud Anderson's autobiography, "To Fly and Fight," relates a battle between P-51Bs and Bf-109s in which the P-51s demonstrate slightly superior turning ability. 

I do know that the simplest, rough indicator of turn performance is "wing loading," i.e. weight of the aircraft divided by lift area. Lower is better. The P-40E had a wing loading of 35lbs/ft, the Bf-109G-6, 40lbs/ft. There are other factors to consider as well- a cleaner ship will make a faster turn, but a slower ship will make a tighter one, etc. The factors are varied enough that I personally put more faith in period test data then my own half-baked attempts at complex aerodynamic equations, and the information from both the Russians and the Americans puts the P-40 as turning slightly better then the Messerschmitt.. Heck, look at Wikipedia's P-40 article:



> ] An anecdote concerning the 325th FG, indicates what could happen if Bf 109 pilots made the mistake of trying to out-turn the P-40. According to 325th FG historian Carol Cathcart: "on 30 July, 20 P-40s of the 317th [Fighter Squadron] ... took off on a fighter sweep ... over Sardinia. As they turned to fly south over the west part of the island, they were attacked near Sassari... The attacking force consisted of 25 to 30 Bf 109s and Macchi C.202s... In the brief, intense battle that occurred ... [the 317th claimed] 21 enemy aircraft."



As for the P-40s ability to survive damage:



Wikipedia said:


> For example, on one occasion in August 1941, Caldwell was attacked by two Bf 109s, one of them piloted by German Ace Werner Schröer. Although Caldwell was wounded three times, *and his Tomahawk was hit by more than 100 7.92 mm bullets and five 20 mm cannon shells, during this combat* Caldwell shot down Schröer's wingman and *returned to base.*



When I skimmed the first several pages of this thread I got quite a chuckle out of those theorizing that a P-40 would disintegrate from one or two cannon hits. 

The incredible strength of the P-40 is simply beyond doubt:



> The strength of its 5-longeron wing became legendary after an aerial engagement on 8 April 1942 [19]. On this day, flight commander Lieutenant Aleksey Khlobystov rammed German aircraft two times in a single engagement. He cut off the tail assembly of one Messerschmitt in an overtaking maneuver and severed a portion of the wing of a second Messerschmitt. Both times he struck the enemy aircraft with the same right wing panel. Both Messerschmitts went down and the Tomahawk landed safely at its airfield, where it was repaired without any particular difficulty.



One more comment from a few pages back that I think applies to many of these kinds of threads:



Waynos said:


> Why do some people put so much effort into trying to put some planes, whether reasonable (P-40) average (P-39) or poor (F2A) higher up the pecking order than they belong?



Because they really _were_ higher up in the pecking order then the slot history has aligned them. To me, the study of the under-appreciated fighters is a fascinating study in how history is so warped and distorted by false perceptions introduced years after the fact. Most of the tanks did _not_ sink during D-Day, over 50 of them made it to the beaches and played an invaluable role in opening the passes. The assault of the 82nd Rangers up the cliff face of Point Du Hoc was NOT in vain; they located the artillery cannons some miles inland where they'd been relocated and destroyed them. Horrible misconceptions about these events dominate in the popular conciousness, to the point that the F2A Brewster Buffalo, the fighter with the best power-to-weight ratio of any fighter in the American inventory, an excellent climb, roll and turn rate, and the heaviest firepower- has been featured in TWO "worst fighter of all time" books!

This is the fascinating part of websites like this- unearthing facts that "common knowledge" is clueless of.


----------



## claidemore (Jun 2, 2009)

Demetrious said:


> One more comment from a few pages back that I think applies to many of these kinds of threads:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well said.


----------



## Njaco (Jun 2, 2009)

Demetrious said:


> One more comment from a few pages back that I think applies to many of these kinds of threads:
> Because they really _were_ higher up in the pecking order then the slot history has aligned them. To me, the study of the under-appreciated fighters is a fascinating study in how history is so warped and distorted by false perceptions introduced years after the fact. Most of the tanks did _not_ sink during D-Day, over 50 of them made it to the beaches and played an invaluable role in opening the passes. The assault of the 82nd Rangers up the cliff face of Point Du Hoc was NOT in vain; they located the artillery cannons some miles inland where they'd been relocated and destroyed them. Horrible misconceptions about these events dominate in the popular conciousness, to the point that the F2A Brewster Buffalo, the fighter with the best power-to-weight ratio of any fighter in the American inventory, an excellent climb, roll and turn rate, and the heaviest firepower- has been featured in TWO "worst fighter of all time" books!
> 
> This is the fascinating part of websites like this- unearthing facts that "common knowledge" is clueless of.



While I agree with most of what you are saying, there are two other, strong factors that must be taken into consideration ; the pilot and the enviornment in which they fly. I agree that any plane would not get to the status of frontline fighter without some qualities, the pilot and area of operation are very important. Taking your points, the Buffalo should have been the one with the Tiger's mouth in Burma instead of P-40s along with any other area they operated but there were some problems with it that made them somewhat inferior to enemy aircraft. That and the trails and tribulations on the homefront production facilities I'm sure added to the luster.

and tigercub, check some ops with P-40s and Bf 109s in North Africa. At times, they held their own.


----------



## Cromwell (Jun 2, 2009)

Njaco said:


> While I agree with most of what you are saying, there are two other, strong factors that must be taken into consideration ; the pilot and the enviornment in which they fly. I agree that any plane would not get to the status of frontline fighter without some qualities, the pilot and area of operation are very important. Taking your points, the Buffalo should have been the one with the Tiger's mouth in Burma instead of P-40s along with any other area they operated but there were some problems with it that made them somewhat inferior to enemy aircraft. That and the trails and tribulations on the homefront production facilities I'm sure added to the luster.
> 
> and tigercub, check some ops with P-40s and Bf 109s in North Africa. At times, they held their own.



I think one of the reason why Allied planes performed better during the war is that the People got better

They gained experience, and confidence and hands-on know-how from the Erk filling gun-belts, to the Wing-co deciding how to deploy his assets en masse.

As well as Kit (such as Radios, Spark-plugs, Fuel numerous small parts) - Logistics, Command Control, Supply Tactics - all of these improved from 1939 to 45.

The RAF even improved its efficiency During the BoB - which is partly why we ground the Germans to a halt.

NB: So, it may have been the Buffalo's Bad Luck to be around at the Start - and to have been deployed without the benefit of experience.

Poor old 'Beefalo' 


Matthew


----------



## Njaco (Jun 2, 2009)

agree Cromwell.


----------



## Demetrious (Jun 4, 2009)

Njaco said:


> While I agree with most of what you are saying, there are two other, strong factors that must be taken into consideration ; the pilot and the environment in which they fly.



Indeed, sir. Let us not forget that the much maligned F4F Wildcat is the aircraft that won the decisive battle of the Pacific, at Midway- and this, despite it's great weaknesses. 

What you say about the Buffalo possibly having the Tigers mouth in China is true- when you look at the stats, the Buffalo was probably the best early-war fighter the Americans had. It had comparable manuverability to the P-40, but superior power/weight ratio. In fact, it was the only fighter in the entire US arsenal at the time that DID have a decent power to weight ratio, or anything approximating a good climb rate. And, it had superior firepower- four .50s compared to the P-40s two .50s and four .30-06s. Durability is a wash; the P-40 was structurally superior, but the Buffalo had a radial engine. 

And, in the end, none of this could forgive the Brewster corporations seemingly endless delays, problems, and production line hiccups, which had more to do with the fighters retirement then any other factor.

EDIT: Of course, I am obliged to point out that raw performance stats never tell the entire story of an aircraft. The Brewster was a delightfully manuverable plane to fly, by most accounts, but the P-40 was apparently more stable. Clive Cadwell described it as having "almost no vice," which I cannot say I've heard for the Brewster. I read (_somewhere_) that the Brewster was quite susceptible to torque, which seems to be a common characteristic of lighter-weight, short radial-engined ships. Something as simple as that can mean the difference between holding a tight turn, or having your ship stall out and auger in.


----------



## Amsel (Jun 4, 2009)

Plus the P-40 can outdive and outrun the Buffalo. The P-40 was a superior aircraft to the Brewster using WWII tactics of building energy and diving into enemy formations past escorts and then climbing. In a dogfight with a Brewster if both pilots were equal the Warhawk would have a slight advantage.


----------



## Cromwell (Jun 4, 2009)

Demetrious said:


> Indeed, sir. Let us not forget that the much maligned F4F Wildcat is the aircraft that won the decisive battle of the Pacific, at Midway- and this, despite it's great weaknesses.
> 
> As you read these various posts on this site, and study the history of war, you realise how much depends on *Deployment* - how you deploy your assets
> 
> ...


----------



## Colin1 (Jun 4, 2009)

Cromwell said:


> As you read these various posts on this site, and study the history of war, you realise how much depends on *Deployment* - how you deploy your assets
> A good tactician can squeeze an awful lot of some rather mediocre kit. For example, Claire Chenault in China and his P40s
> Also, the race does not always go to the swift - sometimes the Tortoise really does beat the Hare
> Take the BoB - if you had a force of young half-trained pilots, which would you rather put them in, the Bf109or the Hurricane ?
> ...


There is alot of truth in that
In _Hurricane and Spitfire Pilots at War - Terence Kelly_ he mentions the arrival in-theatre of precious Spitfire Mk IXs and how they were squandered by clueless, incompetent military leadership

_...this was insufficient for Wingate who was so worried about possible Japanese interference, that he persuaded the RAF to send in a flight of Spitfire IXs. The result was unmitigated disaster. The Spitfires took possession of Wingate's strip which was not served by radar and the Japanese, making a big effort, promptly attacked it, catching the Spitfires as they were about to take off and wiping them all out. The lesson of Palembang, that you do not operate single squadrons from single runways without being sure of adequate advance warning of enemy attack, had not been learned._

and yet there in the same theatre, Chennault was operating P-40s, aircraft substantially inferior to the Spitfire IX, successfully against the Japanese; equipment is only as good as its deployment and deployment is only as good as the overall ability of command.

I would temper what you say next with some caution

'Take the BoB - if you had a force of young half-trained pilots, which would you rather put them in, the Bf109 or the Hurricane?'

it's a very academic point, the Luftwaffe didn't have a force of half-trained young pilots, they had a corps of very experienced pilots flying a very lethal fighter and in all honesty, I'd put them in the Bf109E as it rather soundly outclassed the Hurricane as a fighter.


----------



## ssnider (Jun 4, 2009)

Amsel said:


> Plus the P-40 can outdive and outrun the Buffalo. The P-40 was a superior aircraft to the Brewster using WWII tactics of building energy and diving into enemy formations past escorts and then climbing. In a dogfight with a Brewster if both pilots were equal the Warhawk would have a slight advantage.



hum, the F2A2 was used for the first truly high speed dive testing as it could do terminal velosity dives (like the F4A3) and did dive as fast as 560 mph while the P-40 was limited to 480 max dive speed.


----------



## Colin1 (Jun 4, 2009)

ssnider said:


> the F2A2 was used for the first truly high speed dive testing... ...and did dive as fast as 560 mph


Do you have a source for this?


----------



## ssnider (Jun 4, 2009)

AIAA Journel vol. 43 no. 4 April 2005 "The supercritical peanut"


----------



## Colin1 (Jun 4, 2009)

ssnider said:


> AIAA Journel vol. 43 no. 4 April 2005 "The supercritical peanut"


Yeah
I just found that
Call me mean but I don't want to pay $25.00 to find out


----------



## Amsel (Jun 4, 2009)

If a Brewster can outrun a Warhawk in a shallow dive then that would be a plus for the Buffalo. I cannot believe that is the case though. Don't get me wrong, I am aware of the capabilities of the Brewster, especially in the aggressive hands of the Finns. Chennault had heard some mumblings among the AVG, concerning the P-40 and the Brewster, especially among the former Navy pilots who thought the Brewster might be better then the Warhawk, so he set up a contest. The RAF picked their best pilot who was fresh from the BoB, Brandt was his name; and Chennault chose Erick Schilling. The contest was to last for three engagements and the P-40 won the first two so there wasn't a third. 

Erick Schilling wrote:


> Chennault was aware of their dissatisfaction with the P-40 and
> arranged for a RAF pilot to fly to Kyedaw for a fly off between a
> P-40 and the Brewster. I have to admit I thought he took a wild
> gamble in arranging such an exhibition. Chennault must have been
> ...


Brandt later stated that he wished that he could trade the Brewster for the P-40, but the tactics learned from the Germans in the BoB made them very successful with the Buffalo in CBI. It all comes down to tactical employment of the aircraft.


----------



## Demetrious (Jun 5, 2009)

Amsel said:


> If a Brewster can outrun a Warhawk in a shallow dive then that would be a plus for the Buffalo. I cannot believe that is the case though. Don't get me wrong, I am aware of the capabilities of the Brewster, especially in the aggressive hands of the Finns. Chennault had heard some mumblings among the AVG, concerning the P-40 and the Brewster, especially among the former Navy pilots who thought the Brewster might be better then the Warhawk, so he set up a contest. The RAF picked their best pilot who was fresh from the BoB, Brandt was his name; and Chennault chose Erick Schilling. The contest was to last for three engagements and the P-40 won the first two so there wasn't a third...
> 
> Brandt later stated that he wished that he could trade the Brewster for the P-40, but the tactics learned from the Germans in the BoB made them very successful with the Buffalo in CBI. It all comes down to tactical employment of the aircraft.



Absolutely fascinating! I had no idea that there was a fly-off between a P-40 and a Buffalo. Though, it sounds like the American pilot simply cut into his turn with a standard high-speed yo-yo, a rather basic maneuver. If I had to guess, I'd say that the British pilot didn't know about that maneuver because he was used to Spitfires, and Spitfires vs. Bf-109s is a situation where a flat hard left-hand turn works just as good as it did in 1915. 

Also, from this anecdote it'd seem that the American flew the P-40 regularly, whereas the Brit did not fly the Brewster regularly (being fresh from the BoB, after all.) The fact that they went around in several circles before the P-40 caught up via the high-speed yoyo seems to indicate that the Brewster was indeed close to the P-40 in terms of horizontal manuverability. 



Amsel said:


> Plus the P-40 can outdive and outrun the Buffalo. The P-40 was a superior aircraft to the Brewster using WWII tactics of building energy and diving into enemy formations past escorts and then climbing. In a dogfight with a Brewster if both pilots were equal the Warhawk would have a slight advantage.



I agree that the P-40s speed advantage was significant, but not because it made it better at boom and zoom tactics.

The beauty of Boom and Zoom is that pretty much any aircraft can do it- the only pre-requisites are the ability to fall like a rock and to have sufficient firepower to exploit the brief shot oppertunity. Both the P-40 and the Buffalo had this, with the Buffalo having superior firepower in the early years. Speaking in the context of Allies vs. Japan, either the Buffalo or the P-40 would have been just fine at that- the Buffalo arguably better, since it had better firepower with longer effective range (no 30 cals,) and the P-40 was noted for being unstable at terminal velocity dives. Vs. Zeros in a more even engagement, the P-40 is about the same speed as a Zero, if not a little faster, which makes extending away a lot easier then in the slow Buffalo, which would probably have to make a very long dive from high alt into clouds to simply escape. On the other hand, the Buffalo had good power/weight (slightly superior to the A6M2, in fact!) and a decent climb rate, which would let the pilot go after climbing zeros that a P-40 driver couldn't. The Buff couldn't stay with the Zero forever, but it could certainly hang on it's tail longer then the P-40 could, long enough for a shot against what is basically a perfect target; a Zero hanging motionless on it's prop. 

I know that we could do this kind of comparision until the cows come home, but it is fun, isn't it?


----------



## Njaco (Jun 5, 2009)

at least we kept it civil.


----------



## renrich (Jun 5, 2009)

The much maligned Buffalo got a bad reputation because in it's final production versions for the USN, it was too heavy, thus had poor performance, had weak landing gear and could not be fitted with satisfactory self sealing tanks. Quote from Capt. Philip White, USMC, VMF-221, Midway. "It is my belief that any commander who orders pilots out for combat in an F2A3 should consider the pilot lost before leaving the ground." Marion Carl was fortunate he did not get stuck with a Buffalo at Midway but got to fly a Wildcat. Don't know if this is a good comparison but on Dec. 25, 1941, 18 RAF Buffaloes with 15 AVG Tomahawks encounter 80 Jap bombers and 28 fighters over Rangoon. The Buffalos are credited with 7 E/A kills and the Tomahawks, 25. Several Buffaloes are shot down and no AVG AC. The problem with comparing Buffaloes is that the Finnish Model 239s were a different animal than the F2A3, weighing considerably less, the 4 gun fighter Finnish model with 110 gallons of fuel having a gross weight of 5276.1 pounds versus the F2A3 with same amount of fuel weighing 6321 pounds. Huge difference.


----------



## Cromwell (Jun 5, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> 'Take the BoB - if you had a force of young half-trained pilots, which would you rather put them in, the Bf109 or the Hurricane?'
> 
> it's a very academic point, the Luftwaffe didn't have a force of half-trained young pilots, they had a corps of very experienced pilots flying a very lethal fighter and in all honesty, I'd put them in the Bf109E as it rather soundly outclassed the Hurricane as a fighter.



OK, I accept what you say from one angle - but think about this:

We (in the UK) DID have a force of half-trained pilots and so the Hurricane was probably an easier plane for them to at least Take Off Land.

I know it is an Old Chestnut, but the Bf109E did always suffer from a Narrow Undercarriage. Read this from ME 109 E flight test report 

" Hauptmann Gunther Schack, 174 victories;

'In March 1941, as a Gefreiter, I joined Jagdgeschwader Molders, JG 51, stationed at St. Over, France. By then I had only taken off with the 109 straight into wind, and never from a concrete runway. 

On April 4th, during a cross-wind take-off on the concrete runway, the 109 swung so much to the left that I feared it would crash into some other machines parked along the edge of the field. I closed the throttle and my first crash began. 

The machine swung left even more, the left undercarriage leg broke, and the 109 dropped on its left wing. This happened to me *twice* - the second time on April 10th - and my future as a fighter pilot seemed sealed.... "

[See Also]

" Generalleutnant Werner Funck, Inspector of Fighters, 1939;

'The 109 had a big drawback, which I didn't like from the start. It was that rackety - I always said rackety - undercarriage; that negative, against-the-rules-of-statics undercarriage that allowed the machine to swing away.' "


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 5, 2009)

Cromwell said:


> OK, I accept what you say from one angle - but think about this:
> 
> We (in the UK) DID have a force of half-trained pilots and so the Hurricane was probably an easier plane for them to at least Take Off Land.
> 
> ...


A Spitfire's track is not much different from a -109. One of members actually measured this.


----------



## Cromwell (Jun 5, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> A Spitfire's track is not much different from a -109. One of members actually measured this.



Note : You may notice I was comparing the Hurricane with the 109.


- But, yes, the Spit did have a narrow cart like the 109 for sure.


However, I understand that the Spits cart was 


a. Much more straight up and down, not 'splayed' like the 109s

b. Stronger in all points.

c. Attached to the Main Spar - not tacked on to the Engine Mounting as per the 109


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 5, 2009)

Cromwell said:


> Note : You may notice I was comparing the Hurricane with the 109.
> 
> 
> - But, yes, the Spit did have a narrow cart like the 109 for sure.
> ...



NOTE: I noticed the article posted was about the -109 and the difficulty with the landing gear and it was a known fact the Hurricane was an easier flying aircraft than both the Spit and 109.

HOWEVER

ALL tailwheel configured aircraft have the potential to get even the most experienced pilots in trouble if they aren't continually flown or if a pilot allows him or her self to exceed design or personal crosswind limitations.


----------



## Juha (Jun 6, 2009)

Hello
while as Flyboyj wrote all taildraggers have the tendency to swing in cross wind situation some taildraggers were more difficult to handle than others.

From Kurfrst - Vergleichsfliegen Bf 109 E, Bf 110 C, Spitfire, Hurricane und Curtiss., Mölders’ comment on Hurricane and Spitfire: “…Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land…”

As Cromwell wrote, Bf 109’s landing gear was splayed which produced its own problems but also allowed a reasonable track width while being fuselage mounted which allowed easy moving of the plane even if wings were removed and maybe allowed a slightly lighter wing structure.
IIRC Bf 109 had its centre of mass farther behind its main wheels than Spitfire, so its swing was more difficult to control but on the other hand one could use its brakes more harshly because it was less likely to nose over.

Juha


----------



## renrich (Jun 6, 2009)

To add to FBs comment on tail draggers, the Wildcat could be a handfull when landing at an airfield. Very easy to ground loop because of the narrow and springy landing gear. The arresting gear on a carrier largly obviated this problem. A note on pilot training: The USN and USMC pilots at the beginning of the war were extremely well trained (although of course not combat experienced) and according to Lundstrom in "The First Team" were better trained in gunnery, overall, than any other pilots in the world.


----------



## Von Frag (Jun 6, 2009)

renrich said:


> To add to FBs comment on tail draggers, the Wildcat could be a handfull when landing at an airfield. Very easy to ground loop because of the narrow and springy landing gear. The arresting gear on a carrier largly obviated this problem. A note on pilot training: The USN and USMC pilots at the beginning of the war were extremely well trained (although of course not combat experienced) and according to Lundstrom in "The First Team" were better trained in gunnery, overall, than any other pilots in the world.




Another thing that made them a handful was the solid rubber tailwheel used on a carrier deck.


----------



## bigZ (Jun 6, 2009)

Cromwell said:


> Note : You may notice I was comparing the Hurricane with the 109.
> 
> 
> - But, yes, the Spit did have a narrow cart like the 109 for sure.
> ...



This old chestnut(didn't a thread close on this heated subject.) The main problem is the location of the CG in relation to the undercariage when comparing the Spit vs 109(too far forward and it will nose tip, too far back and it will ground loop).The rearward CG of of the 109 tends to make it more likely to ground loop. Spits is further forward .

I am voting for the 109.


----------



## Soren (Jun 7, 2009)

To me it is quite obvious that Bf-109 turns better than the P-40, and this has nothing to do with bias I promise you that, it’s just pure logic. The Bf-109 is lighter, much less draggy, has more power available and features a considerably higher wing Clmax. Also add to that the Bf-109 is considered one of the best WW2 turn fighters by modern pilots who actually fly these a/c, being ranked as very close to the Spitfire in terms of turn performance, which is saying a lot. 
Fact is that Hohun made an excellent piece of work with these charts, taking into account many physical factors we usually never even approach when we argue about a/c performance. In short the rules of physics seem to fully support Hohun’s charts. 

Some people apparently question the accuracy of the chart because of the apparently great performance of the Beaufighter. Well I’ll tell you what, that the Beaufighter was a good performer in a turn at a weight of 8,000 kg, which is way below normal combat weight, doesn’t surprise me at all, I mean look at thickness of those wings and the sheer size of the wing area! That the Beaufighter usually weighed 10,000 kg or more is another matter though, so in normal combat condition it did considerably worse ofcourse, Hohun’s charts just went off of a different basic weight, hence the results.

You see when it comes to a/c performance there’s no magic involved, it can all be explained with physics, and that’s fact.

And now for the Soviet turning time figures, I would take those with a HUGE grain of salt if I were you guys! First of all the first G-2 actually tested was one with gunpods attached (I have the picture of the a/c in question), secondly the other one had crash landed and was so badly damaged that a new wing had to be made for it by Russian engineers. And third, the engines were not running at full power as the Soviets didn’t have the proper fuel. And the fourth and final reason: Look at the chart, the Fw-190A4 managed to turn 360 degrees in 19 seconds straight, that is better than the P-40 and Bf-109. Now I don’t know about you guys but I happen to know for a fact that the Bf-109 was a much better turn fighter than the Fw-190, something which is backed up by every comparative test made by the LW. Yet the Fw-190 managed to outperform both the P-40 and Bf-109 in Soviet turn performance testing ? To me a clear sign that the Bf-109 is a better turn fighter than both.

Also for those interested in a direct comparison between the Bf-109G6, Fw-190A8 La-5FN, have a look at Hans Werner Lerche’s book, Luftwaffe test pilot. In it there’s a thurough test of a La-5FN in excellent condition, with the original document describing the testing of the La-5FN and the difference between the three a/c in detail. The conclusion was that the La-5FN turns worse than the Bf-109G6 and better than the Fw-190A8, and is slower than both. Now there are some claims that the La-5FN in question wasn’t in good condition because of the speeds achieved, this however is incorrect as the condition of the a/c is mentioned as very good, and the fact that the speeds achieved were lower than Soviet figures isn’t surprising either as the official soviet performance specs rarely seemed to hold true in any foreign tests. Furthermore German fighter pilots have made it quite clear that they never met a Soviet fighter they couldn’t outrun.

Anyway I'm not trying to piss on the P-40 as a fighter a/c, it is often way underrated by people today, but compared to the Bf-109 it was just clearly outmatched.


----------



## Juha (Jun 7, 2009)

Soren
If you bother look the Soviet table you will see that it has specs for 109G-2 AND for G-2/R6 and max speeds 666 and 665km/h showed that there was nothing wrong with engine power of the planes. And in fact Soviet turn time for “clean” G-2 was a bit better than that of Finnish test result.

BTW Soviet got more than few intact 109Gs which landed in error on Soviet airfields or were delivered by defecting pilots.

Hans Werner Lerche’s book data clearly show that the LW test results were clearly worse than those of Soviet tests made using randomly pickedup La-5FNs when on the other hand those 109G-2s tested by Soviets achieved at least as good max speeds than those tested at Rechlin.

Juha


----------



## Cromwell (Jun 7, 2009)

Soren said:


> Anyway I'm not trying to piss on the P-40 as a fighter a/c, it is often way underrated by people today, but compared to the Bf-109 it was just clearly outmatched.



I think the ultimate prop fighter of WWII would have been a Spitfire with a DB engine ...

In fact it DID exist ! Aha !

From : Unreal Aircraft - Hybrid Aircraft - Supermarine/Daimler-Benz Spitfire







Quote :-

_"After a couple of weeks, and with a new yellow-painted nose, the Spitfire returne to Echterdingen. Ellenreider was the first to try the aircraft. He was stunned that the aircraft had much better visibility and handling on the ground than the Bf.109. It took off before he realised it and had an impressive climb rate, around 70 ft. (21 m.) per second. Much of the Spitfire's better handling could be attributed to its lower wing loading. 

The Spitfire's wing area was about 54 sq. ft. (5m²) greater than that of the Bf.109. The Messerschmitt was faster at low altitude, but at 11,000 ft. (3350 m) the speeds evened out. The DB 605A engine gave better performance, according to the test group, than the Merlin, which was rated 150 hp below the German engine. It gave the Spitfire a ceiling of 41,666 ft. (12700 m.), about 3,280 ft. (1000 m.) more than a Bf.109G with the same engine and 5,166 ft. (1475 m.) more than that of a Spitfire Mk.V."_


----------



## Colin1 (Jun 7, 2009)

Cromwell said:


> I think the ultimate prop fighter of WWII would have been a Spitfire with a DB engine ...
> 
> In fact it DID exist


I think a mating of a Bf109F airframe with the Merlin 66 would have borne more fruit than a Spitfire IX airframe mated with a DB603; the Spitfire required more horsepower to fly at the same max speed as the contemporary Bf109


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 7, 2009)

Soren I think no one is denying that the -109 was a superior aircraft HOWEVER you keep bringing up F and G models. Make the comparison with the Emil to the P-40B and that's where the differences are a lot narrower. In fact, depending who you talk to, the P-40B was actually a bit faster than the -109E


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 7, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> I think a mating of a Bf109F airframe with the Merlin 66 would have borne more fruit than a Spitfire IX airframe mated with a DB603; the Spitfire required more horsepower to fly at the same max speed as the contemporary Bf109



Spit with a DB 603 would've been something like early Griffon variants, offering a noticeable increase in performance over the Mk IX. It would allow installation of motor cannon and allow deleting of the LMGs while increasing the fire power. 
So, the Spitfire would've benefit with 603 installed.

The installation of Merlin 66 would render mounting of motor canon impossible, possibly forcing the 2 cannons mounted in under wing gondolas. The plane would've benefit though, since the Merlin 66 would offer a 300HP increase.


----------



## Soren (Jun 7, 2009)

As far as I can tell from the data available the Bf-109E was better than the P-40B in every aspect of flight except for roll rate.

The official top speed of the Emil was 570 km/h (Got the Datenblatt), some 15 km/h faster than the P-40B.


----------



## Colin1 (Jun 7, 2009)

tomo pauk said:


> ...the Merlin 66 would offer a 300HP increase.


That's where I was coming from


----------



## ssnider (Jun 7, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Soren I think no one is denying that the -109 was a superior aircraft HOWEVER you keep bringing up F and G models. Make the comparison with the Emil to the P-40B and that's where the differences are a lot narrower. In fact, depending who you talk to, the P-40B was actually a bit faster than the -109E



If you look at time lines, the P-40B and C should be compared to the 109F


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 7, 2009)

ssnider said:


> If you look at time lines, the P-40B and C should be compared to the 109F


Ok - then make the comparison with a P-40 (no suffix)


----------



## Demetrious (Jun 7, 2009)

Soren said:


> To me it is quite obvious that Bf-109 turns better than the P-40, and this has nothing to do with bias I promise you that, it’s just pure logic. The Bf-109 is lighter, much less draggy, has more power available and features a considerably higher wing Clmax.



Several pages back there was a lengthy discussion about the difficulties of making accurate mathematical models for turn performance, carried out by people who clearly know ten times as much as I do about the requisite science. Given the fact that even they were stumped, I don't think it's a good idea on our part to proclaim this or that fighter to be superior by citing a few raw performace stats and then trotting off singing "Science!" 

It's far more useful for us to consult actual testing data and then examine the methodology for potential error-inducing errors, like you are doing. 



> Also add to that the Bf-109 is considered one of the best WW2 turn fighters by modern pilots who actually fly these a/c, being ranked as very close to the Spitfire in terms of turn performance, which is saying a lot.



Not to be harsh, but I flat-out don't believe this. What I just said about raw performance stats not telling the whole story nonwithstanding, the day that a plane with a wing-loading of 40 pounds per square foot turns anywhere close to a plane with a wing loading of 25 pounds a square foot is the day I eat my socks. 

Furthermore, I rather doubt that "modern" pilots are capable of getting a proper feel for those aircraft's maximum abilities. Any modern pilot that pulls a max-G turn in a 60 year old aircraft is a man who is tired of life. 

I've done a fair bit of reading myself and I have never seen any instance where they Bf-109 was regarded as anything but a decent turner. It wasn't a _bad_ turner, but it was never in the "exceptional" category with planes like the Spitfire or La-7.


----------



## Soren (Jun 7, 2009)

Sorry Demetrious but you need to read some more then.

*Erwin Leykauf, German fighter pilot, 33 victories.*
"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." 

*Walter Wolfrum, German fighter ace. 137 victories.*
"Unexperienced pilots hesitated to turn tight, bacause the plane shook violently when the slats deployed. I realised, though, that because of the slats the plane's stalling characteristics were much better than in comparable Allied planes that I got to fly. Even though you may doubt it, I knew the Bf109 could manouver better in turnfight than LaGG, Yak or even Spitfire."

*Herbert Kaiser, German fighter ace. 68 victories. *
"Personally, I met RAF over Dunkirk. During this battle not a single Spitfire or Hurricane turned tighter than my plane. I found that the Bf 109 E was faster, possessed a higher rate of climb, but was somewhat less manouverable than the RAF fighters. Nevertheless, during the campaign, no Spitfire or Hurricane ever turned inside my plane, and after the war the RAF admitted the loss of 450 Hurricanes and Spitfires during the Battle of France." In the desert there were only a few Spitfires, and we were afraid of those because of their reputation from the Battle of Britain. But after we shot a couple of them down, our confusion was gone."

*Pierre Clostermann, Spitfire pilot.*
"I tried to fire on a '109' that I spotted in the chaos. Not possible, I couldn't get the correct angle. My plane juddered on the edge of a stall. It was comforting that the Spitfire turned better than the '109'! Certainly at high speed - but not at low speed."

Skip Holm interview about P-51 vs Bf-109 vs Spitfire:

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFl8X4y9-94_

Mark Hanna interview on Bf-109:
Flying the Bf 109: Two experts give their reports | Flight Journal | Find Articles at BNET

And there is plenty more where that came from!

As for estimating a/c performance, sorry but we disagree, there's nothing magical out there that can't be explained. But if you wish to place all your faith in 60 year old data and disregard both physics modern day assessments alike then be my guest, but I don't have to be like that myself.


----------



## Njaco (Jun 7, 2009)

Soren, hate to quibble but I don't think there are that many Bf 109s flying around today to test as opposed to 60 years ago when 30,000+ were available. I understand it might be old but whose to say it isn't correct? I'm not defending either plane but I think sometimes data from that time period is correct.

And exactly how long ago are those LW experten quotes referencing?


----------



## Soren (Jun 7, 2009)

Njaco,

The thing is that 60 years ago there was a lot of bias present, today that isn't the case. Also the pilots who get the most out of an a/c are those who are used to flying it. Russian, British US pilots weren't used to flying German a/c and vice versa. And I think the Soviet tables also speak for themselves when you see the Fw-190A4 turning better than most of the fighters there, including both the Bf-109 P-40.


----------



## Juha (Jun 7, 2009)

Hello Soren
As I have wrote early, a full quote of Kaiser’s statement fully shows that he thought that Spitfire Mk V turned better than Bf 109F. And here is a Rechlin opinion, Curtiss was Hawk 75A
Kurfrst - Vergleichsfliegen Bf 109 E, Bf 110 C, Spitfire, Hurricane und Curtiss.

Quote: "Comparison flight between Bf 109 E, Bf 110 C, Spitfire, Hurricane and Curtiss.

…Before turning fights with the Bf 109 E type, it must be noted in every case, that all three foreign planes have significantly smaller turning circles and turning times."

Juha


----------



## Juha (Jun 7, 2009)

Hello 
I dug out my earlier comments to Soren

- Polls (Polls - Aircraft of World War II - Warbird Forums) 
- - f6f-5 vs 109 (http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/polls/f6f-5-vs-109-a-16319.html) 

…
Juha	01-10-2009 01:11 PM

Some 20 RAF and 3 LW pilots tell us that Spit I turned better than 109E here, scroll down until subtitle Turning appears http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html

On Spit IX vs 109G again scroll down until subtitle Pilot Accounts appears, there are at least hundred of them http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit9v109g.html

Not saying that 109 was a bad turner, it was better than many older stories suggest, but maybe not as good as Soren claims. And as always the man behind the stick was a very important factor in ac vs ac comparasion.

…
Juha	01-12-2009 06:30 PM

Hello Kurfürst
Quote:” Oddly enough the site doesn't quote Erwin Leykauf and Herbert Kaiser though who claim the Emil could turn with the Spit.”

Yes, it’s a pity that the site doesn’t quote Kaiser, because the complete quote continues after that what Soren quoted. 
“…Our first victims were Mark Vs and it was not difficult opponent to Bf 109 F(-4) except in turning combat (Kurvenkampf) – so we simply avoid that kind of combat. When Allied made amphibious landings to North-Africa, Sicily and Italy, we met Mk IXs and they were entirely different opponents. We suffered in their claws…”
Source: Hannu Valtonen Messerschmitt Bf 109 ja Saksan... p. 228, his source was Christy, Joe (Ed.) WW II: Luftwaffe Combat Planes Aces. Vol 18 Modern Aviation Library, Book Number 218. p. 86.

Juha


----------



## Soren (Jun 7, 2009)

Worth remembering is also that the only German test which claims the Spitfire to be a better turn fighter than the 109 is from 1940 and against an Emil, and the Emil was at that time very well known to suffer from its' slats jamming in tight turns causing irrecoverable spins (Rall nearly getting killed this way), making pilots vary of such a maneuver, explaining the results. This is also further explained by many other German pilots including Leykauf Wolfrum. The issue was solved with the introduction of a new slat design with the Friedrich however.


----------



## Juha (Jun 8, 2009)

So Soren
Can you mention a German test which claims that Bf 109 was a better turner than P-40 or Spitfire?

BTW, as I have mentioned earlier, all Wolfrum’s victories were achieved in East, and VVS made only limited use of Spitfires, most of which went to PVO ie for air defence of big cities.

Juha


----------



## VG-33 (Jun 8, 2009)

Hello,



Soren said:


> Njaco,
> Russian, British US pilots weren't used to flying German a/c and vice versa. And I think the Soviet tables also speak for themselves when you see the Fw-190A4 turning better than most of the fighters there, including both the Bf-109 P-40.



Can you show us those soviet tables speaking for themselves, where Fw-190 A4 are turning better than Bf-109 and P-40?


Best Regards


----------



## Soren (Jun 8, 2009)

VG-33 said:


> Hello,
> 
> 
> 
> ...



VG-33, didn't you read the link posted earlier?


----------



## Juha (Jun 8, 2009)

Soren
if you read the table, turning time for 360deg turn for 190A-4 is given as 19-23sec, a bit ambivalent, but for P-40C as 18sec, which is a better result and for P-40E as 19,2 sec, not necessary worse than 19-23sec.

Juha


----------



## VG-33 (Jun 8, 2009)

Soren said:


> VG-33, didn't you read the link posted earlier?




So i did, it's why i'm asking a source, a link, a reference, a picture (bmp, jpg, pdf...) or anything else for *your * soviet tables.

Regards


----------



## Soren (Jun 8, 2009)

VG-33,

My table ? We're talking about the same table my friend. The Soviet table makes it quite clear that the Fw-190A4 turns better than both the P-40 and the Bf-109 by stating a 19 second turn time. I really don't see what so hard to understand by that.


----------



## drgondog (Jun 8, 2009)

Soren said:


> VG-33,
> 
> My table ? We're talking about the same table my friend. The Soviet table makes it quite clear that the Fw-190A4 turns better than both the P-40 and the Bf-109 by stating a 19 second turn time. I really don't see what so hard to understand by that.



Soren - if the soviet testresults are to believed, Henning's models result in almost 'opposite' results for 109 vs P-40 turn rates with P-40 same or better than 109 and near same as Fw 190..

All appeared to be so close that only a pilot of much better skill will prevail in a pure turning manuever - 

I have thoroughly looked at Henning's paper - I like the physics and summation of the variables - and abhor the assumptions (with incomplete data available) that MUST be made to run a model at all. The turning, prop driven a/c with large AoA and trim drag effects are the most difficult, to achive some semblance of real world vs theoretical - as we debated to death for two years.


----------



## Soren (Jun 8, 2009)

Exactly Bill, that is why I say one should take the Soviet tests with a HUGE grain of salt.

IMHO Hohun's tables are some of the most accurate a/c comparisons made here on this forum, and I really can't find any faults in them. Only thing I was able to really question was some of the weight and 'e' figures and the prop efficiency for each a/c. That's it.


----------



## MikeGazdik (Jun 8, 2009)

drgondog said:


> All appeared to be so close that only a pilot of much better skill will prevail in a pure turning manuever -
> .



That just about sums it up perfectly. I love this thread! You can all argue the Curtiss vs Messerschmitt all you want, but they are both still inferior to the mighty Bell P-39!!!!!! ( at least with Red Stars on it! )8)


----------



## Matt308 (Jun 8, 2009)

Unbiased summation, ofcourse. 

I like a man with conviction.


----------



## Juha (Jun 9, 2009)

IMHO the Soviet table is rather good but of course only a rough guide, giving info only on one kind of turn and without info how much skill was needed to achieve optimum turn performance.

One must notice that Soviet tests gave very nearly same results than those the Finnish got entirely independently, Bf 109G-2 22sec and I-153 12 sec.

On HoHun’s tables I noticed one oddity above all, according to him Fokker D.XXI turned better than Curtiss P-36A, that was clearly contrary to all FAF pilots opinion I have seen, and some of them had flown both Hawk 75As and Fokker D.XXIs many times, even tested them during same day. On the other hand some HoHuns results were in line of what FAF pilots have told.

And of course turning ability was important to fighter but less important than speed and climb rate, maybe also rate of roll was more important than pure turning ability.

Juha

ADDITION: One oddity in the Soviet table is LaGG-3 Series 28, Finnish experiences were that LaGG-3s were not good turners, I exclude the lightened Series 66 here, it’s pity that Finnish seems to have made a proper tests only with their war booty LG-1, which was a series 4 plane and so a worst case scenario, results at best were 23 sec at 2000m, usually 25sec, with a speed loss of 40km/h, so one must remember that if speed was allowed to drop then according to FAF tests a 109G-2 turned 360deg in 18 sec at 1000m when speed dropped from 450km/h to 330km/h, so with markedly bigger speed loss. Of course one must remember that FAF used warbooty plane in tests but a one which they also used operationally. LG-1 flew 25 combat sorties and got the only LG kill in FAF service, a Soviet LaGG-3 on 16 Feb 44

It would have been nice if Finns had also made thorough tests with warbooty LG-3, which was a Series 35 plane.


----------



## VG-33 (Jun 9, 2009)

Soren said:


> VG-33,
> 
> My table ? We're talking about the same table my friend. The Soviet table makes it quite clear that the Fw-190A4 turns better than both the P-40 and the Bf-109 by stating a 19 second turn time. I really don't see what so hard to understand by that.



We have got the same table but your's one includes a lot of type mismaches and other rough errors. 
Table of ftrs 1943

The good one is in the book "Samoletostroeniye v SSSR 1941-1945, TsAGuI edition 1994. Book two"

It's the source your table is taken from

I have the book, and some Kosminkov's (main autor) articles in french, so i will give correction.

FW-190 A4 turn rate is 
- 23-24s LII-NKAP
- 22-23s NII-VVS

Me 109F-4
- 19,6 ( sometimes 19,8 ) -20.5 NII

Me 109G-2
- >20-21,5 middle 21 NII


And page 244, 245;
P-40C
- 18,0s mid. at 3290 kg in 10/1941

P-40E
- 19,2s mid. at 3840 kg in 07/1942


Considering the facts that 

- P 40 used poor soviet fuel (92 or 95 octanes)
- Turned at 1000 m high, far under their best Allison altitude (4000+m)
- NII tests for *german* planes turn of time were *estimated*, not measured because each test pilot had a limited number of trials. That mean he systematically overquoted turn rates. But LII NKAP or BNT TsAGuI organisations, test condition were more closer to the reality, so more severe for sustainted turns measurements. Each time a same 109 and 190 were loosing or gaining about 1 or 2 seconds from an organisation to another. And also from a plane to another.

In final words, Soren

1) it's better to use *the good values*.
2) using the good values,it's not finish yet. You'v got to give them the *right interpretation*. Specialy from sources and other test conditions you don't know.
3) yes, probably keeping the P-40 under 3500-3600 kg as russians did you coud outurn all Bf 109 under 4500 m with a narrow margin, and the 190 with ease.

It does not mean that P-40 in general was a better fighter than Me 109 or FW 190!

VG-33


----------



## VG-33 (Jun 9, 2009)

> drgondog said:
> 
> 
> > Soren - if the soviet testresults are to believed, Henning's models result in almost 'opposite' results for 109 vs P-40 turn rates with P-40 same or better than 109 and near same as Fw 190..
> ...


----------



## VG-33 (Jun 9, 2009)

Hello Juha



Juha said:


> .
> 
> One must notice that Soviet tests gave very nearly same results than those the Finnish got entirely independently, Bf 109G-2 22sec and I-153 12 sec.
> 
> ...



Thank you, very informative. Can you also give us the speed and turn radiuses for this results?

Best regards.


----------



## Soren (Jun 9, 2009)

Believe what you want VG-33, but I prefer to believe in what is actually physically possible.

To me there's no doubt that the Bf-109 turns tighter than the P-40.


----------



## Juha (Jun 9, 2009)

Hello VG-33
First, thanks a lot for your info on Soviet tests
Very much appreciated.

Now I’m not sure what test results you want but here is the results of LG-1 tests, not from the series which gave the best results but an earlier one from which I have better info.
Meteorological data: air pressure 1007,1 mb, air temp + 15,3 deg C, wind 1 beauf. from N.

360deg turn

At 2000m entry speed 400km/h, end speed 360km/h, time 25sec
At 4000m___________370______________330_________25
At 6000m___________300______________260_________26sec

Sorry, no info on turn radius.
Source: Haapanen’s Punatähdestä hakaristiin pp 106-107. Best results were got using 75 deg inclination.

BTW I found also test report made from tests flown in LG-3 but it gives only what feelings ? (tunnonmukainen testi) the test pilot felt during the tests, so no times or turning radius. I have even seen a copy of those tests but I had altogether forgot the docu.

If you mean 109G-2 tests, the only extra info I have to that I gave on 27 May 2009 for 360deg turn while keeping the speed constant from the source in hand (Valtonen’s Lentäjän näkökulma II) are: inclination 70deg, 3G. I have a couple other sources on the subject in attic, they might have extra info.

Juha


----------



## claidemore (Jun 9, 2009)

Soren said:


> VG-33,
> 
> My table ? We're talking about the same table my friend. The Soviet table makes it quite clear that the Fw-190A4 turns better than both the P-40 and the Bf-109 by stating a 19 second turn time. I really don't see what so hard to understand by that.



I believe that particular source gives 19-23 second turn time for the FW190A4? 23 seconds makes it about the same as the 'five pointer' 109, which is about where most of us would expect it to be. 

Given all other evidence and comparisons of FW190 turn rate vs either 109s or allied planes, it isn't hard to see that the 19 second figure is not correct, that it's either an anomoly or a typo or some other error. VG-33's post supports that conclustion...err... conclusively?  There certainly isin't any other data (that I know of) that would support a 190 outurning a 109. 

While we have to question the figures in any data source, we certainly can't dismiss all the numbers from that Soviet chart. There is too much data there that is completely supported by other sources, so any 'new' numbers, (that may not agree with preconceptions), have to be taken in a positive light. 

I have no problem believing that the P40 had a small turn advantage over the 109, but I also believe that the 109 was superior in many other areas, and the overall better fighter. 

BTW, your post #204, nicely stated.


----------



## Marcel (Jun 9, 2009)

VG-33 said:


> It's very kind from him for his curves, can he show/ explain equations and programms he use?
> 
> Best regards



He did in a pdf, earlier in the thread.


Juha, Hohun's climbspeed of the D.XXI is also not entirely correct. At lower altitude it fits nicely with the test made by Fokker on a Mercury VIII engined Finnish D.XXI. At higer altitude (over 5000 m) the actual Fokker data shows a greater speed of climb that Hohun's simulated graph. Hohun told me that one of the reason of these inaccuracies could be the fact that his spreadsheet doesn't take into account the fuel consumption. It shows that the theory is not always perfect, but I believe keeping that in mind the graphs can be very useful and give good indications about performance of a/c.


----------



## Juha (Jun 9, 2009)

Just for comparison
Soviet figure for 360deg turn for Spitfire Mk VB was 18,8 sec and for LF Mk IX 18,5sec

Juha


----------



## Juha (Jun 9, 2009)

Hello Marcel
I always checked HoHun's graphs with interest and as I wrote some turn results were in line of Finnish experiences, probably most IIRC, the one clear oddity was the D.XXI turn ability. The speed and climb results usually looked right.

BTW the landing light bulge in right wing in FAF FRs might have some effect on turning ability by distrupting airflow.
Juha


----------



## Juha (Jun 9, 2009)

BTW
Soviet figure for 360deg turn for P-39D-2 was 17,7-18,7 sec, wing armament in place and for P-39Q-15 20-21sec, without gunpods.

Juha


----------



## Cromwell (Jun 9, 2009)

Soren said:


> Sorry Demetrious but you need to read some more then.
> 
> 
> *Herbert Kaiser, German fighter ace. 68 victories. *
> "Personally, I met RAF over Dunkirk. During this battle not a single Spitfire or Hurricane turned tighter than my plane. I found that the Bf 109 E was faster, possessed a higher rate of climb, but was somewhat less manouverable than the RAF fighters. Nevertheless, during the campaign, no Spitfire or Hurricane ever turned inside my plane, and after the war the RAF admitted the loss of *450 Hurricanes and Spitfires during the Battle of France." *




*450 Seems a bit on the high side don't you think maybe ?*


----------



## Cromwell (Jun 9, 2009)

BTW At risk of appearing super-thick, I really do not understand 'inches' of manifold pressure in a lot of the reports referred to on this thread.

Can anyone explain please ? this is something I seem to have struggled with for a while.

Thanks.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 9, 2009)

Cromwell said:


> BTW At risk of appearing super-thick, I really do not understand 'inches' of manifold pressure in a lot of the reports referred to on this thread.
> 
> Can anyone explain please ? this is something I seem to have struggled with for a while.
> 
> Thanks.



It's the amount of pressure in the intake manifold measured in inches of Mercury.


----------



## VG-33 (Jun 10, 2009)

Hello



Soren said:


> Believe what you want VG-33, but I prefer to believe in what is actually physically possible.
> 
> To me there's no doubt that the Bf-109 turns tighter than the P-40.



Listen Soren, i might be not as good in engish as you, and assume it. But you use improper worlds:

- *you*'v got the *belief* that 109 E/F turns better than P-40C/E. 
- *I* shaw you by *concrete soviet test figures*, that *physically* P-40 turns better than Bf 109, even in very favourable test conditions for the german plane.

Can you make us the mathematical demonstration that Bf 109 turns better?

VG-33


----------



## VG-33 (Jun 10, 2009)

VG-33



claidemore said:


> I have no problem believing that the P40 had* a small turn advantage over the 109*, but I also believe that the 109 was superior in many other areas, and the overall better fighter.
> .



Not that small, 18 (P-40C) against 20,5 ( 109F) is a confotable 14% advantage. Now, was the Bf 109F 14% faster?

Regards


----------



## vanir (Jun 10, 2009)

Cromwell said:


> BTW At risk of appearing super-thick, I really do not understand 'inches' of manifold pressure in a lot of the reports referred to on this thread.
> 
> Can anyone explain please ? this is something I seem to have struggled with for a while.
> 
> Thanks.



I'm no expert but believe the following to be correct.

+18lbs (British) is approximately 66" Hg (American) or 168cm (Soviet), the latter two being mercury displacement at the manifold (absolute pressure) and the British being positive manifold pressure (where neutral has neither vacuum nor pressure but is ambient).
Germany uses boost bar, so 1.42 atü is roughly equivalent to British +6lbs like you might see in a Merlin II.

1 bar (14.5 psi) is not the same as 1 ambient atmosphere (14.7 psi), so when using conversion tables for German aircraft this needs to be kept in mind.

Also, dynamic boost pressure is modified by valve timing. The same engine with camshaft overlap will record lower boost pressure in bar than a more sedate camshaft grind using the same supercharger (absolute manifold pressure will remain about the same). It is also modified by the method being used. You get lower readings of boost pressure in bar than what you do measuring absolute manifold pressure, for the same supercharger on the same engine.

I think this is because mercury of displacement is measured on a static manifold (ie. a flow bench), where bar is a dynamic measurement which takes into account some amount of engine vacuum. I don't know if the British "positive/negative manifold pressure" system is dynamic or static.


----------



## VG-33 (Jun 10, 2009)

Marcel said:


> He did in a pdf, earlier in the thread.
> 
> 
> .



Big your pardon? I red all the treads from n°1 to his n° 65 and saw no explanation about them. May I have missed something.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jun 10, 2009)

VG-33 said:


> Big your pardon? I red all the treads from n°1 to his n° 65 and saw no explanation about them. May I have missed something.



saw we are at over 200 topic here maybe it's after
see topic 130th


----------



## Kurfürst (Jun 10, 2009)

Cromwell said:


> *450 Seems a bit on the high side don't you think maybe ?*



I believe that is the correct number,not incl. the bombers lost. Few seem to realize just how ferocious the BoF was in terms of aerial battles.


----------



## VG-33 (Jun 10, 2009)

Juha said:


> IMHO the Soviet table is rather good but of course only a rough guide, giving info only on one kind of turn and without info how much skill was needed to achieve optimum turn performance.
> 
> One must notice that Soviet tests gave very nearly same results than those the Finnish got entirely independently, Bf 109G-2 22sec and I-153 12 sec.
> 
> ...





Thank you!!

from the soviet LaGG-3 flight manual, translated in spanish

VI. PILOTAJE



Virajes



98. Gire inclinando el aparato 60—70 ° y hágalo a 320 km/h (según indicador). 



Antes de la realización de los virajes, en vuelo horizontal es necesario balancear el avión mediante compensadores. El movimiento coordinado de pedales y palanca le hará girar. A medida que va aumentando el alabeo, incrementar los gases de tal forma que cuando el alabeo llegue a 60-70º, el gas tiene que estar puesto a máxima potencia.



A la salida del viraje reduzca gases a normal. En los giros a izquierda el aparato tiende a aumentar el alabeo; es fácil compensarlo con la palanca. En giros a la derecha el aparato hunde el morro, lo que se compensa fácilmente con pedal izquierdo.



El aparato es estable en los virajes. Al tirar en exceso de la palanca el aparato pierde estabilidad transversal y tiende a salir del viraje. Si se continúa tirando de la palanca, el aparato entra en una barrena.



Un viraje completo con 60—70 ° de alabeo precisa 22—23 segundos.


60-70° inclination, 320 instrumental speed, 22-23 secunds. Surpisingly with both M 1O5P and 1O5PF engines. Not very accurate...

In fact with 120-140 M-105PF extra HP, the LaGG-3 performs much better!

Regards

VG 33


----------



## claidemore (Jun 10, 2009)

VG-33 said:


> VG-33
> 
> 
> 
> ...



 I believe the 109F4 is 15.2% faster than a P40E.

The difference in level speed between a 109G6 and and P40N would be about 9.6%. 
The G6 could climb to 20,000 ft in 6.5 minutes, while the P40N took 9 minutes. Thats a considerable advantage for the 109.


----------



## Soren (Jun 10, 2009)

VG-33 said:


> Hello
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes I can quite easily demonstrate why the Bf-109 in reality turns better than the P-40, I've done it before. But if you want an even more thurough mathematical demonstration then you need but look at Hohun's tables, he takes into account even more variables than I do and he firmly proves the fact that the Bf-109 is a better turnfighter than the P-40. To deny that would be to deny the very rules of physics we live under!

So like I said, believe in what you wish VG-33, but I prefer to believe in what is physically possible. If you wish to trust blindly in 60 year old data which no doubt was under heavy influence of bias and other insecurity factors, which is what Juha seems to prefer, then be my guest, but I don't have to.

PS: After you've read Hohun's documentation then feel free to let me know if you still wish me to perform my by comparison rather simple little demonstration.


----------



## VG-33 (Jun 10, 2009)

Soren said:


> Yes I can quite easily demonstrate why the Bf-109 in reality turns better than the P-40, I've done it before.


Where? Can you give me a link, please? Sorry j'm new on that forum...







> But if you want an even more thurough mathematical demonstration then you need but look at Hohun's tables, he takes into account even more variables than I do and he firmly proves the fact that the Bf-109 is a better turnfighter than the P-40.


I will, just a little later

Best regards

VG-33


----------



## Colin1 (Jun 10, 2009)

Surely
measuring how well or fast a fighter makes a turn in a controlled test environment is good science but sadly lacking in everyday application; as the turn inevitably becomes a turn-fight, both fighters are bleeding energy, it will get to the point where the P-40 is beginning to feel its extra ton or so in weight over the Bf109. This would logically suggest than the P-40 would need to nail the Bf109 within the first turn or very shortly thereafter, assuming that the better turn radius of the P-40 is actually the case.


----------



## Doughboy (Jun 10, 2009)

I chose ME-109...But after reading this article, I *might* have decided P-40.I got this from wikipedia.

"The P-40 had good agility, especially at high speed and medium to low altitude. It was one of the tightest-turning monoplane fighters of the war,[9] although at lower speeds it could not out-turn the extremely manoeuvrable Japanese fighters such as the A6M Zero and Nakajima Ki-43 "Oscar".[6]

Allison V-1710 engines produced about 1,040 hp (780 kW) at sea level and at 14,000 ft (4,300 m): not powerful by the standards of the time, and the early P-40's speed was average. (The later versions with 1,200 hp (890 kW) Allisons were more capable, as were the Packard Merlin-engined P-40F/L series.) Its climb performance was fair to poor, depending on the subtype.[6] Dive acceleration was good and dive speed was excellent.[6] The highest-scoring P-40 ace, Clive Caldwell (RAAF), who scored 22 of his 28½ kills in the P-40, said the type had "almost no vices", although "it was a little difficult to control in terminal velocity".[10] Caldwell said that the P-40 was "faster downhill than almost any other aeroplane with a propeller." However, the single-stage, single-speed supercharger meant that it could not compete with contemporary aircraft as a high-altitude fighter.

The P-40 tolerated harsh conditions in the widest possible variety of climates. It was a semi-modular design and thus easy to maintain in the field. It lacked innovations of the time, such as boosted ailerons or automatic leading edge slats, but it had a strong structure including a five-spar wing, which enabled P-40s to survive some mid-air collisions: both accidental impacts and intentional ramming attacks against enemy aircraft were occasionally recorded as victories by the Desert Air Force and Soviet Air Forces.[11] Caldwell said P-40s "would take a tremendous amount of punishment -violent aerobatics as well as enemy action."[12]


Evidence of the P-40's durability: in 1944 F/O T. R. Jacklin (pictured) flew this No. 75 Squadron RAAF P-40N-5 more than 200 mi (320 km) after the loss of the port aileron and 25% of its wing area. The fighter was repaired and served out the war.It had armour around the engine and the cockpit, which enabled it to withstand considerable damage. This was one of the characteristics that allowed Allied pilots in Asia and the Pacific to attack Japanese fighters head on, rather than try to out-turn and out-climb their opponents. Late-model P-40s were regarded as well armored.

Caldwell said that he found the P-40C Tomahawk's armament of two .50 in (12.7 mm) machine guns firing through the prop and two .303 Browning machine guns in each wing to be inadequate.[12] This was rectified with the P-40E Kittyhawk, which had three .50 in (12.7 mm) guns in each wing, although Caldwell preferred the Tomahawk in other respects.

Operational range was good by early war standards, and was almost double that of the Supermarine Spitfire or Messerschmitt Bf 109, although it was inferior to the A6M Zero, Ki-43, P-38 and P-51.

Visibility was adequate, although hampered by an overly complex frame and completely blocked to the rear in early models due to the raised turtledeck. Poor ground visibility and the relatively narrow landing gear track led to many losses due to accidents on the ground.[6]"


----------



## Marcel (Jun 10, 2009)

VG-33 said:


> Big your pardon? I red all the treads from n°1 to his n° 65 and saw no explanation about them. May I have missed something.



If you really would have read the thread you would have seen post #130 (http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/bf-109-vs-p-40-a-16213-9.html#post503531) where he posted a pdf with his methodes.


----------



## Juha (Jun 10, 2009)

Hello VG-33
Thanks a lot for the text of LaGG-3 manual.
Much appreciated

I think that also the Finnish numbers I gave in message #236 for LaGG-3 are IAS, ie indicated, even if that is not stated in the test report.

Hello Cromwell
I agree with Kurfürst, RAF lost almost 959 a/c from direct result of the campaign in France May-June 40, Fighting was very intensive.

Soren
If you mind to explain why you think that Finnish AF Bf 109G-2 tests were Quote:” was under heavy influence of bias and other insecurity factors”, because their results were in line of Soviet tests?

And how you think a Bf 109G-2 and a G-2/R6 could achieve max speeds of 666 and 665km/h , again quote from your message: “...secondly the other one had crash landed and was so badly damaged that a new wing had to be made for it by Russian engineers. And third, the engines were not running at full power as the Soviets didn’t have the proper fuel.”? 

Juha


----------



## Juha (Jun 10, 2009)

Hello VG-33
Finns tested turning ability of LG-1, the series 4 LaGG-3, also with cruising speed and power

360deg turn

At 2000m entry speed 350km/h, end speed 310km/h, time 26sec
At 4000m___________340______________300_________26
At 6000m___________270______________230_________27sec

And I forgot to mention that at the time of the tests Finns had modified LG-1 wings with slots.

Juha


----------



## Njaco (Jun 10, 2009)

Good point Colin. I think that gets lost in all the numbers.


----------



## pbfoot (Jun 10, 2009)

Stocky Edwards flew the P40 in North Africa and one of his complaints was that when in a G turn the guns would jam if fired and it was the same for all the sqn aircraft


----------



## renrich (Jun 10, 2009)

I think that having wing mounted guns jamming in a turn was not uncommon for a lot of AC.


----------



## MikeGazdik (Jun 11, 2009)

Stats and stories can be argued forever. But what I read from all of this is the fact that these two planes were very close adversaries. If you have altitude, advantage Messerschmitt, but down low, the Curtiss is at least an equal. Which is why the Russians had a better record perhaps than the USAAC or RAF.

While I love to read books and interviews of the pilots of WWII, you have to consider that the people writing or telling the story survived the war! So they were obviously either lucky, or very good at thier craft. But in either case, they are generally biased towards thier aircraft, techniques, and abilities. 

The "tables" of performance, new or old, just tell us what the airplane may be capable of, they don't tell us what a pilot may be able to do with the machine.

A few seconds variance in turning, climbing or roll can certainly be a deciding factor in air combat. But the pilots abilities' count for much more in my opinion.

Its like getting in a modern gunfight. You have an old .357 magnum six shooter, and the other guy has an M-16 . He has all of the advantages. He also can make many mistakes that the six shooter guy cannot afford to make. But if you are good (or great), and he is foolish, you can win the battle. That is an extreme example. Now if the six shooter gets an AK47 to take on the M16 shooter, its all mostly in the hands of the operator. But if you compare stats, the M16 is far better.........on paper.


----------



## claidemore (Jun 11, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> Surely
> measuring how well or fast a fighter makes a turn in a controlled test environment is good science but sadly lacking in everyday application; as the turn inevitably becomes a turn-fight, both fighters are bleeding energy, it will get to the point where the P-40 is beginning to feel its extra ton or so in weight over the Bf109. This would logically suggest than the P-40 would need to nail the Bf109 within the first turn or very shortly thereafter, assuming that the better turn radius of the P-40 is actually the case.



P40, even with extra weight, has a lower stall speed than a 109 and a lower wing loading (35 lbs/sq ft compared to 40), so as energy bleeds off the advantage should actually go to the P40. 

The 109 has LE slats, which are supposed to make up for it's higher wing loading, but consider the following:

The La5F in the Soviet tables, Table of ftrs 1943 has a similar (or same) Clark airfoil as the P40, weighs a bit less, has more horsepower, has LE slats on that 'similar' airfoil, has a wing loading of 38 lbs/sq ft, and is a Soviet produced plane (where some would assume the posted figures might show some national bias). All that being said, the chart shows the La5F with a turn time of 19-20 seconds, and the P40 (an American lend lease plane) is 18-19 seconds.

This indicates that the LE slats might not be giving the La5F a big turn advantage over the P40, and is strong evidence that there is little or no bias in the figures presented.

I'd also like to point out that any calculations, whether by HoHun, Soren or others, have to be based on historical data, so ignoring old data for the sake of new data,which is produced from old data, well....I think we can all see the point. 
I also don't agree with dismissing data just because it is 60 years old. Einstein came up with his theories of relativity over 100 years ago, and we're still using those, (and they are after all only theories, not tested facts!).


----------



## Soren (Jun 11, 2009)

Claidemore,

Bare in mind the difference in slat wing design between the Bf-109 La-5. The La-5 has very small span slats and the wing features a high taper ratio, completely unlike the 109. And the high taper ratio is NOT good for turn performance, only nessicating the use of slats to prevent nasty tip stalls. Furthermore the La-5 features a high decrease in wing thickness ratio from root to tip, again not good for turn performance and also nessicating slats to prevent tip stalls. All of this makes sure that the slats can only bring the Clmax up to the same level as a low tapered thick wing without slats. So in effect the slats are just there to cancel out the detrimental effect on turn performance that the higher taper ratio and high decrease in thickness ratio the wing features in order to decrease drag in level flight.



The Bf-109 is entirely different with long span slats, low wing taper and a high thickness ratio from root to tip, all of which equals a very high Clmax. Hence why the Bf-109 easily outturned the La-5FN in German comparative flight tests. Even without the slats, thanks to the low taper and high thickness ratio, the 109's wing has a Clmax of 1.5 or higher, and with the slats it's in excess of 1.7, which is way above the approx. 1.45 Clmax of the P-40. And then comes the power loading,which is essential in prolonged turnfights, and the Bf-109 just has a HUGE advantage over the P-40 in this area.

All in all there is no chance that the P-40 is gonna prove any trouble in a turnfight for an experienced Bf-109 pilot.


----------



## VG-33 (Jun 11, 2009)

Soren said:


> The Bf-109 is entirely different with long span slats, low wing taper and a high thickness ratio from root to tip, all of which equals a very high Clmax. Hence why the Bf-109 easily outturned the La-5FN in German comparative flight tests. Even without the slats, thanks to the low taper and high thickness ratio, the 109's wing has a Clmax of* 1.5* or higher, and with the slats it's in excess of *1.7 *which is way above the approx. *1.45 Clmax *of the P-40.



One moment please. Some questions: Where are theese Clmax are taken from?
What are the Bf-109, P-40, La-5 wing profiles respectivly?

Best regards


----------



## Juha (Jun 11, 2009)

Hello
While I agree with Soren that when comparing wings one must take in account all variables but again he used his propagandist tone, the LE slats of La-5, which took ca 38% of the wing span are described as “very small span slats” and the LE slats of Bf 109G, which took ca 40% of the wing span are described as “long span slats”.

Juha


----------



## Soren (Jun 11, 2009)

Some people (Juha) just can't restrain themselves from offtopic under the belt attacks... says abit about how weak their argumentation has become.

*VG-33,*

If you wish to know the wing Clmax of the different US a/c you can look up the NACA Report nr.829, every US fighter is mentioned there. Hope that helps.

The Bf-109's Clmax is listed on a number of MTT documents: 1.7. 

Furthermore the V-24 prototype, essentially a Friedrich with a much reduced wing span and no slats, recorded a Clmax of 1.48 at the windtunnel lab in Charlais Meudon. The V24 had like already mentioned a highly reduced wing span and therefore wing area (15.2 m^2), this increased the Aspect ratio and therefore decreased the Clmax compared to the full span wing. The full span wing had a Clmax of 1.5+, and most likely around 1.55. The slats increased this to 1.7+ when deployed.


----------



## Juha (Jun 11, 2009)

Hello VG-33
LaGG-3, after all La-5 was in essence re-engined LaGG-3: at root NACA 23016 and at tip NACA 23010.
Bf 109G: at root modified NACA 2315, at tip modified NACA 2309.

Juha


----------



## Juha (Jun 11, 2009)

Soren
I'm not in need to try to twist the facts or try to hide them behind verbal smokescreen as someone clearly tries.

Juha


----------



## Soren (Jun 11, 2009)

*Chuckle*

Someone needs to get their facts straight it seems:

Bf-109F, G K wing profile thickness ratio: Root = 14.2% Tip = 11.35% 
Airfoil type: NACA 2R1

Bf-109E wing profile thickness ratio: Root = 14.8% Tip = 11%
Airfoil type: NACA 2R1


----------



## VG-33 (Jun 11, 2009)

> If you wish to know the wing Clmax of the different US a/c you can look up the NACA Report nr.829, every US fighter is mentioned there. Hope that helps.


Thanks. 



> The Bf-109's Clmax is listed on a *number of MTT* documents: 1.7.


Ok, can you quote or link just one of them?



> Furthermore the V-24 prototype, essentially a Friedrich with a much reduced wing span and no slats, recorded a Clmax of 1.48 at the windtunnel lab in Charlais Meudon. The V24 had like already mentioned a highly reduced wing span and therefore wing area (15.2 m^2), this increased the Aspect ratio and therefore decreased the Clmax compared to the full span wing. The full span wing had a Clmax of 1.5+, and most likely around 1.55. The slats increased this to 1.7+ when deployed.


Some sources states (erroneously as i just discovered) a full scale 109F. Anyway, where is it possible to glance on that Charlais Meudon report?


----------



## JoeB (Jun 11, 2009)

claidemore said:


> I'd also like to point out that any calculations, whether by HoHun, Soren or others, have to be based on historical data, so ignoring old data for the sake of new data,which is produced from old data, well....I think we can all see the point.


I do see your point, and the other fundamental point is again whether the 'new' calculations have been verified by new or old tests at full scale. Not every single calculation has to be so verified, or there'd be no point in taking the short cut of a calculation rather than testing *every* possible thing at full scale. But some broad sample of full scale results must give evidence a calculation is really valid for similar cases, for there to be any credibility in a statement that a calculation overturns a full scale trial. An approach which says 'here's the calculation, and if it agrees with any full scale result, that full scale result must be correct, but if it doesn't agree that full scale result must be incorrect'... is just ridiculous, to put it bluntly. It shows a basic misunderstanding of the role and meaning of modeling and calculation in engineering.

Note I'm not saying the (more than one) full scale trial of WWII era purporting to show superiority in turn by the P-40 are 100% certainly correct. The point is just that you can't push them aside with calculations *you haven't proven agree with verifiable full scale results in a broad sample of similar cases*. Soren seems to at least somewhat understand this point, claiming weakly that 'all modern pilots' of warbirds agree the 109 turns better (but he hasn't provided evidence for that statement). Hohun is so busy taking any disagreement with him as a personal slight that he doesn't seem to even pay attention to this basic point. You can have a reasonably good sim game based on any reasonably realistic and internally consistent set of calcs you want to use; they don't actually have to agree with reality in all cases to make the game fun and apparently 'realistic' enough for the typical audience. Again I think that's actually the goal of most modern amateur calculators of a/c performance. But that's a completely different proposition than proving that historical full scale trials of real airplanes were wrong or probably wrong.

Joe


----------



## Soren (Jun 11, 2009)

VG-33 said:


> Thanks.
> 
> 
> Ok, can you quote or link just one of them?



Yes ofcourse.

*Bf-109F Cl Cd0*






There's plenty more stating the exact same.



> Some sources states (erroneously as i just discovered) a full scale 109F. Anyway, where is it possible to glance on that Charlais Meudon report?



Do you consider this to be a full scale 109F ? 

*Bf-109 V-24*


----------



## Tham (Jun 11, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> The war department minimized the need for high altitude
> operations and retarded development of the two-stage
> supercharger for the Allison (by indicating that they
> weren't interested). Thus the P-40, the P-39, the
> ...




Some years ago, I wrote to the Soldier of Fortune 
expressing my shock, after reading an article in the 
magazine about the puny 2.36 inch bazooka being 
still used in the Korean war against T-34/85 tanks.

Their editor replied that "this goes to show that that 
are many stupid people in the American military (there 
still are)".

He was obviously referring to the penpushers.

Common sense using Murphy's Law would have 
dictated that a warplane may be called upon to 
fight at any altitude.

I would have considered using a turbocharger in
the P-40 right from the start, given the power-
draining disadvantages of crankshaft-driven
superchargers.


----------



## VG-33 (Jun 11, 2009)

> Yes ofcourse.



Thanks once more, can we see more on that report, and what was the Clmax with full flaps, full slats open so?




> Do you consider this to be a full scale 109F ?


Do you consider he's inside the Charlais-Meudon wing tunnel? 

In fact j just want to see the wind-tunnel report, not at the plane


Good evening


----------



## claidemore (Jun 11, 2009)

Soren said:


> *Chuckle*
> 
> Someone needs to get their facts straight it seems:
> 
> ...



I would not say that Juha is incorrect with this statement. 


> Bf 109G: at root modified NACA 2315, at tip modified NACA 2309.


The NACA 2R1 designation (for a modified Clark airfoil) is not a standard designation for NACA, it doesn't follow the 4 or 5 digit formula we are used to for wings from that era. The closest standard designation to the 2R1 would be 2314.8-2310.5 (Emil), or as Juha mentioned 2315-2309 for the F/G series. 
P40 had a 2215-2209 wing, La5 a 23016-23010, Spitfire a 2213-2209.4 and the Yak had a Clark YH 14%-10% (another modified Clark airfoil).

I was incorrect that the P40 and La5 had nearly the same airfoil. 

Juha is also correct in pointing out the difference in percentage of LE of the La5 and Me109 slats, 38% compared to (I believe) 43%?


----------



## Juha (Jun 11, 2009)

”Chuckle Chuckle”
Now according to The Incomplete Guide to Airfoil Usage website says:
Messerschmitt Bf 109B NACA 2R1 14.2 NACA 2R1 11
Messerschmitt Bf 109C NACA 2R1 14.2 NACA 2R1 11
Messerschmitt Bf 109D Dora NACA 2R1 14.2 NACA 2R1 11
Messerschmitt Bf 109E Emil NACA 2R1 14.2 NACA 2R1 11
Messerschmitt Bf 109F Fredrich NACA 2R1 14.2 NACA 2R1 11.35 
Messerschmitt Bf 109G Gustav NACA 2R1 14.2 NACA 2R1 11.35
Messerschmitt Bf 109K NACA 2R1 14.2 NACA 2R1 11.35

So the root profile stayed same from 109B to K, and how it was, French examined closely a 109B captured in Spain during the civil war and made a report on it

Quote:”Wings: Trapeziplanform with small roundings near tips, cross-section occupies interim place between cross-sections #2314 and #2315 systematically evaluated by NACA."
So at least French and Finnish specialist agreed on that.

Sources: Andrew Alexandrov and Gennadi Petrov: Messerschmitt Bf 109B p.5 in Skyways No. 29 Jan. 1994
Raunio: Lentäjän Näkökulma II

Juha


----------



## Colin1 (Jun 11, 2009)

Tham said:


> I would have considered using a turbocharger in the P-40 right from the start, given the power-draining disadvantages of crankshaft-driven superchargers.


So a turbocharger arrangement in the P-40, rather than specifically in the Allison V-1710? 
The V-1710-11/15 was turbocharged for use in the XP-38 and required a fair bit of plumbing. If not the Allison, then which powerplant did you have in mind and I daresay you'll still have the plumbing issue.


----------



## Soren (Jun 11, 2009)

VG-33 said:


> Thanks once more, can we see more on that report, and what was the Clmax with full flaps, full slats open so?



The full document:





The Clmax with full flaps would've been much higher as full flaps can increase Clmax by as much as 70%. But the 109's Clmax with flaps down is probably around 2.3 to 2.35.









> Do you consider he's inside the Charlais-Meudon wing tunnel?
> 
> In fact j just want to see the wind-tunnel report, not at the plane
> 
> ...



I'm not sure there's a picture of the V24 inside the windtunnel VG-33. But I'll have a lok see in my books for it.

Meanwhile here's a picture from the Hermann Göring Aviation Research Institute in Völkenrode near Brunswick:


----------



## Cromwell (Jun 11, 2009)

Kurfürst said:


> I believe that is the correct number,not incl. the bombers lost. Few seem to realize just how ferocious the BoF was in terms of aerial battles.




No WONDER Dowding was worried !!

This makes the BoB even more remarkable.


----------



## Soren (Jun 11, 2009)

claidemore said:


> I would not say that Juha is incorrect with this statement.
> 
> The NACA 2R1 designation (for a modified Clark airfoil) is not a standard designation for NACA, it doesn't follow the 4 or 5 digit formula we are used to for wings from that era. The closest standard designation to the 2R1 would be 2314.8-2310.5 (Emil), or as Juha mentioned 2315-2309 for the F/G series.
> P40 had a 2215-2209 wing, La5 a 23016-23010, Spitfire a 2213-2209.4 and the Yak had a Clark YH 14%-10% (another modified Clark airfoil).
> ...



Sorry but he's completely incorrect as usual.

The Bf-109F through to the K series featured these wing specifications: Root = NACA 2R1 14.2% Tip = NACA 2R1 11.35%.

The Emil: Root = NACA 2R1 14.8 Tip = NACA 2R1 11%.

These figures are even listed in Original MTT documents.

And as for the slats, the La-5 has them only to offset the nasty tip stalls that the high taper ratio causes. The high taper ratio was chosen to reduce drag in level flight, but it meant a decrease in turn performance, the slats were then added to solve the issue, bringing the overall Clmax of the wing back to the normal range. The bf-109 on the other hand didn't need the slats, but they were added anyway as they significantly increased the overall Clmax of the wing and therefore the turn performance with it, and as a bonus the landing speed was drastically lowered as-well. The Bf-109F has a landing speed of 135 km/h, which is a good deal lower than the 150 km/h landing speed of the P-40C.


----------



## claidemore (Jun 11, 2009)

Hi Soren:
I tend to think of the addition of LE slats the other way round, they lowered landing speed, with a bonus benifit of some improvement in turn at speeds close to the stall. The LE slats on more modern fighters, ie jets, are proven to be very useful, but I feel that Willy Messerschmitt was a little ahead of his time and that on a prop driven fighter, they aren't quite as useful. 

Nice to finally see that entire F4 report. My German isn't good, but it seems to me the 1.7 figure is for Camax at a certain bank angle, 15.9 degrees? Not sure how that translates to Clmax in level flight.


----------



## Soren (Jun 11, 2009)

The Clmax is reached just before the critical AoA at the stall claidemore, which was a good deal higher than 15.9 degrees clean for the Bf-109  The 15.9 degrees is the stall angle with the flaps gear fully down I assume.

And you don't have to be flying at low speeds for the slats to work Claidemore. Auomatic LE slats work by means of local airpressure, extending at certain AoA's nomatter the speed (Hence why they are so effective on both prop jobs fighter jets alike), and since you can pull hard enough to enter a stall at virtually any speed the slats will always function and increase the lift when needed. In short they increase the critical AoA and lift in the covered areas by ~25%. 

On the 109 the slats were primarily added to further improve the turn performance of the a/c. Also you can see on the document that the slats gives the wing an overall increase in lift of 12.3%.


----------



## Juha (Jun 12, 2009)

”Chuckle”
I would say that completely incorrect, my info was from French and Finnish documents and IMHO French and Finnish expert had fairly good understanding on NACA profiles but as always it’s best to check manufactures docus as you did.

BTW Bf 109 F1/F2 Kennblat p. 6 says on landing speed at 2700kg 140km/h IAS, 150 km/h TAS. Bf 109F-4 Datenblatt gives landing speed at 2560kg 135km/h. As always weight has important effect on landing speed.

On LaGG-3, slats were introduced only in serie 35 to combat tip stall but also to minimizes the effect of high wing loading. One clear indication of that is that they were deleted from the lightest development project, Gorboonov I-105 prototypes, Gorboonov was one of the Gs in LaGG, which was lightened and aerodynamically cleaned version of LaGG-3.

Juha


----------



## VG-33 (Jun 12, 2009)

Soren said:


> The Clmax with full flaps would've been much higher as full flaps can increase Clmax by as much as 70%. But the 109's Clmax with flaps down is probably around 2.3 to 2.35.


Is it your own extrapolation or data from a MTT either windtunnel report?







> I'm not sure there's a picture of the V24 inside the windtunnel VG-33. But I'll have a lok see in my books for it.
> 
> Meanwhile here's a picture from the Hermann Göring Aviation Research Institute in Völkenrode near Brunswick:


Well, I trust your knowledge about Me-109 history, but as a matter of fact j'm looking for Charlais-Meudon report, not Bf 109 pictures. Can you help me on that?


----------



## drgondog (Jun 12, 2009)

JoeB said:


> I do see your point, and the other fundamental point is again whether the 'new' calculations have been verified by new or old tests at full scale. Not every single calculation has to be so verified, or there'd be no point in taking the short cut of a calculation rather than testing *every* possible thing at full scale. But some broad sample of full scale results must give evidence a calculation is really valid for similar cases, for there to be any credibility in a statement that a calculation overturns a full scale trial. An approach which says 'here's the calculation, and if it agrees with any full scale result, that full scale result must be correct, but if it doesn't agree that full scale result must be incorrect'... is just ridiculous, to put it bluntly. It shows a basic misunderstanding of the role and meaning of modeling and calculation in engineering.
> 
> Note I'm not saying the (more than one) full scale trial of WWII era purporting to show superiority in turn by the P-40 are 100% certainly correct. The point is just that you can't push them aside with calculations *you haven't proven agree with verifiable full scale results in a broad sample of similar cases*. Soren seems to at least somewhat understand this point, claiming weakly that 'all modern pilots' of warbirds agree the 109 turns better (but he hasn't provided evidence for that statement). Hohun is so busy taking any disagreement with him as a personal slight that he doesn't seem to even pay attention to this basic point. You can have a reasonably good sim game based on any reasonably realistic and internally consistent set of calcs you want to use; they don't actually have to agree with reality in all cases to make the game fun and apparently 'realistic' enough for the typical audience. Again I think that's actually the goal of most modern amateur calculators of a/c performance. But that's a completely different proposition than proving that historical full scale trials of real airplanes were wrong or probably wrong.
> 
> Joe



Joe - that about sums it up. 

Furthermore, dealing with 'historical data' in these forums often draws 'assumptions' not entered into any evidence, and then multiple assumptions ('e', prop activity factors, parasite drag entering a turn, 'Meredith effect', slat behavior in turns, etc - and worst of all no evidence that parasite drag remains the same (it doesn't) as the a/c increase angle of attack) - then plots appear and "aha's" are proclaimed.

Turn performance was not an analytical discipline performed for serious prediction, at least not in US Aviation Design circles. It is far easier to predict level speeds, and extrapolate some variations in angle of attack as the single variable (i.e. no spanwise flow, asymmetric loads, etc) in climb performance.

'Thing's" like manuevering flaps, dive brakes, etc were to a degree trial and error from drawing board to wind tunnel.


----------



## Tham (Jun 12, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> So a turbocharger arrangement in the P-40, rather than specifically in the Allison V-1710?
> The V-1710-11/15 was turbocharged for use in
> the XP-38 and required a fair bit of plumbing.
> If not the Allison, then which powerplant did
> ...





The Allison, basically. No other suitable inline
engine available in quantity at that time,
including the Merlin, which was "out of bounds"
to the P-40, until the "F" model.

The alternative wasgoing back to the R1820 as 
used in the P-36, or the R2600/2800 which were 
probably too big for the P-40's airframe.

Weren't all versions of the P-38's Allisons turbocharged ?

True, ducting or plumbing would be complex, as 
in the P-38 and P-47, not to mention the weight,
complexity and reliabilty of the whole works,
including freezing problems in the European 
theater as experienced by the P-38s.


" .... from its inception, the Allison V-1710 was 
designed to accept a turbo-supercharger. "

Dispatch Archive


The Allison was quite a versatile engine, far more 
so than the Merlin which in my opinion was overrated.

" A turbocharged V-1710-F17L/-F17R engine 
equipped with ADI produced a WER of 2,300 bhp ... "

Allison V1710 Engine


The F-17R/L engines were the -89/91.

Lockheed P-38H Lightning

33rd Photo Reconnaissance Squadron Online


Interesting threads.

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/supercharger-vs-turbocharger-2355.html

http://warbirdsforum.com/showthread.php?t=1282


----------



## Juha (Jun 12, 2009)

Hello
Argument over turning ability has reigned for a while, so I’ll sum my opinion on 109 vs P-40 question.
IMHO P-40 had a few excellent features, early P-40s had excellent roll rate and P-40 was rugged (downsize was that it was heavy with all the penalties which followed that)
Later P-40s (from D / Kittyhawk Mk I onwards) had good rollrate, not so good than the early versions but still clearly better than that of 109s.
P-40 turned slightly better than 109 at low level, higher situation reversed.

But on the other hand Bf 109 was clearly faster, climbed much better and IMHO must have had clearly better acceleration. All these features allowed 109 pilot dominate the combat if he played it right. And IMHO vertical tactic (dive and zoom) was clearly more effective combat method than horizontal (turning fight) so Bf 109 which was better suited to vertical combat but high speed rollrate was IMHO clearly better figher. A bit lightly armed from F onward but MG 151/20 was a good cannon with effective ammo so its armament was adequate to fighter vs fighter combat.

Juha


----------



## Colin1 (Jun 12, 2009)

Tham said:


> Weren't all versions of the P-38s Allisons turbocharged ?
> 
> True, ducting or plumbing would be complex, as in the P-38 and P-47, not to mention the weight, complexity and reliabilty of the whole works, including freezing problems in the European theater as experienced by the P-38s.
> 
> ...


All of them except the batch that was supplied to order to the RAF.

It wasn't the complexity of the ducting that I was implyling would be problematic, it was the volume of the ducting - where would it all go in a P-40? They got a turbocharger on board the P-47 and look how big a fighter that turned out to be.

Well, that's not how I understand the history of the V-1710, Allison had attempted to homogenise their manufacturing operation by producing all V-1710 power units in a standard form, this would allow all marks of engine to be produced on one line. If a two-stage supercharger was required it would need to be fitted as a separate unit, external to the engine. 

That was for superchargers, I have found no mention of turbochargers.

From what I can gather, Allison and Curtiss joined forces to persuade the USAAC to accept the V-1710's integral mechanical supercharger, this arrangement satisfied _existing_ service requirements.

So, designed from the outset with an integral mechanical supercharger, not a turbocharger.

The Allison went on, somewhat belatedly, to become a very competent high-altitude engine eg in its -143/145 mark but I think describing wartime operational marks as 'versatile vs contemporary Merlins which were overrated' is contentious and you'll be pushed to corroborate your argument with any factual data. 
For example, the Merlin addressed the needs of the P-51 in turning it into a high-altitude fighter which proved to be a stepping-stone to long-range escort. In 1942, when Allison produced a two-stage supercharged version of the V-1710, it proved too long to fit in the P-51. Versatile?

The V-1710 was never developed along the lines of the Merlin, it had become too straight-jacketed by Allison management's decision to base their production on a standardised power section.

Yes, and didn't the -89/91 V-1710s suffer from overheating issues?


----------



## VG-33 (Jun 13, 2009)

Juha said:


> Hello
> Argument over turning ability has reigned for a while, so I’ll sum my opinion on 109 vs P-40 question.
> 
> P-40 turned slightly better than 109 at low level, higher situation reversed.
> ...



J addict in order to support your opinion some BNT (New technology Bureau) NKAP (Ministry of aircraft industry) N°193 and 256 test reports from 1944, 1945


Maксимальные скорости и коэффициенты маневренности

Самолеты	Спитфайр F.Mk.IX	Кертисс Р-40Е	Мустанг Р-51	Эркобра Р-39	Bf 109G-2*	Bf 109G-2**	FW 190A-4
Max скорость на Н=5000м, км/час	618	574	584	577	610	593	588
Приемистость самолета, м
/с Н=5000м за 60 сек/	8600	7700	7550	7900	8720	8400	8750
Время виража, сек	17,5	19,4	23,0	19,0	20,0	22,6	22,5
Ускор в гориз плоск. м/сек	30,5	25,9	21,5	27,6	26,4	24,2	26,4
Радиус виража, м	235	242	290	253	290	315	340


So
at 5km altitude P 40E is slower 574 km/h against 610 and 593 for Me 109G2 3guns, 5 guns respectivly
at 5km P40E has worst acceleration 7700m/s in 60s against 8720, 8400.
Time to turn at 1 km high 19,4 vs 20.5 , 22.6 is better for the P-40
Turn radius 242 vs 290, 315 is far better for the P-40

It's radial acceleration is 25.9 m/s , is lower than 109G2 one but higher than 109G2 (26,4) with underwing pods (24,2)

Regards

VG-33


----------



## Vincenzo (Jun 13, 2009)

we need know the power setting of test, 610 km/h for a clean G-2 it's very slow


----------



## Juha (Jun 13, 2009)

Thanks a lot VG-33!
And You gave as extras info on Spitfire F.Mk IX, Mustang Mk I?, not sure on that but I know they got at least 4 of those in 1942, P-39, do you know the subtype D-2, N or Q?, and Fw 190A-4. Excellent.
Very much appreciated.

Thankfully
Juha


----------



## Juha (Jun 13, 2009)

Hello Vincenzo
notice that the height was 5km, at 5km in FAF test MT-215 max speed was 600km/h TAS, 1,30 ata fixed tailwheel.

Juha


----------



## VG-33 (Jun 13, 2009)

Juha said:


> Thanks a lot VG-33!
> And You gave as extras info on Spitfire F.Mk IX, Mustang Mk I?


Performance curves? Yes but you have to wait a little, i don't have them with me...



> , not sure on that but I know they got at least 4 of those in 1942,


And some P-51D tests from Mark Gallaî memories during Shuttle raids.



> P-39, do you know the subtype D-2, N or Q?,


19s: Probably a P-39D, with Allison V-1710-35 engine, or some P-39Q with soviet fuel. The D-2 used a more powerfull 1325/1520 WEP HP V-1710-63 wich in turn explain it's very good turning results. The Q a 1200/1420 HP V-1710-83 one. First P-39Q (5-10) were lighter than the latter ones (20-25).

Read Golodnikov at airforce.ru. It's very good since he's very representative for the great majority of the soviet fighter pilots.

Best Regards


----------



## Juha (Jun 13, 2009)

Hello VG-33
Quote:” Performance curves? Yes but you have to wait a little, i don't have them with me...”

I only thanked You for the extra info, gave is past tense, I’m very glad for the extra info, because while I don’t speak Russia I know some of Cyril alphabets, so I recognised the a/c types. So I only tried clarify the exact subtypes of some of the types mentioned in the Russian part of Your message. Not that I would say no to the performance curves, extra info is always welcomed.

Yes, airforce.ru is very interesting site, thanks for reminding me on it, it was a year ago when I visited it last time.

Juha


----------



## Vincenzo (Jun 13, 2009)

Juha said:


> Hello Vincenzo
> notice that the height was 5km, at 5km in FAF test MT-215 max speed was 600km/h TAS, 1,30 ata fixed tailwheel.
> 
> Juha



true i've loss the 5 km but german test give 622 km/h (original tailwheel), and in '44 you can use 1.42 ata.
i read something some trouble on finnish test they haven't the "state of art" (at time) instrumentations


----------



## Juha (Jun 13, 2009)

In matter of fact we had state of the art instrumentation developed here, we sold them after the war to Sweden and to Switzerland. But MT-215 didn't has it installed because FAF couldn't spare one for purely tests, So it belonged to a frontline unit during the tests and stayed at Malmi airport and flew combat sorties between the tests.
But the speed test should be OK, there was a bit more doubt on climb tests, at least that is what is written in testreport.

Juha


----------



## claidemore (Jun 14, 2009)

Juha, VG-33, you guys bring up some of the most interesting information. Thanks a bunch guys. 

Claidemore


----------



## VG-33 (Jun 14, 2009)

claidemore said:


> Juha, VG-33, you guys bring up some of the most interesting information. Thanks a bunch guys.
> 
> Claidemore



Thank you, but i have maid a mistake, max speed for the P-40E was 574 km/h. 577 is the value for the P-39D, so the 360°/19s turn rate.

Link:

http://base13.glasnet.ru/text/p39bakur/p39.htm

Regards


----------



## Juha (Jun 14, 2009)

Hello VG-33
No problem, I noticed the error when I looked the Russian part of Your message, thanks again for the very interesting info in it!
And thanks for the link, I'm not going to read the main text, but the specifications part of the page I might be able to translate and compare it to US info I have.

Thanks again
Juha


----------



## VG-33 (Jun 14, 2009)

*The* soviet opinion:

Боевой опыт заставил фирму Кертисс срочно искать пути модернизации самолета. _К тому времени стало ясно, что Уорхок уступает Мессершмитту по всем параметрам, кроме времени выполнения виража у земли 18 с против 22-23 с у Ме-109G. _

By this time, it became obvious that Warhawk was overclassed by Messerschmitt in all aspects, exept on time of turn at sea level: 18s against 22-23 for a Me-109G.

V. Rigmant, P-40, MK 1977. (Rigmant is a famous Tupolev KB engeneer, charged with Saukke of the "Bear" program.)

Regards


----------



## wwii:)aircraft (Dec 11, 2010)

Dont get me wrong in saying that the bf 109 wasn't the superior aircraft but there were many big factors that to some extend made the bf 109 inferior. 

First off, its true that in almost every situation the bf 109 could outclimb, out run, and out turn the P-40. But the P-40 was actually impressively rugged and had the 6x.50cals (which can reck a bf 109) and quite the dive.

I will agree in saying that the P-40 was no fighter pilot's dream but at high speeds it actually handled pretty well and didn't suffer from stiffness like the Bf 109. 
That with a acceptable landing gear, good amount of ammunition and with the Allies having more than enough numbers to push back the Germans, I would say it wasn't too bad to be a P-40 pilot.


----------



## riacrato (Dec 11, 2010)

The reality was that they were replaced wherever possible when they had to face the Bf 109. Be that Western or Eastern front. That speaks volumes.


----------



## wwii:)aircraft (Dec 11, 2010)

True, but that still doesn't prove that my point is wrong. All im saying is that the Messerschmitt didn't completely dominate over the P-40. In some cases i would have actually chosen the p-40E or F over the bf 109F


----------



## HealzDevo (Dec 14, 2010)

Yes, but what impact would a cannon have had on the P-40? Because we are talking about 6x50 cal versus a cannon. Also you haven't exactly mentioned which Mark of Bf-109 you are pitting up against which P-40 Warhawk. It would be like pitting an Apache which was the P-51's first incarnation against a Bf-109 of any mark and expecting it to survive well. It would take a miracle for the P-40 to survive. The P-40 was mainly used I thought as a bomber buster. Fighter when necessary but very reluctantly...


----------



## billswagger (Dec 14, 2010)

There is various data to suggest that the P-40 was not as markedly inferior to the 109 as previously supposed. 
The 109s main advantage would be climb and high altitude performance. 
There is also some information that Luftwaffe kill claims of P-40 was highly exaggerated. 
In looking at P-40 pilot kill claims we also see that P-40s often scored quite frequently against the 109. 
A side by side comparison is probably more revealing than the stats, because combat usually takes place where either plane is in a favorable position. 
For example, its a no brainer to say the P-40 was out performed at 25,000ft, but statistically those combats appear to have been very rare.


----------



## P-40K-5 (Dec 14, 2010)

billswagger said:


> There is various data to suggest that the P-40 was not as markedly inferior to the 109 as previously supposed.
> The 109s main advantage would be climb and high altitude performance.
> There is also some information that Luftwaffe kill claims of P-40 was highly exaggerated.
> In looking at P-40 pilot kill claims we also see that P-40s often scored quite frequently against the 109.
> ...



great answer. if you dig deeper yet, no matter what enemy aircraft the P-40 met, it always came out with the better record. ie: kil ratio. the russians used the P-40 on the eastern front with great sucsess. the MTO was also a great sucsess for the P-40. overall had a much better record over its nemisis the Bf 109F/G. in the Pacific it proved the Jap planes can be defeated, with great sucsess. even in a dogfight. KI-27/ Oscars/ Zeros all fell to her guns. in the early part of the war in western europe, to much aaa and flak guns. not to many planes would survive flying below 15000ft.

anyways I didn't vote. becouse there was no "equal" option. but in my opinion, the P-40 had a slight edge over the Bf 109.

~ Greg M.


----------



## renrich (Dec 14, 2010)

I doubt seriously if the P40 came out on the long end against the A6M. The major handicap of the P40 was it's slow climb. It was heavy and underpowered. Please don't quote stuff about the AVG because the AVG probably never faced a Zero. At best, the P40 was a barely adequate fighter early in WW2.


----------



## P-40K-5 (Dec 14, 2010)

renrich said:


> I doubt seriously if the P40 came out on the long end against the A6M.


you bet the came out on top of the AM6



renrich said:


> Please don't quote stuff about the AVG because the AVG probably never faced a Zero. At best, the P40 was a barely adequate fighter early in WW2.



you'd be right. but they did face the Oscar and handed them there asses.. how was the oscar compared to
the A6M???


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 14, 2010)

The problem with the P-40 vs 109 match up is that while the P-40 might be able to hold it's own it is only at a certain altitude band, low. At medium altitude things get worse for the P-40 and at 20,000ft and above the P-40 is nearly useless against a 109. 
If you can arrange combat so that ALL the fighting is done at low altitude then the P-40 looks pretty good. If you can't arrange that and were depending on the P-40 as the only fighter in the area to use against 109s then you are in trouble. 

P-40s did OK in North Africa but had either Spitfires or P-38s flying top cover for them.


----------



## T Bolt (Dec 14, 2010)

My understanding was that the P-40 did Ok against the Zero as long as it didn't try to turn with it in a dog fight. By making fast passes and disengaging, then reengaging with another fast pass it was able to hold it's own or maybe do a little better. Its armor plate also helped compared to how easily the Zero burned.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 14, 2010)

P-40K-5 said:


> how was the oscar compared to
> the A6M???



If flown by the right pilot and within its element it could be just as dangerous. It was actually more maneuverable than the Zero and was able to out excelerate almost any fighter it came against when attempted to dogfight with it at lower airspeeds.


----------



## billswagger (Dec 15, 2010)

When comparing the A6M to the Spitfire and P-40, it would appear the P-40 had advantages in speed, particularly in dive. This allowed it to engage or disengage at will, where although the Spitfire was a better low speed turner, it still could not out turn an A6m. The Spitfire was more beneficial in the vertical having superior climb as well as high altitude performance making a better interceptor. 
It was this lack of speed that made the P-40 favorable to the Spitfire however a Spitfire was less likely to be on the bottom end of a bounce because of its superior climb and altitude performance.

Given that the 109 was also a bit faster than the P-40 it also had the option to disengage or engage at will, although it could be argued that at given altitudes the difference in level speed was so marginal that it could be compensated by a shallow dive. 
The reality was that usually the 109 had a height advantage to bounce from, but P-40 pilots repeatedly mention how easy it was to avoid a bounce in the horizontal so long as they saw the attacker first.


----------



## riacrato (Dec 15, 2010)

P-40 in Soviets hands (or Africa for that matter) with positive K/D ratio against Bf 109s? I'd like to see a source for that.

And I have never, ever heard of any pilot favouring the P-40 over the Spitfire.

As to "kills scored against the Bf 109": So did the I-16, I-153, Hurricane... all pplanes which were in the bigger picture still overall inferior to the Bf 109 as a fighter.


----------



## Jerry W. Loper (Dec 15, 2010)

P-40K-5 said:


> you bet the came out on top of the AM6
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Both Japanese fighters were lightly built and fragile compared to the P-40, but more maneuverable. In direct comparison, the Oscar was even more agile than the Zero, but a bit slower, shorter ranged (half the range of the Zero) and more lightly armed. Early Oscars were armed with just two machine guns (2 x 7.7-mm., 1 x 7.7-mm. and 1 x 12.7-mm., or 2 x 12.7-mm.), while Zeros were armed with two machine guns plus two 20-mm. cannon.


----------



## billswagger (Dec 15, 2010)

> And I have never, ever heard of any pilot favouring the P-40 over the Spitfire.



They are two fighters of different qualities and only the early P-40Bs were said to be comparable to Spitfires. The P-40E was much heavier and made the Spitfire a much more favorable fighter overall. 
I still found it surprising to know that the P-40 was the faster of the two up to about 15,000ft. 
The P-40 was put to better use because of its tougher structure, namely the landing gear, which allowed it to land and take off from less than suitable airfields where the Spitfire might require a more pristine surfaces.
The P-40 also had more favorable dive characteristics aside from also being faster, but if you think from a dive bomber roll, the P-40 was better suited for that roll. 
The 109 was said to be more stable than either fighter in the dive, maybe even too stable given that all three axis points were said to stiffen in the dive. 
Despite this, generally the 109 went where it was pointed with less frequent changes in trim which would also be a more desirable trait, however changing direction to follow a maneuvering fighter was said to be a problem at high speed.


----------



## Nikademus (Dec 15, 2010)

renrich said:


> I doubt seriously if the P40 came out on the long end against the A6M. The major handicap of the P40 was it's slow climb. It was heavy and underpowered. Please don't quote stuff about the AVG because the AVG probably never faced a Zero. At best, the P40 was a barely adequate fighter early in WW2.



Not during the SRA fighting and not initially over New Guniea. AVG did outscore against the 64th Sentai flying Ki-43, but not by a huge margin. The tactics used had much to do with it, particularily the ambush tactics employed. On the same token, the Ki-27 initially held it's own against the P-40 but i doubt anyone will consider the former to be a technical match for the latter.


----------



## renrich (Dec 15, 2010)

It is all well and good to say that the P40 kicked whatever against Japanese fighters but it is my impression, in reading Shore's books, that the P40 was not that successful against Japanese Army fighters which it was mainly confronted with in the southwest Pacific and in the CBI. The P40 was roughly contemporaneous with the F4F and the F4F when well flown was about equal to the A6M except for climb and range. I don't have the complete figures for the P40, in the Pacific, as I do for the F4F but the F4F had more than 1400 kills in the Pacific whereas the P40 had 661. The F4F was a better climber than the P40 and was better at the higher altitudes. My impression is that the P40 was a decent fighter at lower altitudes against both the Zeke and the BF109 but at higher altitudes was at a disadvantage against both. Of course good tactics could make up for some of the poor characteristics of the P40 although kills are not usually made by diving away from the fight.


----------



## Nikademus (Dec 16, 2010)

Pulling from Shores, my estimates ran as follows for the CBI/SRA

vs. A6M - 4.1:1 in favor of A6M
vs. Ki-43 - 2.25:1 in favor of P40 (2:1 Danial Ford's book)
vs. Ki-27 - 1.6:1 in favor of P40 (2.4:1 Daniel Ford's book....(he covers a longer period than Shores so adds several kills at the tail end of the campaign. My impression too was that he tended to award claim disputes between the RAF and AVG to the AVG so their numbers went up while RAF confirmed kills went down))

The bulk of the CBI fighting between the JAAF and the AVG/RAF was against Ki-27. (non readers of the Shores and Ford may often be suprised by this factoid) A fun fact for the stat crowd is that by the end of Shore's first volume (covering phase one of the Burma fighting), the lowly Nate had given nearly as good as it got vs. the AVG in terms of losses (1.2:1 in favor of P40)
AVG and No.67 did well to be competetive during this dark time but the stories of wholesale slaughter of hapless japanese airmen are just that.....stories.

Gamble's recent book on Rabaul gave some good info on No.75 RAAF squadron's performance and made the purchase worth it for that alone. There's some wiggle room but the optimal estimate is a 3:1 ratio in favor of the A6M whilst a 2 month exchange May/June with P-39/400 was 2.5:1 in favor of the A6M


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 16, 2010)

Great post guys - the comments about the P-40 "handing the Japanese their asses" is based on folklore and left over propaganda. No one can refute the success of the AVG, but remember, they were also shooting down bombers and I think many times many folks don't realize that when the AVG's "Kills" are mentioned, quickly it is assumed it’s against fighters and for even the lesser informed, "Zeros."


----------



## cherry blossom (Dec 16, 2010)

I seem to remember reading that the first Bf 109G captured by the British in late 1942 (Black 6) was flown against P-40s (probably by the Australian ace Bobby Gibbes) until he was ordered to stop because these simulated combats damaged the morale of the P-40 units.


----------



## Nikademus (Dec 16, 2010)

DAF happily received the Tomahawk (and the later Kittyhawk) when they arrived, it considered to be an improvement over the Hurricane which was beginning to suffer under 109 assault by that point. (initially, DAF exchanges were competetive...but over time the Hurr's began suffering more and more.) 

The Germans considered the "Curtiss" to be a dangerous opponent in a low alt dogfight and were most favorable in their commentary re: the Kittyhawk but in the latter case they still felt it was not quite the equal of their 109's. (per experten commentary documented by Shores in his Fighters over the Desert book)

estimated exchange rate Tomahawk/Kittyhawk re: 109 up to and including Alamein. 2.7:1 in favor of the 109. Spitfire envy certainly did not end with the arrival of the American lend lease fighters and there remains alot of hard feelings over the long delay in the plane's arrival in the Theater (which when it did immediately assumed top cover duties as did the Curtiss before it in relation to the Hurricane.

I found collaborating comments in Bergstrom's Black Cross/Red Star series regarding the P-40. That being an appreciation for the plane's horizontal capabilities vs. the "Messers" but inferiority in the veritical plane. Overall they considered it to be inferior to their Yak-1. The biggest thing they liked about the P40?....the radios. At the time Soviet fighter pilots only had receivers....squadron leaders only (or higher) having full radios.


----------



## Nikademus (Dec 16, 2010)

Of course, the 109 tends to get all the glory. The real threat was another Luftwaffe plane, mostly unknown....but highly dangerous. No P40 would dare take it on.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 16, 2010)

Nikademus said:


> Of course, the 109 tends to get all the glory. The real threat was another Luftwaffe plane, mostly unknown....but highly dangerous. No P40 would dare take it on.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 16, 2010)

Nikademus said:


> Of course, the 109 tends to get all the glory. The real threat was another Luftwaffe plane, mostly unknown....but highly dangerous. No P40 would dare take it on.



Fortunately the one and only prototype was destroyed by Jones..


----------



## Nikademus (Dec 16, 2010)

speaking of the Jones....they do currently hold a 2:0 kill ratio over the 109. Granted....they look like very crude early versions of the plane and some authors hedge on whether death by seagull counts as a legitimate kill.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 16, 2010)

Nikademus said:


> speaking of the Jones....they do currently hold a 2:0 kill ratio over the 109. Granted....they look like very crude early versions of the plane and some authors hedge on whether death by seagull counts as a legitimate kill.



I believe (IIRC) that the duly constituted Victory Credits Board reviewed Jones' claim and awarded him confirmation for one (1) u/i t/e aircraft Destroyed on the ground.  

When the USAF reconvened the VCB's for all theatres, ground scores were disallowed from official victory credits and Jones' score wafted into obscurity..


----------



## Sydhuey (Dec 16, 2010)

Was reading recently about the P-40 compared to other allied fighters and what a couple of US aces said about the P-40, I think it was Bob Dehaven(14 kills) and Joal B Paris (9 kills) who said the P-40N was more manuverable than the P-38 (both flew the P-38 after P-40's), had a faster roll rate than even the P-51 and the 5 spare wing ment it had no G limit and was almost indestructable (no wonder the Russians liked them) and was there choice of fighter below 10'000 ft


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 17, 2010)

Any details on which "N" they are referring to?

There was a considerably difference between some of the early "N"s and the later ones.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 17, 2010)

Sydhuey said:


> Was reading recently about the P-40 compared to other allied fighters and what a couple of US aces said about the P-40, I think it was Bob Dehaven(14 kills) and Joal B Paris (9 kills) who said the P-40N was more manuverable than the P-38 (both flew the P-38 after P-40's), had a faster roll rate than even the P-51 and the 5 spare wing ment it had no G limit and was almost indestructable (no wonder the Russians liked them) and was there choice of fighter below 10'000 ft



P-40 was one of the planes that was holding the line 'til the much better planes arrived. 
Now with that said, It's easy to pick a single category and say 'P-40 was better in this than P-XY', but it would be nice to say that in other 5 or 10 categories P-40 was worse. 
Hence they discontinued it in 1944.


----------



## VG-33 (Dec 17, 2010)

wwii:)aircraft said:


> Dont get me wrong in saying that the bf 109 wasn't the superior aircraft but there were many big factors that to some extend made the bf 109 inferior.
> 
> First off, its true that in almost every situation the bf 109 could outclimb, out run, and out turn the P-40. But the P-40 was actually impressively rugged and had the 6x.50cals (which can reck a bf 109) and quite the dive.
> 
> ...



Hello, I have some problems to undersand the logic of your post; _the almost every situation the bf 109 could outclimb, out run, and out turn the P-40._And so simply said,outfight it with ease but; 


> _All im saying is that the Messerschmitt didn't completely dominate over the P-40. In some cases i would have actually chosen the p-40E or F over the bf 109F_




What should we think? In what point then, the BF 109 should not dominate the P-40?

First about we know, the soviet trials prove that the P-40 E was making a full sustainted turn in 19.4 s and at 242 m radius so at v²/r = 25.9, and the Me -109 in 20.2 to 20.5 (depending on sources) and 290 and more radius in meters, so radial acceleration is deduced at 26.4 or 2.69*g *value.

As i previously wrote


> at 5km altitude P 40E is slower 574 km/h against 610 and 593 for Me 109G2 3guns, 5 guns respectivly
> at 5km P40E has worst acceleration 7700m/s in 60s against 8720, 8400.
> Time to turn at 1 km high 19,4 vs 20.5 , 22.6 is better for the P-40
> Turn radius 242 vs 290, 315 is far better for the P-40
> ...



So The P-40E was not outurned by the 109G in serial sustainted turn, unlike you said.

Secund, sometimes i wonder why i'm bothering to provide valuable data. If you don't understand, ask questions...

In other hand, soviet P-40 E in service was drasticly lightened (~3500 kg) and probably had a very smaller diving edge acceleration over the Bf-109 than it british and american brothers, smaller firepower and range too. That was the price to pay to stay competitive against a 109 in dogfights

But anyway and unlike you supposal, due to a better power to weight ratio providing a better initial acceleration for the 109, it was difficult for a P-40 pilot to escape from the german plane on the first dive moments, for this reason. Later, the weight was taking its rule, but not in initial and transitionnal figures. Moreover as you can see, the best ToT was obtained at a lower speed for the P-40 (280 km/h), than for the Bf-109 (330). So high speeds would take a while for the P-40 to be attained, and ever until any ToT/ Radius/ n.g acceleration graphic is provided, i'm not sure the P-40 was able to overturn the 109 in horizontal plan at higher speeds.

Finaly considering the Bf-109 bouncing from the top on the P-40, with acquired speed (energy), it gains higher available (but decreasing...) power in that transitionnal configuration, compared with that just available from the DB engine itself. So it could provide the 109 to fly at higher speed and higher AoA for the first turning circles, and consequently easily outurn during first circles the constant-speed turning P-40 at it's best turn rato, and defeat it !!! Until of course the 109's turning speed would decrease and take a constant value.

Actually, the situation was neither simple, nor easy for the P-40 on the ETO...

Regards


----------



## billswagger (Dec 17, 2010)

> i'm not sure the P-40 was able to overturn the 109 in horizontal plan at higher speeds.



Actually, it was at higher speeds where the P-40 proved to be more maneuverable even against more modern designs. 
It is less an argument for sustained performance, and rather that the airframe allowed for much harder and tighter turns at high speeds. 
The argument for turn gets a little foggy when it comes to speed and altitude because the P-40 is notably heavier where low speed dogfighting usually favors the lighter plane. 
The first P-40s to see combat were recognized as being more maneuverable and durable in turns, however because the 109s were faster it was rare for them to tangle with P-40s. It follows the same tactical pattern that we see where aircraft have different advantages. Rarely do we see a plane with superior speed and less capable turn offering to enter a turn fight with a slower plane with superior turn ability. 
You can look at earlier encounters where the P-36 encountered 109s and the tactical difference was much the same. 

The commonality that follows what most P-40 pilots experience in any theater was that they did not have the altitude performance to compete where it mattered, so often they found themselves on the bottom end of a bounce. 
It was generally the opinion, however, that most pilots felt the plane was very competitive and in a lot ways superior to axis aircraft at lower altitudes.


----------



## JoeB (Dec 17, 2010)

Nikademus said:


> Gamble's recent book on Rabaul gave some good info on No.75 RAAF squadron's performance and made the purchase worth it for that alone. There's some wiggle room but the optimal estimate is a 3:1 ratio in favor of the A6M ...


I expect to get Gamble’s book for Christmas , but on 75 Sdn at Moresby in Mar-April 1942, I previously compared Wilson “Seek and Strike” (history of 75 Sdn), with the original combat reports of 4th and Tainan Air Groups, the Zero units present. I checked Gamble’s sources on Google books and it seemed he used Wilson and Japanese Monograph 120, which is less detailed. The ratio you quoted from his book would seem to include Zero losses which were not to Kittyhawks. I found 2 Zeroes actually downed/crashlanded due to Kittyhawks in this period:
April 5: this report is actually missing, but several other sources agree PO2C Yoshie Takuro was KIA in combat with Kittyhawks this day
April 17: PO3C Goto Ryosuke*, forcelanded, WIA, after combat with K’hawks

Other Zero losses:
March 22: PO3C Kikuchi Keiji KIA, defensive fire of RAAF Hudsons
March 23: PO2C Yoshii Kyoichi KIA, AA, both sides’ accounts agree
April 7: PO2C Tan Yukihisa KIA, defensive fire of USAAF A-24’s
April 17: PO2C Sakai Yoshimi, ‘suicide crash’ in the combat report, but a Japanese first hand account says he dropped from formation and crashed into a mountainside of the Owen Stanley’s on the way *to* Moresby, perhaps oxygen system failure.
April 28: PO3C Maeda Yoshimitsu hit a tree on a strafing pass near Moresby, crashlanded, POW (per Allied accounts), a strange incident since Maeda took off on an interception of Hudsons over Lae, was simply missing from Japanese perspective.
April 28: (then) PO2C Nishizawa Hiroyoshi (eventually the leading JNAF ace) ditched on return from a cover flight for bombers, but it reported no contact with allied a/c.

75 Sdn lost, per individual accounts in Wilson, 16 Kittyhawks to Zeroes, though one of those losses, April 17, has no corresponding Japanese claim. So it was more like 8:1 in favor of the Zeroes in that first deployment, though the Kitthawks did also shoot up some Zeroes on the ground at Lae.

The RAAF Kittyhawks did better however in the few engagements in August 1942 while based at Milne Bay:
Aug 11: PO3C Yonekawa Shokichi ditched, WIA, 75 and 76 sdn lost 2 Kittyhawks and pilots each; 75 Sdn claimed 2 Zeroes, AA claimed 3 and 3 probable.
Aug 23: a/c of PO2C Yamazaki Ichirobei heavily damaged, counted as ‘expended’, Wilson does not give any claim by Kittyhawks though 1 was engaged.
Aug 27: Lt. Yamashita Joji, PO1C Yamashita Sadao, PO2C Kakimoto Enji, and Sea1C Ninomiya Kihachi all missing. Allied accounts make clear that Kakimoto (POW) was downed by AA, the other three probably by Kittyhawks though one might possibly have been to B-26’s. One Kittyhawk was lost.
So probably 4 or 5 Zeroes downed v 5 Kittyhawks in this period. Or, it would come out ~3:1 in favor of Zero if you count both the earlier and later deployments together.

*note: most of these names appear somewhere or other in English language sources with these transliterations, but a few don’t, and in those cases I’m using what I think is the most likely pronunciation; even native Japanese speakers can’t tell always tell a name’s pronunciation for sure just from seeing it written in Chinese characters, as in these reports.

Joe


----------



## VG-33 (Dec 19, 2010)

Hello Bill



> Actually, it was at higher speeds where the P-40 proved to be more maneuverable even against more modern designs.



I’m asking no better to trust you, Bill. But it should take curvature vs speed tables or abaccus for both planes to convince everyone.



> It is less an argument for sustained performance, and rather that the airframe allowed for much harder and tighter turns at high speeds.



Actually it seems that Messerschmitt airframe was stressed to withstand about 7.3 g in positive. It’s 1.5 g more than its pilots. Anyway concerning human limits (loose of conscience) it’s useless to stress the aircraft more than +6, -3G. Of course if you have some docs proving that Herr Professor Willy totally missed in fulfilling that technical request, it would be with pleasure...



> The argument for turn gets a little foggy when it comes to speed and altitude because the P-40 is notably heavier where low speed dogfighting usually favors the lighter plane.



No; this is *completly false* since the *climb and turn ability * are *completly independent *of the whole plane’s *weight*, but mainly on it’s *wing loading *and *power loading *parameters. More precisely it’s a matter of *power request *to *power available *curves that itselves are depending on previous parameters i have just quoted.
For instance a Yak-1 with 2780 kg (162 kg/m²) with a 1100 hp Klimov (2.52 kg/hp), is a worse turner (20-21s) than a La -5 F (18-19s) at 3380 kg (192 kg/m²) but with 1850 hp engine (1.82 kg/hp all the same...) even if the Lavotchkin is 600 kg heavier !!!. Note; i have never noticed, they were turning their best time o.T. at same speed, bank angle and radius, each one having it’s own flight caracteristics. In two worlds; due to it's high wing loading the La-5F had a high power need (or so called power request) , much higher than the Yak-1's one for climbing or turning tight, but had (a lot of...) the power (available) for that. Remarks; improved Yak-1 with an 1180 hp 105 PF klimov engine tured the tables again in it's favor (it had improved aerdynamics too, that plays it part too, better Cl/Cd are reducing power request values... ) with 17-18s.




> The first P-40s to see combat were recognized as being more maneuverable and durable in turns, however because the 109s were faster it was rare for them to tangle with P-40s. It follows the same tactical pattern that we see where aircraft have different advantages. Rarely do we see a plane with superior speed and less capable turn offering to enter a turn fight with a slower plane with superior turn ability.



Ok, being the 109’s pilot i would also use the strong sides of my plane...



> You can look at earlier encounters where the P-36 encountered 109s and the tactical difference was much the same.
> The commonality that follows what most P-40 pilots experience in any theater was that they did not have the altitude performance to compete where it mattered, so often they found themselves on the bottom end of a bounce.
> It was generally the opinion, however, that most pilots felt the plane was very competitive and in a lot ways superior to axis aircraft at lower altitudes.



Well Bill. Honesltly considering both 109 G-2 parameters 3023 kg and 1250 hp, it makes 187 kg/m² and 2.42 hp/kg . Taking now the soviet P-40 E, 1150 hp and 3840 kg it makes 175 kg/m² and deplorable weight to power ratio 3.34 hp/kg, there is absolutly no reason for the P-40E to outurn the 109G-2.
So Kurfurst and Soren had perfectly the right to consider that figure as aberrant from flight mecanics rules.
But considering that (from LII test reports) that the Curtiss used the 5 min WEP (1325 hp?) during trials and was certainly flying at 3500-3600 kg rather than 3840 (not mentionned), makes the think at least possible (162 kg/m²) and (2.67 kg/m²). 
And even with that all by analogy with other planes, we still have to prove that the “X-hawk” had an exceptionnal prop output around 280 km/h (and not the 109!) and astonishing wing lift.

I’m fed up with urban legends of blond reich knights asskiking hundreds of reds, froggies, yankees and roastbeefs, and did all i could for the P-40. It had an agressive look and glamourous sharkmouths, impressive firepower, sure. Was certainly not as bad as Kurfurst, Soren and others wanted to. But there is a limit , the plane was oversized and so overweighted for it’s engine. During turns and immelmans it was loosing speed, with no way to recover it. 

F = M “gamma” There is unfortunatly no miracles in the world of physics... Moreover i take the advantage of posting to kill another urban legend. Neither P-40, nor P-39 were unfortunately *low atitude fighers*. Never. Only mid-altitude fighters cause one speed blower. Soviet fighters were (low altitude), but had mid *and low *altitude blowers for that.

Regards


----------



## Nikademus (Dec 19, 2010)

JoeB said:


> I expect to get Gamble’s book for Christmas , Joe



If you've done a prior study on 75 sqdn, you'll probably be a little disapointed with Gamble. He doesn't attempt to do a full 'tic-tac' accounting of all plane losses ala Shores or Lundstrum and there are some frustratingly vague aspects combined with specific battle accountings. He also has a habit of jumping around the dateline when starting a new chapter that covers a different aspect and/or geographical area of the campaign which is jarring. His summaries are good though and help give a clue as to what was lost overall. Still....there's some "wiggle" room as mentioned where the reader is left to make educated guesses. 

For March 1942 he accounts for 75 as follows:

12 losses (+6 operational losses in Australia prior to flying to PM)
-3 x op
-2 x ground
-2 to A6M (text hints 3 or more)
-5 ? (most probably to A2A - A6M)

grand total 18 out of 24 Kittyhawks... Gamble lists 5 serviceable Kittyhawks and 2 u/s' at the time of his summary. 3/30/42 (which would equal 25 Kittyhawks but the service crews did repair several planes during the time period)

A6M losses are listed for the same period as 17 x A6M (5 to A2A) and 6 x G4m

from the text, partial accounting of the losses suggests:

9 x ground (not confirmed)
1 to AA
5 to A2A
2 ? (op?)


of the 5 shot down A6M's one definitely appears to be from a Hudson while the other 4 are most likely to 75 squadron Kittyhawks. Taken at worst case it suggests 4 A6M to 2 Kittyhawks but the 5 lost Kitty's are most likely A2A since Gamble does a good job accounting for accidents and crashes as he documents the various daily missions. Optimal exchange estimate for the Japanese 4 losses in exchange for 7 Oz pilots (and would match the later month exchanges)

Gamble summaries that by end of April 22 x Kittyhawks were lost to all causes. I'm assuming he means total losses and is not counting repaired planes put back into service.

From the text i counted,


9 x Kittyhawk to A6M (a bomber might share partial credit for one)
3 x Kittyhawk (op)
1 x A6M to Kittyhawk
5 x A6M ground

Optimal Japanese score estimate 16 x Kittyhawks in exchange for 5 x A6M (3.1:1)


Overall Gamble doesn't really reveal anything genuinely new that hasn't been covered before in past works (like Bergerud's Fire in the Sky) with the exception (for me anyway) of No.75 and 8thFG's exploits in better detail but does offer more insights into certain aspects of the campaign covered more generally by broader works....... such as the relationships between Kenney and his subordinates and fellow leaders, the development of skip bombing and the arguments waged over it's viability and the nightmare serviceability issues that plagued the USAAF throughout 1942. As a reviewer commented online....biggest criticism is that he devotes a very small portion of the book to 1943 so there's not allot of detail regarding the Cartwheel air raids. Milne bay coverage of air skirmishes also appears to be lacking on review so you'll be disapointed there i'm afraid.


----------



## bobbysocks (Dec 19, 2010)

heres a whole page of stories from raaf, etc who flew 40s against germans and japs. might give you some insight. the other page i was looking for talked how the 40s were mainly used for low level bombing in the MTO and elsewhere. if i find that i will post..

RAAF 3 Squadron Stories


----------



## JoeB (Dec 19, 2010)

Nikademus said:


> If you've done a prior study on 75 sqdn, you'll probably be a little disapointed with Gamble.


But I have a low threshold for adding books to my collection  and I'm sure I'll pick up something new somewhere in the book. 

As far as Kittyhawk losses in March-April, those have been in other sources, not only Wilson's book which Gamble used, but "Winged Samurai" by Henry Sakaida actually reproduces a summary page from 75 Sdn's records (on p.50) with basically the same info: 8 destroyed in air combat, 4 missing, 5 'crashed on takeoff or landing following damage sustained in combat', total 17. Again, comparing to the Japanese combat reports (re: what happened to missing a/c) it would seem to be at least 15 losses to Zeroes. The Japanese bombers also made claims in a number of the engagements per the bomber groups' missions reports but their claim accuracy rate like that of Allied bombers was extremely low.

There's also some info on Japanese losses in Wilson's book which might make its way to Gamble's. Wilson used the files at US National Archives of decoded Japanese radio traffic, which seldom AFAIK outright disagree with the written Japanese mission reports, but is less detailed and not every message was intercepted and decoded, so Wilson gives this perspective for only some incidents. But I think the mission reports are pretty clear and almost entirely complete in this period, and I looked at them all, so I'd be curious what the Zero air combat losses would be past the 2 I specifically mentioned. I have to guess it's somebody's inference from less detailed info somewhere along the chain (note that the Japanese Monographs, of which Gamble also lists No. 120 as source, were written by Japanese officers postwar w/o reference to written records seized by the US, even where they existed. In some cases, for example JAAF losses in the Philippines in 1941-42, those recollections and other first hand accounts are all we'll ever have, but in this example the almost complete records did exist and once they could be accessed, when returned by US to Japan in mid 1950's and much more recently when the National Institute of Defense Studies in Japan put them online, something other countries *really* should also do, they definitively supercede contradictory recollections in the monographs IMO).

Joe


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 19, 2010)

VG-33 said:


> Actually it seems that Messerschmitt airframe was stressed to withstand about 7.3 g in positive. It’s 1.5 g more than its pilots. Anyway concerning human limits (loose of conscience) it’s useless to stress the aircraft more than +6, -3G. Of course if you have some docs proving that Herr Professor Willy totally missed in fulfilling that technical request, it would be with pleasure...



It is always handy to have few extra "G"s in hand in the structure of the aircraft because it is quite possible for the pilot to withstand more "G"s than the airplane's "normal" G rating for a short period of time. Wither the aircraft can withstand it is another question. 
The NACA put recording accelerometers into a few pylon racers in 1934-35 and found that the "G" loadings varied enormously during a 10 sec 180 degree turn. This was in practice with no other racers nearby let alone combat with people shooting. Nobody could hold a turn at a constant "G" load.
One trace showed the following "G" loads at 1 second intervals. 

5.2, 3.5, 5.2, 6.2, 3.9, -0.3, 4.3, -0.4, 3.0

Please note that at two recorded times the plane was actually in negative "G" and was turning out of the turn. At a nominal 5 "G" turn at an entry speed of 250mph these racers would slow by about 40mph and the theoretical radius would tighten from 840ft to 600ft. The planes need constant adjustment of the elevators to control the "G" of the turn and this leads to the variations/swings in the "G" loading. 
From the ground observers thought the turns looked smooth and well executed.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 19, 2010)

VG-33 - you think you're slick - now you're gone for good.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 20, 2010)

Does he think we are stupid?


----------



## billswagger (Dec 20, 2010)

VG-33 said:


> I’m asking no better to trust you, Bill. But it should take curvature vs speed tables or abaccus for both planes to convince everyone.


Indeed it should, but in my experience with researching hard data, in order to make direct comparisons it would assume similar instrumentation which as you know rarely is ever exactly the same for two different aircraft. 
German instrumentation has at times been found to be optimistic particularly at high speeds. 
More to comment of differences in speed later. 




> Actually it seems that Messerschmitt airframe was stressed to withstand about 7.3 g in positive. It’s 1.5 g more than its pilots. Anyway concerning human limits (loose of conscience) it’s useless to stress the aircraft more than +6, -3G. Of course if you have some docs proving that Herr Professor Willy totally missed in fulfilling that technical request, it would be with pleasure...



Good point, but G load on the airframe is an important consideration beyond what's exerted on the pilot because its well documented that humans can withstand upwards of 9-12 (vertical) Gs if for only brief moments. 
It is sustained G loads that can black out the pilot at much lower Gs. 


> Messerschmitt airframe was stressed to withstand about 7.3 g in positive


I was looking for figures on the 109 as well as the spitfire many months ago. 
What i found for the P-40 was with a full load it had a limit of 7.5 Gs, and up 8.5Gs with out a drop tank. No combat limits were listed. 
In other reading its been mentioned that the P-40 could exceed 9 Gs in hard sudden turn with no adverse affects to the airframe, but these are estimates gained on G meters in the early 1940s. 

The other consideration for turn is stick force which is often what i've found where the bigger difference in high speed turn is. Every plane experiences stick force at high speeds, but the difference is the duration and consistency of the stick force through the turn or pull out. 
An example of a P-40 in a steep pull out @ 400mph was met with about 80lbs force at 4-5Gs of pull out. 80lbs sounds like a lot until you see that its actually the peak weight in a spike that occurs for about a tenth of a second. 
So deflection with a brief moment of stick force as the plane changes its trajectory. 
The actual study was about a tail plane design used to lighten stick force (XP-42 vs P-40), however it was also commented that stick force was a better indicator for G loads and that an absence of stick force made it difficult to gauge acceleration limits of the plane. 




> Well Bill. Honesltly considering both 109 G-2 parameters 3023 kg and 1250 hp, it makes 187 kg/m² and 2.42 hp/kg . Taking now the soviet P-40 E, 1150 hp and 3840 kg it makes 175 kg/m² and deplorable weight to power ratio 3.34 hp/kg, there is absolutly no reason for the P-40E to outurn the 109G-2.


Its a matter of speed and altitude, as i said. The sustained turn performance of the 109 would prove to be superior from a strictly mathematical perspective, but the P-40 had a better instantaneous turn at higher speeds. 
It rolled and dove better which allowed for the Thatch weave tactic to be utilized in air battles. 
The superior maneuverability of the P-40 over the 109 is reiterated in articles in MTO, as well as in Russian accounts. 
Even to the extent where Germans used Emils in an attempt to gain a turn advantage against their Russian adversaries but they were found to be much to slow for a turn advantage to matter. 

I also have a problem comparing simple horsepower to weight when propeller efficiency and reduction gearing can also be significant to actual thrust efficiency. The horsepower is a better indicator for performance at altitude where its well known the 109 was favored because of its lighter weight and better supercharging. 

Furthermore, its well documented that the figure of 1150hp is lower than the actual power achieved by the F3R engines in the field. The main issue was altitude performance where the critical height at 60" was a mere 12,000ft, however it was capable of producing above 1500hp up to those heights. 
The Allison was also capable of producing 1800+ HP at 3200RPM under 3000ft. 
There is much more to the comparison than what the 1150hp suggests. 



> But there is a limit , the plane was oversized and so overweighted for it’s engine. During turns and immelmans it was loosing speed, with no way to recover it.


Disagree, for the reason described above. Your assessment might be more agreeable above critical heights for the P-40. Note: The P-40 engine still shoveled out 1000hp at 20,000ft. 




> Moreover i take the advantage of posting to kill another urban legend. Neither P-40, nor P-39 were unfortunately low atitude fighters.


The P-40 was better suited for lower altitudes, thats where its peak performance was found to be. Afterall, when surveyed, the Japanese said the P-40 was their most difficult adversary of WW2 at lower altitudes. 

Its not so one sided when comparing 109s and P-40s although some squadrons had significant success against the 109s using P-40s. 
I can't completely discount the 109, however German tactics would suggest its strengths against the P-40 were more in the vertical than in the horizontal. 
P-40 pilots said Germans rarely engaged with them from an even altitude and usually climbed away only to come back a few minutes later with thousands more feet in height advantage. It was then easier for the 109 to use vertical dives into zoom climbs where the P-40 had no chance of competeing with out dragging the 109 to lower heights. 
With out the height advantage to dive from, the speed margin between these two aircraft was probably much closer, though above critical heights, as mentioned, the P-40 would not compete as well as the 109. 


my two cents, anyways. 

Bill


----------



## davparlr (Dec 20, 2010)

I read a few of those Aussie logs, which are interesting, some with photos, and it seems they quite liked the P-40. Some liked the Tomahawk over the Kittyhawk. They did not seem to hesitate attacking Bf-109Fs although they considered it a formidable adversary. They also were successful in combat with them, at least a far as I could tell.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 21, 2010)

Sydhuey said:


> Was reading recently about the P-40 compared to other allied fighters and what a couple of US aces said about the P-40, I think it was Bob Dehaven(14 kills) and Joal B Paris (9 kills) who said the P-40N was more manuverable than the P-38 (both flew the P-38 after P-40's), had a faster roll rate than even the P-51 and the 5 spare wing ment it had no G limit and was almost indestructable (no wonder the Russians liked them) and was there choice of fighter below 10'000 ft



Why did it 'have no load limit'?? It seems difficult to believe that the N was even superior to the D/E as it weighed more. 

Redesign wing to make it stronger is a 'good' be a thing structurally speaking - but unless you perform a detailed study of the Rest of the airframe to determine if those components can withstand greater than the original design loads at the original gross weight - then you may lose your tail to a high speed slow roll long before you rip it off in a corner speed pull out..


----------



## wwii:)aircraft (Dec 25, 2010)

This post has mostly focus itself with the comparison between the Bf 109f vs P-40E. But what about the comparison of later variants such as the Bf 109G-6 vs the P-40N seeing that in some ways the Bf 109G has become worse than the F and the P-40N being argued as the best overall P-40 variant. Not only that but both of these variants were the most produced of each aircraft.

Even though the G-6 introduces a stronger armament, is more versatile, and is installed with the much more powerful DB 605A-1 engine, the G-6 has also become much heavier and much less aerodynamic decreasing its climbing performance, agility, and handling.

As the P-40N its almost the opposite case. The N introduces a new lightweight structure as well as several other modifications resulting in a decrease in weight therefore, improving its climb and maneuverability. On top of that the N uses the same engine as the M, the V-1710-81 making it the fastest P-40 variant (the Q not being included).

Based off of this I think the P-40N is overall more superior to the G-6 in the one vs. one situation, but barely. The only true advantage the P-40 would have would be that it is more agile than the G-6 at high speeds (the Bf 109 becoming increasingly stiff at high speeds).

Things such as fighter-bomber capabilities and armaments being very subjective (except for when the G-6 carries a 30mm cannon).

If I were to choose it would be the G-6. Even though the N has better features such as a better canopy, more aerodynamic, better takeoffs and landings etc..., the G-6's armament is one of my favorites (2 13mm and a single 20mm all firing from and around the nose; some cases even a 30mm), I really like how well the G-6 can accelerate, and I like how the G-6 is more of a stable gun platform than previous variants especially when carrying the 2 20mm in the wings. Plus its versatility doesn't hurt either.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 26, 2010)

wwii:)aircraft said:


> This post has mostly focus itself with the comparison between the Bf 109f vs P-40E. But what about the comparison of later variants such as the Bf 109G-6 vs the P-40N seeing that in some ways the Bf 109G has become worse than the F and the P-40N being argued as the best overall P-40 variant. Not only that but both of these variants were the most produced of each aircraft.



True they were the mot produced but that also introduces the problem of which P40N or which 109G


wwii:)aircraft said:


> Even though the G-6 introduces a stronger armament, is more versatile, and is installed with the much more powerful DB 605A-1 engine, the G-6 has also become much heavier and much less aerodynamic decreasing its climbing performance, agility, and handling.



I think if you leave off the wing guns the G-6 didn't deteriorate that badly. A bit over the earlier "G"s but they were a bit down hill from the "F"s



wwii:)aircraft said:


> As the P-40N its almost the opposite case. The N introduces a new lightweight structure as well as several other modifications resulting in a decrease in weight therefore, improving its climb and maneuverability. On top of that the N uses the same engine as the M, the V-1710-81 making it the fastest P-40 variant (the Q not being included).



Here is the real problem, there wasn't much lightweight structure in a P-40N, aside from aluminum radiators, oil coolers and lighter landing gear(?) most of the weight reduction was in reduced capabilities. Like going from 6 guns to 4 and limiting the ammo to the remaining guns. Removal of one of the interior fuel tanks. Removal of the battery and electric starter on the engine. Removal of the wing bomb racks helped a bit with streamlining. Later versions of the P-40N added everything back in over several production blocks and late P-40Ns were allowed to carry 500lb under each wing in addition to under the fuselage. Once everything was put back in a P40N was only about 200lbs lighter than an M. 
there are a few discrepancies about speed also. The 378mph of the N-1 was done using combat or WER and while there is nothing wrong with that (most planes were measured that way) the later P-40Ns were the slowest P-40s ever built using military power ratings. The 378mph was achieved at 10,500ft with the speed falling off both above and below that altitude. WER power only is available at altitudes below the critical height of the engine and the closer to the critical height the closer the WER and military ratings become. once you are above 15,000ft or so the P-40 has 1150hp or less (diminishing with altitude) and with it's weight it is just not competitive with the 109. It is a much better bomber though


----------



## billswagger (Dec 26, 2010)

I read a pilot interview who had flown all the P-40s, E,F,K,M,and Ns.

He thought that the N was too light, in the sense that the parts sacrificed for weight actually made flying a little more tedious and in some ways less useful as a front line fighter. For example, the removal of the starter meant the aircraft had to be hand started, which prolonged take off procedure. 
It was said an E could already have taken off and flown to 10,000ft by the time the N was getting off the ground. 
He also favored the K and the F saying there was little difference in performance from what he could tell. He thought they were a good balance for power and weight and at that time, he'd rather be in a P-40 than flying in the heavier P-47s. 

As for G-6 comparisons to the P-40, you can find one on Kurfurst's site. 
I think its inflated the actual difference in weight between the 109F and G, but perhaps its more about weight distribution which can make a fighter "feel" heavier. The idea the G was a less capable climber is refuted by flight tests that show it took only about five minutes for it to climb to 20k ft. 
The P-40 had no chance in that capacity, but the comparison does show the P-40 had better dive and zoom characteristics than the G-6 tested. 
I doubt the P-40 matched the actual 109 in zoom climb but if it was able to gain more speed in the dive then the subsequent zoom climb could be higher.
I just have a hard time believing the P-40 out zoom climbed the 109 when there is such a difference in weight and climb performance. It might be true at lower heights.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 28, 2010)

Given a higher (nominal) wing loading and inferior power to weight ratio, the P-40 could only outzoom a 109 (briefly) with a higher diving speed and pull up. There are circumstances in which a light P-40 vs a max gross weight Me 109 would out perform the 109 in turn and zoom from a dive.

I would not believe that any version of a P-40 could out zoom a 109G (or F) for any reason except (briefly) the rare circumstance that the P-40 entered the engagement with greater energy.


----------



## Glider (Dec 28, 2010)

This may be of interest.

This excerpt from the book "Black 6":

Squadron Leader Bobby Gibbs, RAAF, at Gambut, Cyrenaica, test flew it: "He had taken to flying mock combat sorties against his unit's P-40 fighters and soon found that the obvious superiority of the German fighter was in danger of demoralizing his men!" In his diary, 14 November 1942, he wrote: "The 109 is a hell of a nice kite with terrific performance. On the lowest permissible boost and revs was clocking 220-230 mph." At Lydda, it under went flight testing by Group Captain Buxton, who said after a second flight, 30 December 1942: "Very good performer," and from Don Batger, 452 Squadron on Buxton's fight: "He turned the 109 inside out and came back and said that it was better than anything we had at the time." (Spitfire Mk V variant).


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 28, 2010)

drgondog said:


> Given a higher (nominal) wing loading and inferior power to weight ratio, the P-40 could only outzoom a 109 (briefly) with a higher diving speed and pull up. *There are circumstances in which a light P-40 vs a max gross weight Me 109 would out perform the 109 in turn and zoom from a dive.
> 
> I would not believe that any version of a P-40 could out zoom a 109G (or F) for any reason except (briefly) the rare circumstance that the P-40 entered the engagement with greater energy*.



I think this totally sums up this debate and those pilots who flew the P-40 successfully aganinst the -109 used this situaltion to their advantage.


----------



## Kryten (Dec 29, 2010)

I have read this thread with interest, and one thought keeps cropping up when combat reports stating who turned tighter than whom are quoted.

If your attacking an enemy aircraft you must be faster than it otherwise you dont get in range, surely the real issue here is if a 109 attacks a P40 it is travelling faster , therefore its turn radius will be greater and the P40 could evade by breaking left or right, but this scenario would then be true if the P40 was the attacker?

the only realistic way to compare the two would be side by side on the same day and same conditions at varying speeds and altitudes?

another quote which made me raise an eyebrow was the "with experienced pilots real maneuvering only started when the slats deployed" 
as i understand it the leading edge slat deployed as a function of airspeed to increase the lift of the wing a low speed, if your slats are deployed surely this means your down to zero energy and are in a world of trouble unless the old fighter pilot axim of "speed is life" turns out to be untrue?
or is it just ego trampling on reality?


----------



## drgondog (Dec 29, 2010)

Kryten said:


> I have read this thread with interest, and one thought keeps cropping up when combat reports stating who turned tighter than whom are quoted.
> 
> If your attacking an enemy aircraft you must be faster than it otherwise you dont get in range, surely the real issue here is if a 109 attacks a P40 it is travelling faster , therefore its turn radius will be greater and the P40 could evade by breaking left or right, but this scenario would then be true if the P40 was the attacker?
> 
> ...



Slats are automatically deployed based on adverse pressure gradients (low speed or high speed 'near stall' conditions)..


----------



## Jerry W. Loper (Jan 3, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> True they were the mot produced but that also introduces the problem of which P40N or which 109G
> 
> 
> I think if you leave off the wing guns the G-6 didn't deteriorate that badly. A bit over the earlier "G"s but they were a bit down hill from the "F"s
> ...



I was under the impression that only the earliest production blocks of the P-40N which had the most weight removed had the 378 m.p.h. speed, and that the speed was 35 m.p.h. slower with later blocks that, for one thing, restored the armament from just four .50-caliber guns to six.


----------



## billswagger (Jan 3, 2011)

I don't think Ns ever competed with 109s did they?
I know many were sent to the USSR on lend lease when they were found to be obsolete to the newer planes. 
They appear to have been relegated to mostly bomber/fighter rolls in the Pacific and more commonly used as training aircraft. 
There is also info that they were used in escort rolls in the bombing campaigns done in the Aleutians adding to the Ms, Ks and Es.

There apparent advantage was there ability to take off and land on less than ideal surfaces. An example given was that the P-39's tricycle gear was not strong enough to deal with rough landing surfaces and as a consequence only one squadron in the Aleutians was fitted with P-39s. 
This advantage of the P-40 also presents itself in the MTO allowing the aircraft to use make-shift airstrips or poorly maintained or battered runways.
Its also been discussed in other articles that the significant weight of the P-40 was due to its landing gear struts and mechanism. Possibly differing as much as a 1000lbs of weight compared to the Zeros (P-40C vs A6M2) landing mechanism. 
I've never thought of that particular advantage before because usually comparisons present air to air data, and perhaps the P-40 in some combat zones was more common because of its ability to be flown from less restrictive locations. 
The 109 was probably a comparable fighter in that regard given its popularity in almost every front the Luftwaffe fought from. 
I wonder if there were any particularities that would limit the 109 in the way of take off or landing surfaces. I would suspect it would be similar to the Spitfire, but then again, it is more of a question about weight distribution.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 3, 2011)

Jerry W. Loper said:


> I was under the impression that only the earliest production blocks of the P-40N which had the most weight removed had the 378 m.p.h. speed, and that the speed was 35 m.p.h. slower with later blocks that, for one thing, restored the armament from just four .50-caliber guns to six.


 You may be quite right, But I believe there were only about 200 of that initial production block built which makes it one of the rarer P-40s. Some of them were also re-equipped when in squadron service with the electric starters, batteries and extra fuselage tank which would leave them somewhere in between in performance. Maybe only a few MPH of the top speed but acceleration and climb would suffer a bit more than speed. 
Another explanation of the speed discrepancy is the altitudes involved. Just as many authors claim that the Merlin powered versions showed only a slight improvement over the Allison powered "E"s the truth is a bit different. The "E" maxed out at 15,000ft while the "F" maxed out at 20,000ft. The two maximum speeds were only 5mph apart or so but if the "E" tried to run at 20,000ft it's speed had fallen to a point were it was 30mph slower than the "F".
With supercharger gear ratio used in the engines on the "N" aircraft a WER rating of 1410hp was available at 9,500ft (without ram?) which gives the aircraft it's speed of 378mph at 10,000 or 10,500ft? but as the plane climbs above that hight the supercharger looses the ability to supply the extra air and power falls until there is only 1125hp available at 15,500ft. It is at 15,000ft that the "N"s were rated at 343-348mph. This is about 15mph slower than an "E" at the same hight and "E" had even less power at 15,000ft. It's engine maxed out at 11,700ft at 1150hp and lost power above that hight. (it was good for 1490 hp down at 4,900ft though).
There seems to be very little documentation on the speeds P-40s could reach using WER settings (or their climb rates) which makes comparing action reports using such settings difficult to compare to aircraft which have known speeds, climbs. This may help explain the P-40s advantages at low altitudes though. The P-40K was the most extreme with 1580hp available at just 2,500ft compared to it's take-0ff or military ratings of 1325hp at sea level and 1150hp at 12,000ft. An extra 20% of power in hand that doesn't show up in most performance specifications might make a big difference in what the P-40 K could do under 5,000ft in combat.


----------



## cimmee (Jan 6, 2011)

MikeGazdik said:


> I think the P-40 (USAAF) in the MTO, had well over 500 aerial kills. Sure the Bf 109 has the advantage on paper. But it would not be dessert.



Correct...

It depends on the mission. 

That is my favorite airplane. The Allison was OK and the Warhawk was a fine a/c. 

It was manufactured until the end of the war... I wonder why......


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 6, 2011)

cimmee said:


> Correct...
> 
> It depends on the mission.
> 
> ...



Actually it wasn't, production ceased in NOV 44.


----------



## billswagger (Jan 11, 2011)

Actual combat use probably ended well before Nov 44.

It may still have been used as a bomber in the PTO in outlying islands.
The P-40 made its mark earlier in the war between 41-42 and was somewhat more competitive by 43 with the F and M but it was still well behind the 109 in the altitude regime.
I would only place the P-40 on par or slightly superior to the 109 other the climb and slow turns at lower altitudes.

Bill


----------



## claidemore (Jan 11, 2011)

After consulting the 'be all and end all' of online resources:  
Production of P40s stopped in Nov 44, but the type continued in service (limited) in MTO with USAAF until end of hostilities. 
It also served with RAAF in PTO till end of hostilities (Borneo and New Guinea) and was not taken out of service with RAAF till 1947. (eg. 82 Squadron was doing ground attack in March 45 with P40s, converted to P51s in Sept.)
The Netherland East Indies Air Force (attached to RAAF) also operated the P40 till the end of the war and beyond.


----------



## JoeB (Jan 12, 2011)

claidemore said:


> After consulting the 'be all and end all' of online resources:
> Production of P40s stopped in Nov 44, but the type continued in service (limited) in MTO with USAAF until end of hostilities.


P-40's were phased out of US 12th AF in MTO by 1944 (nor operated by 15h AF in that theater). They (Kittyhawks) however did serve in Italy in Commowealth units (eg. RAAF) until the end of the war. The idea they served in 12th AF in 'be all' sources of web might originate from an error in a table in Kenn Rust's "12th AF Story", which shows 57th FG operating them through end of war, but actually they completed converting to P-47's by early 1944.

P-40's were used by regular USAAF 14th AF units into early 1945 (51st FG), and by Chinese American Composite Wing through the end of the war, and beyond in Chinese Nationalist AF proper, though mainly replaced by P-51's. China is probably the most relevant theater for late P-40 ops because they sometimes met serious fighter opposition which late P-40 ops rarely did elsewhere. As discussed on a thread some time ago, USAAF/CACW P-40 units held their own, at least, in combat with Japanese Army Type 4 (Frank) fighters in 1944-45 when comparing the loss accounts of both sides, in marked contrast to high ratio's early model Zeroes racked up against P-40's in PI, DEI and early New Guinea through mid '42; as always such outcomes are only partly and not mainly about the performance of airplanes.
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/p-40-vs-late-war-japanese-fighters-10144.html

Joe


----------



## billswagger (Mar 14, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> With supercharger gear ratio used in the engines on the "N" aircraft a WER rating of 1410hp was available at 9,500ft (without ram?) which gives the aircraft it's speed of 378mph at 10,000 or 10,500ft? but as the plane climbs above that hight the supercharger looses the ability to supply the extra air and power falls until there is only 1125hp available at 15,500ft. It is at 15,000ft that the "N"s were rated at 343-348mph. This is about 15mph slower than an "E" at the same hight and "E" had even less power at 15,000ft. It's engine maxed out at 11,700ft at 1150hp and lost power above that hight. (it was good for 1490 hp down at 4,900ft though).


 
Comparisons are also hard to nail down because sources often quote figures where aircraft are tested on different days, giving different ratings and different speeds.

I found a direct comparison of the P-40E to N, putting the N 1000lbs less with the same load (save 30 gal fuel and 6x20lb bombs) as the E.
It noted that the P-40E was made of aluminum alloy, while the N was made of alclad. It had some parts removed such as a pair of 50 cals, but what i found interesting is that the N had an armor protected cooling system, something not found on the E.

They also used different engines but the rated height of the E was considered 15,500 while the rated height of the N was 17,300.
This put rated top speeds of the E at 338, and the N at 364mph at their rated heights.
It is one of the more detailed comparisons that put the N considerably ahead of the E in both speed and climb at rated power.
WER, still becomes a mystery but you can look at engine charts to see the available horsepower at their respective heights and RPMs.
The Allison could shell out 1700+ horses at 3200rpm under 3500ft.
GE also found their Allison F3R (P-40E) and F4R engine could muster as much as 1700 hp at considerably higher altitudes.
My guess would be that the Allison performed generally the same from block to block, but variants differed to accommodate supercharging and reduction gearing as well as propeller types. 
The reason WER info is not available to the same extent as other aircraft may have something to do with the lack of any ADI or Water injection system.
Pilot accounts mention running above rated manifold pressure (obviously under FTH) but only pushing the throttle until knocking was heard, and in some cases no knocking occured at all. Pilots reporting 55-60".

I only add to the tangent after reviewing more P-40 data.

This article shares more differences between the variants, and probably uses the same base article I'm referring to as a reference
http://www.adf-serials.com/research/Part2-P40.pdf


Bill


----------



## Nxthanos (Oct 18, 2011)

I see a lot of votes for the famous 109, and of course technical details and comparisons.

However one fact remains that cannot be disputed.

P-40s almost always got the better of the 109s they fought.

For a plane called 'the best second best' it defeated every plane type it forught from 109 through zeros, and the men who flew it swore by it.

Col Scott of China fame even sugested they build a monument to it including its alison engine at kittyhawk!

Show me all the tech numbers you like, I'll take the winner in combat.


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 18, 2011)

P-40 or Bf 109? '109, sorry. That's not necessarily rubbishing the P-40; as there is plenty of evidence that in good hands it was a killer, but we aren't talking pilot skill here; this is a comparison of aircraft types.

Regarding P-40 service; the RNZAF and RAAF used the P-40 right until the end of the war. Despite the Aussies being equipped with Spits, the P-40 was their principal fighter of the war, as with the Kiwis, who employed their Corsairs primarily in ground support and the P-40s as interceptors.

Here's a few notes about the two that might be of interest, although they are not exactly relevant to the argument.

A factor that was a pig about the P-40 was the way it was built; it was over designed and structurally, too many bits were made by hand, so every airframe was definitely individual. The 
'109 was well designed for rapid mass production and was far more precisely built.

I've had a peek in the cockpits of both machines; the '109 is snug, to say the least. with my 6 foot plus frame there's no way I could fit in with the canopy closed. By the time the late models appeared the '109's cockpit became real tight with all that extra equipment in there; you wore the Messerschmitt. 

The P-40 was like most American fighter cockpits; you could hold a banquet in it.  Lots of room, but not too ergonomic. Bits and pieces all over the show. Visibility was surprisingly good from the P-40's cockpit (in my opinion, but then, I'm not a fighter pilot). From the Bf 109 visibility is terrible. Mind you the aircraft was sitting in a ground attitude.

Overall, both aircraft were designed in the Thirties; the P-40 being based on the P-36, so therefore neither type benefitted from direct combat experience. Both were considered the epitome of fighter design by their respective builders and operators when they first appeared, but were in essence very different aeroplanes doing the same job.

The Bf 109 was, for its time a superb design and set a benchmark, but its overall size was its limiting factor; nevertheless, the transformation it underwent due to the needs of war was remarkable and the design proved to be extraordinarily tractable, if not remaining top dog throughout its long and successful career.

The P-40 was of similar vintage, but despite there being many different modifications throughout its career, it never experienced quite the same degree of improvement between variants as the Bf 109; as fighter technology improved, both types struggled to stay relevant; the P-40 more so than the Messerschmitt.

That the P-40 and the '109 enjoyed careers in smaller air forces after they had both been relegated as second rate fighters was not just out of expediency, but also because both were credible fighters, even toward the end, but in my opinion, if I had to make a choice of combat in either one; give me the Messerschmitt and a can of vaseline to get me in the cockpit and I'll see you in Hell!


----------



## Njaco (Oct 19, 2011)

NMNN, excellent post!

Especially the bit in the beginning about pilot skill. Far too often when these discusions come up, the skill of the pilot somehow always get factored in (along with personal 'favorite' opinion). Its nice to see someone atually remove that aspect from the consideration and speak about the aircraft itself.


----------



## post76 (Oct 19, 2011)

> P-40s almost always got the better of the 109s they fought.



There is more about the P-40 I've learned that definitely casts it in a better light than history might suggest.
One thing is for sure, they were usually on the bottom end of a bounce and perhaps that's when the 109 got the best of them.
This was also true in the Pacific where they faced the higher flying Japanese planes.


----------



## riacrato (Oct 19, 2011)

Nxthanos said:


> P-40s almost always got the better of the 109s they fought.
> 
> [/img]


 
That is based on what?


----------



## Ratsel (Oct 19, 2011)

riacrato said:


> That is based on what?



Everybody always quotes the Palm Sunday Massacre and automatically think the P-40 was superior.. but few know what really happened.


----------



## Njaco (Oct 19, 2011)

The Spitfires took on the escorts leaving the P-40 to attack the transports....

18 April 1943 The Palm Sunday Massacre - The effort to re-supply the bridgehead in Tunisia by the Germans is slowly turning into a diaster. Nearly 100 Ju 52s were loaded with German soldiers to be airlifted to Tunisia in an effort to reinforce Rommel. The transport formation was to be escorted by 16 Italian Macchi C-202s and Bf 109s fighters from JG 53 along with 3 Bf 110s. Near Cape Bon, the formation was attacked by 46 P-40s from the US 9th AF's 57th FG, 12 P-40s from the 324th FS and 12 Spitfires from RAF No. 92 Sqdrn. who were providing top cover for the P-40s. The Allied pilots were guided to the Germans by messages recieved from the German enigma codes. The Junkers transports were caught flying about 100 feet above the Mediterranean in 3 'V' formations. Leaving the Spitfires and a squadron of Warhawks to take on the Messerschmitts and Italians, Capt. James Curl led 3 squadrons of fighters into the German transports. After 10 minutes of battle, over half of the Ju 52s were shot down into the sea or crashed on the beaches of Cape Bon. 51 German transports were shot down along with more than 16 fighters. The Allies lost 6 P-40s and one Spitfire during combat.


----------



## Kryten (Oct 19, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> Everybody always quotes the Palm Sunday Massacre and automatically think the P-40 was superior.. but few know what really happened.



a comment which perfectly explains the difficulty in trying to compare the combat records of different aircraft, the tactical situation at the time was at least equally important as pilot skill and aircraft technical specifications!


----------



## Ratsel (Oct 19, 2011)

Yes. Reminds me of some famous last words... '_*Its a Trap*_!'


----------



## post76 (Oct 19, 2011)

I find it telling that the Aussies preferred the P-40 over the Spitfire for lower altitude missions. 

I think it would be close, giving the 109 better vertical and the P-40 a horizontal advantage. 
If you read the comparisons of the Hurricane vs 109, they even give the Hurri more turn up to 5000 meters.
The P-40 matched the Hurricane in turn and had better speed performance, so i think it was more competitive than you might think considering quite a few hurricanes also did a number on 109s. Russian accounts go as far as to say the P-40 outclassed the Hurricane but are also more descriptive about speed and climb comparisons between the Tomahawk and 109Fs and later versions of the P-40E being slightly superior. 

The Spitfire vs P-40 comparisons also reveal the P-40 would get whooped above 16,000ft, so i don't see how a 109 wouldn't also own a P-40 in the thinner air.


----------



## renrich (Oct 19, 2011)

I would be extremely surprised if encounters between P40s versus 109s or versus A6Ms came out in favor overall in favor of the P40.


----------



## Ratsel (Oct 19, 2011)

post76 said:


> I find it telling that the Aussies preferred the P-40 over the Spitfire for lower altitude missions.
> 
> I think it would be close, giving the 109 better vertical and the P-40 a horizontal advantage.
> If you read the comparisons of the Hurricane vs 109, they even give the Hurri more turn up to 5000 meters.
> ...


 
Very rarely during WWII would pilots get into a 'true' dogfight.. it wasn't like WWI. Look at the Palm Sunday incident, no way was there any serious dogfighting there. 50+ Ju 52's and 16+ fighters in 10mins.. Bounced from above and behind (or front).


----------



## Nxthanos (Oct 19, 2011)

riacrato said:


> That is based on what?


History, and there is plenty of it.


----------



## Nxthanos (Oct 19, 2011)

renrich said:


> I would be extremely surprised if encounters between P40s versus 109s or versus A6Ms came out in favor overall in favor of the P40.


I sugest you read about a group of fellows called the AVG.


they seem and the 23FG that followed seem to have done ok for themselves.

Just to follow up, I think quite a few of you have 'hero worship' of 109s and german fighter training, the fact is only a handful of german pilots ever became experten and shot down many allied planes, on balance P-40s always came out on top.

talking about 'above 15,000' is a non starter as a P-40 was not designed for it, and is really only an issue in the air war over the reich as the desert war, the pacific and the russian front were low level affairs.


So yes, a 109 could perform better then a P-40 above 15,000, below it its a burning wreck and a kill mark on a P-40.


----------



## Rogi (Oct 19, 2011)

"Just to follow up, I think quite a few of you have 'hero worship' of 109s and german fighter training, the fact is only a handful of german pilots ever became experten and shot down many allied planes, on balance P-40s always came out on top.

talking about 'above 15,000' is a non starter as a P-40 was not designed for it, and is really only an issue in the air war over the reich as the desert war, the pacific and the russian front were low level affairs.


So yes, a 109 could perform better then a P-40 above 15,000, below it its a burning wreck and a kill mark on a P-40"

I think the main problem is that the Bf is "better" up high and could own the P-40 easy, while the P-40 would most likely out class the Bf at low level.

Its mostly dependant on the pilot, if you put Bubi against any P-40 it'd be a burning wreck because hes the fighter pilot of all fighter pilots and has the skill to shoot it down. 

There should be a third option of draw :S but since I can't vote for that I'd go P-40 on the low and Bf on the high, assuming the pilots had the same skill level and they were both in the same situations.


----------



## riacrato (Oct 19, 2011)

Nxthanos said:


> History, and there is plenty of it.


What a precise and well-founded answer. Please continue your well established and unbiased assertions, I'm out.


----------



## Ratsel (Oct 19, 2011)

Nxthanos said:


> So yes, a 109 could perform better then a P-40 above 15,000, below it its a burning wreck and a kill mark on a P-40.



Lots of German pilots refered to shooting down P-40's in N.Africa as ' _like picking grapes _', ie: easy. The ONLY thing that the P-40 had over the 109 was toughness.. almost as tuff as a P-47. Cept' for the Allison V-1710 which gave up the ghost rather easily. Hans-Joachim Marseille, the ' Star of Africa ' and Otto Shultz would disagree with you I think...

One more thing, the F up series 109 is faster then the P-40 at any altitude.

Kindest Regard


----------



## pbfoot (Oct 19, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> Lots of German pilots refered to shooting down P-40's in N.Africa as ' _like picking grapes _', ie: easy. The ONLY thing that the P-40 had over the 109 was toughness.. almost as tuff as a P-47. Cept' for the Allison V-1710 which gave up the ghost rather easily. Hans-Joachim Marseille, the ' Star of Africa ' and Otto Shultz would disagree with you I think...
> 
> One more thing, the F up series 109 is faster then the P-40 at any altitude.
> 
> Kindest Regard


And what shot down Otto Shulz ? Stocky Edwards flying a P40 and he didn't seem to have a ptoblem with 109's a P40

March 1942, one Bf.109 destroyed (Kittyhawk AK-K); 
23 March 1942, one Bf.109 destroyed, Martuba airfield (Kittyhawk FZ-F)
30 May 1942, one Bf.109 damaged (Kittyhawk HS-O); 
8 June 1942, one Bf.109 destroyed, Bir Hacheim area; 
14 June 1942, one Bf.109 probably destroyed and
- one Bf.109 damaged (Acroma area); 
17 June 1942, one Bf.109 probably destroyed near El Daba; 
26 June 1942, one Bf.109 probably destroyed; 
6 July 1942, one Bf.109 probably destroyed and 
- one Bf.109 damaged (Kittyhawk ET623, "E"); 
4 August 1942, one Bf.109 probably destroyed (Kittyhawk AL140); 
3 September 1942, one Bf.109 damaged (Kittyhawk FL233); 
6 September 1942, one Bf.109 probably destroyed (FL233); 
15 September 1942, one Bf.109 probably destroyed (FL238); 
21 October 1942, one MC.202 destroyed (FL322 ? that could be 233); 
22 October 1942, one Bf.109 destroyed (FL233); 
26 October 1942, one Bf.109 probably destroyed (FL221); 
28 October 1942, one Bf.109 destroyed and 
- one probably destroyed (FL221); 
1 November 1942 one Bf.109 destroyed (FL305); 
16 December 1942, one Bf.109 damaged; 
30 December 1942, 1.5 Bf.109s destroyed - (Kittyhawk FR350); 
2 January 1943, one Bf.109 destroyed (FR350); 
29 March 1943, two FW.190s damaged (FR436); 
8 April 1943, one Bf.109 probably destroyed, Sfax area (FR446) - 
- one FW.190 damaged (FR436)
15 April 1943, two Bf.109s destroyed and 
- one damaged (FR436); 

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

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_umy5aRfLw_
22 April 1943, 1/3 Me.323 destroyed (Gulf of Tunis, FR436


----------



## Ratsel (Oct 19, 2011)

And? Otto was killed behind the controls of his mount. Everybody has a bullit with there name on it. Anyways, I could post all of Marseille's victories against the P-40, it'll make your head spin. Polikarpov I-16 IL-2's shot down Bf 109's too. So did a Willy's Jeep. I'm pretty sure a Bird did too. Superior? Only the bird was.


----------



## pbfoot (Oct 19, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> And? Otto was killed behind the controls of his mount. Everybody has a bullit with there name on it. Anyways, I could post all of Marseille's victories against the P-40, it'll make your head spin. Polikarpov I-16 IL-2's shot down Bf 109's too. So did a Willy's Jeep. I'm pretty sure a Bird did too. Superior? Only the bird was.


Not really Sparky , Let me count the hours I have polishing one of Marseilles original mounts


----------



## vanir (Oct 19, 2011)

Marsielle blows my mind. I've got a quote from German armourers record from his ground crew dated 5 June 1942, just after a sortie where he was credited with 6 confirmed Kittyhawks from No.5 Sqn SAAF.
He only used ten 20mm rounds and 180 7.92mm rounds from his magazine, shooting down six P-40.

That's aerial marksmanship not only of the highest order, but also of the highest confidence. This man was a one shot one kill pilot and knew it.


----------



## Siegfried (Oct 19, 2011)

The Me 109 ended the war as the Me 109K4.

With its engine boosted to only 1.8 ata it could

a/ Fly at 441 mph, as fast as a P-51D.
b/ Out turn and out climb a P-51D at medium altitude (20,000 ft or so)
c/ Out dive a P-51D
d/ Fly at least as fast as a Griffon MK.XIV Spitfire at sea level when the
Griffon Spit was using 21 psi boost (100/150 octane) 
this is 365mph at sea level for the Me 109 at 1.8 ata.

The sea level speed and climb performance for the 1.98 ata boosted
version from about Feb 1945 was even greater.

a/ Minor construction quality improvements were capable of adding 14kmh (9 mph)
b/ A 'thin blade' propellor was tested could add 14 mph in speed. (454mph)
c/ A 'Scimitar' propellor was expected to add 20mph in speed. (460mph)
d/ A Me 109K-14 with the DB605L, which had a two stage supercharger was expected
to add to service ceiling and speed (454 mph) considerably even without the above
other improvements to propellors and airframe.
e/ Some versions had servo spring tab assisted ailerons to reduce control forces in the roll plane.

It is a remarkable, I would say totally unique, performance for an aircraft which preceded the Hurricane 
and the P-40.

Yes it had its defficiences in range, visibillity etc.

It's likely this aircraft could have remained competitive with P-51H and Post War Mk 22 Griffon Spitfires.


----------



## Wizzo (Oct 19, 2011)

Please check the new Osprey book, P-40 Warhawk vs Bf 109 for more information.

Chuck


----------



## Ratsel (Oct 19, 2011)

vanir said:


> Marsielle blows my mind. I've got a quote from German armourers record from his ground crew dated 5 June 1942, just after a sortie where he was credited with 6 confirmed Kittyhawks from No.5 Sqn SAAF.
> He only used ten 20mm rounds and 180 7.92mm rounds from his magazine, shooting down six P-40.
> 
> That's aerial marksmanship not only of the highest order, but also of the highest confidence. This man was a one shot one kill pilot and knew it.


In the begining of his flying carear he wasn't a very good shot, but he used to practice by shooting at his a/c shadow. After alot of hard work he became the Bruce Lee of deflection shooting.


----------



## vanir (Oct 19, 2011)

Siegfried the very important thing to consider in a professional comparative assessment is the performance envelope rather than maximums and very limited tech specs. You need charts, compare them for various engine settings and flight conditions, you need comparative flight testing to compare strengths and weaknesses as they evolve in combat.

Our best way of doing that is to rely on wartime comparative evalutions but simply keep in mind that they are inherently biased and may not fully appreciate enemy technology, they may not squeeze the full potential from it.

Generally speaking from the total of documentation it appears the P-40 is generally contemporary with the 109 up to the G-6 under 5000 feet but suffers a progressive disadvantage as altitudes rise, it has next to no chance at 5000 metres. It's simplistic and generalised but basically true. And I know Kittyhawks are tough but so is the 109, it is a simple, cheap, powerful and surprisingly tough fighter.

But as for the late war models, okay you're opening a can of worms Siegfried. It's an overboost rated for a maximum of 10 minutes under extreme emergency conditions only (to escape combat). The normal combat maximum on the late 109 is around 1550hp, which is slightly underpowered compared to the normal combat rating (military) of most Allied fighters. It has superior cruise and short field performance however, but high accident rates.

In realistic service the overboost was always risky, they took the 605 engine right to the very limits of its capabilities and had a reputation of being prone to spontaneous engine failure (switch on overboost and engine immediately fails, mostly solved with the D series but happened with AM motors), it's not something you switch on and then go attack a flight of Mustangs. This is all done at the military and climb ratings, 1200-1600hp is a general guideline for the late war German skies with slight advantage going to the Allied except Russians, they had underpowered aircraft but they performed as superbly as high powered aircraft at low altitude, so were still deadly in this type of warfare.


----------



## vanir (Oct 19, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> In the begining of his flying carear he wasn't a very good shot, but he used to practice by shooting at his a/c shadow. After alot of hard work he became the Bruce Lee of deflection shooting.



Yeah the German propaganda dept. interviewed him for the Nazi magazine and asked for his advice to Luftwaffe cadets. He said the secret to his combat successes was learning to control the 109 in low speed handling.
It seems a rudimentary way of telling students to think about their energy in BFM if they want to live through the war.


----------



## pbfoot (Oct 19, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> In the begining of his flying carear he wasn't a very good shot, but he used to practice by shooting at his a/c shadow. After alot of hard work he became the Bruce Lee of deflection shooting.


There were others just as competent


----------



## Ratsel (Oct 19, 2011)

pbfoot said:


> There were others just as competent


I'm sure a few of his 158 kills were....


----------



## vanir (Oct 19, 2011)

Rall says Marsielle was the most talented ace the Luftwaffe had during the whole war, and he died prematurely (ie. would've been the leading kill score), but that he couldn't control himself anywhere he was stationed where there were women. He said he was a mediocre pilot in europe because he spent all his time romancing local women, in Africa there were no women.

That's what Rall said was the secret of Marsielle's combat successes. He said the brilliance was already there, but needed the right place to shine and Africa has his perfect place, nobody was a better pilot there.


----------



## pbfoot (Oct 19, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> I'm sure a few of his 158 kills were....


please look around there were other platers in WW2 amd many just as competent pilots the hero worship of LW and its pilots doesn't do your arguements justice.


----------



## vanir (Oct 19, 2011)

pbfoot I understand if there is some personal conflaguration between yourself and Ratsel but you must understand that for us regular browsers, statements like your last post seem pretty out of left field and a stubbie short of rational.

ideally we respect war veterans as individuals without recognising their nations, they weren't politicians man, they were defenders of homes no matter what side they were on. So why on earth would you possibly assert something as infantile as hero worship with patriotic overtones as you have pbfoot, it is simply irrational among enthusiasts. We are researchers here, not a sect.


----------



## pbfoot (Oct 19, 2011)

vanir said:


> pbfoot I understand if there is some personal conflaguration between yourself and Ratsel.


Look around a bit I've backed the kid up as much as I've questioned him.


----------



## Siegfried (Oct 19, 2011)

vanir said:


> SNIP
> 
> Generally speaking from the total of documentation it appears the P-40 is generally contemporary with the 109 up to the G-6 under 5000 feet but suffers a progressive disadvantage as altitudes rise, it has next to no chance at 5000 metres. It's simplistic and generalised but basically true.
> SNIP
> ...



1 It seems to me that that Me 109G enjoyed a climb ate advantage at any altitude over the P-40.
2 When comparing the 441 mph 1.8 ata Sondernoteleistung (special emergeny power or "WEP") of the Me 109G10/K4 with allied aircraft it should be noted that the allied aircraft were also overboosting, using their 100/150 fuel in rich mixture setting when near sea level. Note, when a spifire is using 25psi it is boosting at 2.8 ata, a lot more than 1.8 ata. When a P-51H is quoted at 487mph (and it only ever achieved 475mph in real life) it is also 28psi and using 100/150 plus water injection.
3 The DB605 series had a relatively high military (ie combat) power setting. This is the permanently sustainable power of the engine, though maintenance is increased. AFAIKT the Me 109K4 cruised happily at around 390mph, essentially the top speed of the Me 109G6 only a year back.
4 I believe the 1.8 ata setting was quite solid, having been only a slight step up from the 1.7 ata used in early Me 109AM/ASM and the 1.75 ata on the DB605DM used on early G-10's and K-4. The engine had some issues; many no doubt related to quality of manufacture metalurgy eg supercharger disintegration.
5 If the emergeny boost limit was 10 minutes: then that is good by allied comparisons: the Napier Sabre notoriously had only 3 minutes from when the wire was brocken. After 10 minutes you are out of MW50 anyway.

Engines of course enter squadron service, problems under realistic conditions found and solutions also found. The 1.98 ata rating was removed and then reissued after changes were made (spark plugs and possibly also pistons and fuel)

I've heard it said that statistically Me 109 had landing/takeoff accident rates no worse than other Luftwaffe aircraft. The extended tail yoke essentially solved this problem anyway. Once in the air it handled extremely well with a mild annuciated stall, no tendancy to spin or flip and if ever in a spin easy recovery.


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 19, 2011)

About time some sense came back to this thread in siegfried's last post. Comparing the virtues of The Star of Africa and how many P-40s he shot down is meaningless in a comparison between the two aircraft types. If Marsellaise was flying a P-40, it's likely his kill number would be the same. Aircraft type has little to do with it.

If we are going to haggle pointlessly over whether P-40s shot down more '109s or not, then I add this to the mix. The Messerschmitt Bf 109 comes out on top. Statistically speaking pilots flying Bf 109s shot down more enemy aircraft than pilots flying any other type by a wide margin. More aces were created flying in Bf 109s than any other type. This is because of the following:

More Bf 109s were built than any other fighter. The Germans employed them in air offensives from the Spanish Civil War to Barbarossa, and then they were in service until the end of the war, not necessarily because it was the best fighter overall; it's certainly one of the greatest because of these factors, but it wasn't necessarily the best over each combat arena it fought in. 

This all means that an aircraft's performance in a particular combat situation is no reflection of the quality of flying machine that it is. An example is the Fairey Battle; to all intents and purposes it was a well engineered, solidly built machine that was pleasant to fly and did the job it was intended to do adequately. The fact that Battles got decimated over France is down to the specification to which they were designed and the way they were employed. Single-engined day bombers were designed to fly over their target at a level attitude and low speed to enable their bomb aimer to accurately position the aircraft for the bombing. Flak bait and fighter fodder, essentially, but not a reflection on the quality of the design.

Lets keep analysing which aircraft was better because of its speed, range, armament etc and not stupid comparisons between combat situations that prove nothing.


----------



## Ratsel (Oct 19, 2011)

IF your going to look at these two aircraft, then you must consider ALL aspects of both, including pilots. The best plane in the world x 1000 without a pilot in her is just another sitting duck on the ground. Talk to any.. any Luftwaffe 109 pilot they'll tell you that they could match any allied plane, move for move. 

A good combat pilot knows the strengths/weaknesses of his apponents aircraft, and will exploit them. IF this meant not getting into a slow turning fight with a P-40, then thats exactly what they are not going to do. And vica versa. SO it boils down to:

1. Element of surprise
2. Energy retention
3. Pilot skill
4. luck

In that scenario, Me 109 pilots had the advantage. Take any two away, he no longer has the advantage.

Kindest Regards


----------



## MikeGazdik (Oct 19, 2011)

I love when old threads like these reactivate. I read through all 27 pages again just to get up to speed. The strangest thing is reading a post, and saying to yourself; " I agree with that totally", only to see that it was you who made the post a year ago!! 

But, it was just as good reading it the second time around! Great thread! I loved watching the video of the interview with "Stocky". Love to actually hear the veterans tell thier stories.


----------



## Siegfried (Oct 20, 2011)

nuuumannn said:


> About time some sense came back to this thread in siegfried's last post. Comparing the virtues of The Star of Africa and how many P-40s he shot down is meaningless in a comparison between the two aircraft types. If Marsellaise was flying a P-40, it's likely his kill number would be the same. Aircraft type has little to do with it.
> SNIP
> 
> :



Thanks nuuuam,

The engine sometimes makes the aircraft. How would the MS.460 and DW.520 with their 860hp-920hp Hispano Suiza HS.12X engines were replaced with and engine equal to the DB601A (1100hp) and DB601A1a (1175hp)?

Consider a P.40 with a better engine; say a DB601/605? The supercharged Allison was neglected, the supercharging of the German engines however was not nearly so.

Immagine through fate Donovan Berlin was working for say Arado and instead of working for Curtiss designing the P-40 and he submits the exact same Ar 40 KatzAddler to the fighter competition powered by the Jumo 210. Things go well, nothing goes wrong. However Willy Messerscmitt argues that his Bf 109 is still faster and moreover climbs faster than the bigger Ar 40 which is important to intercept those fast French bombers which in pre radar times will be well over the border in minutes with no warning at all so the Bf 109 still wins the competition.

In a rare momment of procurement prudence Udet and Goering agree to the moderate production of the Ar 40 Katzaddler so long as it is powered by the more readily available Jumo 211 instead of the DB600 series. Our Ar 40 looks like a P-40 with an inverted engine somewhat like a Stuka nose and due to the Jumo 211 has sluggish high altitude performance but it gives away nothing at low altitude.

The battle of Britain comes. The Luftwaffe appreciates an aircraft more manouverable than the Bf 109 and Spitfire that can out roll and out dive both. Moover it has 50% more range than the Bf 109 (and 33% more than the FW 190) and so transforms the Luftwaffes abillity to escort its bombers over Britain and also to escort its transports across the Mediteranean though the aircraft often comes of second best against the fast climbing Spitfire a good pilot can use its speed to stay on top of the Hurricane and use his higher roll rate and slight abillity turn inside a Spitfire to save himself.

The Jumo 211 already has a two speed supercharger and soon in a series of steps the Jumo 211 receives a supercharger shroud, presurised cooling circuit and intercooler and is even outperforming the DB601 and DB605 at least at low altitude. The Ar 40 is providing the Luftwaffe with a long range strike fighter, doing the Job of the Me 210 when that aircraft was missing and providing close support better than the Ju 87.

The aircraft receives the DB605 which transforms its high altitude performance. Unlike Allison and the USAAF the Junkers and DB engines for the Ar 40 remain compact and installable (no long supercharger shafts or intercoolers) and receive good two speed or variable speed superchargers providing good high altitude performance. The aircraft is never slower than the Me 109 though its climb rate is less (not as bad as the P.40) it compensates with better range, roll rate and turn radious and doesn't run out of breath at altitude.

With the 1750hp DB605ASM engine, its streamlined shape which due to its larger size never accumulated the bulges of the Me 109 the Ar 40 KatzAddler achieves 422 mph (speed of P-40Q) and enters service in 1944 soon besting the Mk IX spitfires it only has the P-51 and the rare Griffon Spitfire to fear.


----------



## Nxthanos (Oct 20, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> Lots of German pilots refered to shooting down P-40's in N.Africa as ' _like picking grapes _', ie: easy. The ONLY thing that the P-40 had over the 109 was toughness.. almost as tuff as a P-47. Cept' for the Allison V-1710 which gave up the ghost rather easily. Hans-Joachim Marseille, the ' Star of Africa ' and Otto Shultz would disagree with you I think...
> 
> One more thing, the F up series 109 is faster then the P-40 at any altitude.
> 
> Kindest Regard


Maybe they should have a talk with Clive Caldwell who dispatched experten like lippert and nearly killed Werner Schröer.


----------



## Nxthanos (Oct 20, 2011)

riacrato said:


> What a precise and well-founded answer. Please continue your well established and unbiased assertions, I'm out.


You were never in friend.

Google P-40 kills, its easy enough.


----------



## Ratsel (Oct 20, 2011)

Nxthanos said:


> Maybe they should have a talk with Clive Caldwell who dispatched experten like lippert and nearly killed Werner Schröer.


Yep Clive "Killer" Caldwell, wanna know how he got his nickname "Killer"? Don't think you'd like the answer. Also, He was court martialled and reduced to the rank of Flight Lieutenant. "Killer" then left the service.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 20, 2011)

Folks, the far fetch opinionated BS is getting pretty thick here. Cut the crap and stop the petty bickering.....


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 20, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> Yep Clive "Killer" Caldwell, wanna know how he got his nickname "Killer"? Don't think you'd like the answer. Also, He was court martialled and reduced to the rank of Flight Lieutenant. "Killer" then left the service.


Your point???? He still left A LOT of scrap metal in is wake. Marseille was grounded and punished for his off hours flandering. Totally irrelivant to this discussion...


----------



## renrich (Oct 20, 2011)

Nxthanos, as a matter of fact, I have read everything I could get my hands on about the AVG. It is almost certain that the AVG, during its 6-7 month operational experience never encountered any A6Ms or any IJN AC at all. Most of it's kills, which are at least somewhat inflated, were against obsolescent Japanese AC. I suggest you get a copy of "Bloody Shambles" by Shores, in order to clear up the question. There was a tendency during WW2 for Allied pilots to identify any Japanese fighter as a Zero, which was inaccurate. The odd thing about it was that when USN Wildcat pilots first encountered Zekes they identified them as VSBs, scout bombers, because of the canopies. They were soon disabused of that notion since the Zekes did not perform like VSBs.


----------



## Ratsel (Oct 20, 2011)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Marseille was grounded and punished for his off hours flandering....


Yes. Marseille was punished all the time.:

_Marseille, as with every other wingman or wing leader,was expected to protect his fellow comrades. When approximately 40 enemy aircraft suddenly appeared heading towards the 18 German planes, Marseille found himself facing this superior force. Nevertheless, he was puzzled when his wing leader, to whom he was attached and was expected to protect, gave the order, "Turn back and get out of here!" Marseille knew that they still had sufficient fuel and certainly enough ammunition, so why should he turn tail and run? The enemy hadn't yet been beaten and they had an opportunity to do this here and now.As he was turning, he saw a lone Hurricane stalking his wing leader's airplane with the intent of shooting down the unsuspecting pilot. Marseille didn't have time to give warning; he broke formation, flew past his wing leader and pulled into a tight turn to intercept the enemy aircraft. He was in a good position, saw the airplane flitter just for a moment in his gunsight, and pressed the fire button. His Bf 109 shuddered under the recoil. The Hurricane's engine was hit by several rounds. Flames shot out and soon engulfed the airplane completely, which flipped onto its back and plummeted nearly vertically into the Channel below. Marseille achieved another kill and in doing so saved the life of his wing leader. In actuality, he expected no great praise for this deed. Maybe a simple "Well done, Jochen!" would be nice. Instead of this, however, he was called to attention by the Staffel commander immediately after landing and given a thorough dressing down: "I sentence you to three days confinement for failing to carry out an order." "I don't know what I've done wrong!", was Marseille's answer. But that didn't interest the Oberleutnant. "You were expected to continue flying and were ordered not to fire, weren't you? Why did you shoot the Hurricane down then? Someone else could have taken care of it." "I was the closest one and besides, it was my wing leader, Herr Oberleutnant", said Marseille in an attempt to defend himself. But the punishment stood. Marseille was justifiably upset over this blatant injustice. He, who was keenly sensitive to any type of unfair treatment, not only found his punishment to be unfair, but a deliberate effort to humiliate him. What had he done? He had shot down a foe who would most certainly have pounced on his unwitting wing leader had Marseille not attacked._

My humble appologises and in the future I'll refrain about making any remarks about the USAAF, RAF, RCAF, RAAF, or any allied pilots/planes.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 20, 2011)

Such an interesting discussion being ruined by small unfounded posts that do not contribute to the thread. 

How about some of you quit your bickering. (By the way, I am not singling anyone out here, I am talking to *both* parties here)

Who fricken cares about a single pilot shooting down many aircraft with a specific type. In the end it only proves he was a good pilot, but it says nothing about the aircraft or which one is better.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 20, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> My humble appologises and in the future I'll refrain about making any remarks about the USAAF, RAF, RCAF, RAAF, or any allied pilots/planes.





> Talk to any.. any Luftwaffe 109 pilot they'll tell you that they could match any allied plane, move for move



I really DON'T care if you make any remarks, just don't spout off with some opinionated rambling bullsh!t like that!!!! If you're going to flap your yap, back up your claims!!!!!

Now get this thread back on track or I'll start removing the stupidity....


----------



## gjs238 (Oct 20, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> The ONLY thing that the P-40 had over the 109 was toughness.. almost as tuff as a P-47. Cept' for the Allison V-1710 which gave up the ghost rather easily.


 And perhaps range/endurance.


----------



## Nxthanos (Oct 20, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> Yep Clive "Killer" Caldwell, wanna know how he got his nickname "Killer"? Don't think you'd like the answer. Also, He was court martialled and reduced to the rank of Flight Lieutenant. "Killer" then left the service.


Because he retalied by shooting pilots in chutes after he saw the germans do it to his best friend first.

Anything else you care to ask me?


----------



## Nxthanos (Oct 20, 2011)

renrich said:


> Nxthanos, as a matter of fact, I have read everything I could get my hands on about the AVG. It is almost certain that the AVG, during its 6-7 month operational experience never encountered any A6Ms or any IJN AC at all. Most of it's kills, which are at least somewhat inflated, were against obsolescent Japanese AC. I suggest you get a copy of "Bloody Shambles" by Shores, in order to clear up the question. There was a tendency during WW2 for Allied pilots to identify any Japanese fighter as a Zero, which was inaccurate. The odd thing about it was that when USN Wildcat pilots first encountered Zekes they identified them as VSBs, scout bombers, because of the canopies. They were soon disabused of that notion since the Zekes did not perform like VSBs.


I sugest you pay closer attention to the men who were there rather then revisionists.

The AVG actually recovered some the wrecks, and identified the first Zero with a squared off wing (the 'hamp' Zero modifacation).

Chennault also identified the plane and sent full reports on it when the Japanes operationally tested it in China. A lot of people today want to claim the AVG only fought nates and some Oscars, but they also mixed it up with Zeros. Not over Burma, but often during pentration attacks on places like Hong kong, whcih were defended by the Imperial Navy not army fighters.

I'm surprised you didn't know that since you say you read all you could on them.


----------



## MikeGazdik (Oct 21, 2011)

Speaking of the P-40, something I have always wanted to know. The radical changes done between the C model and onto the E, with the major change in the fuselage / cockpit section, and also the change to the "spur" gear on the nose of the Allison. I know this has nothing to do with performance, just asthetics. The original beauty of the P-40 was lost forever with the change. Was there any real gain with this?? Same with the change with the nose because of the reduction gear. Was it a real problem, or another pre war misconception by the Army Air Corps ? Has anyone ever seen the P-40 prototype with a belly radiator like the Mustang? How things may have been different!


----------



## post76 (Oct 21, 2011)

MikeGazdik said:


> Speaking of the P-40, something I have always wanted to know. The radical changes done between the C model and onto the E, with the major change in the fuselage / cockpit section, and also the change to the "spur" gear on the nose of the Allison. I know this has nothing to do with performance, just asthetics. The original beauty of the P-40 was lost forever with the change. Was there any real gain with this?? Same with the change with the nose because of the reduction gear. Was it a real problem, or another pre war misconception by the Army Air Corps ? Has anyone ever seen the P-40 prototype with a belly radiator like the Mustang? How things may have been different!


 
Actually, from my reading Curtiss put a lot of work into various prototypes including parallel production of the P-42.
In the end they decided the P-40B was the best suited as a production fighter, although the XP-42 was still repeatedly tested through 1945.
The P-42 is actually one of those interesting "what if" factors, but i don't think it would've made much difference at the time.
There did seem to be more expansion with performance with in the PW radials used, but that wasn't obvious or known to them when deciding which to build.
Curtiss had attempted to build a fighter around the same power plant, (see P-60), but they hadn't mastered a tight cowling/fan cooling
design. 


> Was there any real gain with this?? Same with the change with the nose because of the reduction gear. Was it a real problem, or another pre war misconception by the Army Air Corps ?


The P-40E wasn't built more for aesthetics, it needed the enlarged cowling for the improved Allison and cooling system, though the original designer made the note of saying the enlarged radiator scoop was probably too big. With increases in power and improvements in design, different
reduction gearing is used, but i don't think that had much to do with the placement of the nose. 
I think the P-40 made the first leap forward using the Curtiss electric (may have been mechanical) prop, at a time when other aircraft were still using two-pitch blades. 
If you look at post P-40E, actually post K, starting with Ms, they reduced the cowling size and began streamlining it.
The original placement of the radiator scoop may have been moved to the nose because it afforded better protection there, 
and...I later read that such a design helped reduce prop wash.


----------



## riacrato (Oct 21, 2011)

Nxthanos said:


> You were never in friend.
> 
> Google P-40 kills, its easy enough.


 
I hope you got some more than googleing catchphrases. You make a pretty bold statement, so it's up to you to prove it, "friend". If you got a profound summary showing the P-40 came out on top over the Bf 109 overall, I'd be very interested to see that.


----------



## Vincenzo (Oct 21, 2011)

Nxthanos said:


> I sugest you pay closer attention to the men who were there rather then revisionists.
> 
> The AVG actually recovered some the wrecks, and identified the first Zero with a squared off wing (the 'hamp' Zero modifacation).
> 
> ...



what's the source of this news?

at time of a6m3 the AVG is not more AVG


----------



## vanir (Oct 21, 2011)

The first A6M3 were delivered to Rabaul and encountered in the SE Pacific from what I read. But there was an ex-AVG, one of the ones that were forced to take the service commission or be abandoned in China, he was stationed on Guadal and was one of the very first pilots to report them. He might've been the first. I'm no expert on Pacific stuff, should be better ones around here.


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 21, 2011)

Hi, Mike,

The spur gear allowed for up to 1600 HP (and apparently even more) to be transfered to the prop, while the previous one was good for under 1200. The belly radiator was found to contribute to the overall drag, according to the 'Vee's for Victory' book.


----------



## davparlr (Oct 21, 2011)

Nxthanos said:


> I sugest you pay closer attention to the men who were there rather then revisionists.
> 
> The AVG actually recovered some the wrecks, and identified the first Zero with a squared off wing (the 'hamp' Zero modifacation).
> 
> ...



You really need to reference sources if you want to have an effective argument.


----------



## Ratsel (Oct 21, 2011)

"_Who fricken cares about a single pilot shooting down many aircraft with a specific type. In the end it only proves he was a good pilot, but it says nothing about the aircraft or which one is better_."

I can't see how this is a valid point. The aircraft and the pilot work as a team, like a horse and rider. You put Hartmann in a Storch against and mediocre Allied pilot in a P-47 and Hartmann won't last very long. As I said earlier, the worlds best aircraft is just another sitting duck without a pilot.


As for the P-40 shooting down AM6, I think a couple P-40's shot down a few during the attack on Pearl Harbor.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 21, 2011)

Nxthanos said:


> I sugest you pay closer attention to the men who were there rather then revisionists.
> 
> The AVG actually recovered some the wrecks, and identified the first Zero with a squared off wing (the 'hamp' Zero modifacation).
> 
> ...



NOT TRUE. The AVG actually became operational in December 1941 AFTER the attack on Pearl Harbor. Their first combat mission was flown December 20, 1941. During that time the AVG was fighting JAAF bomber and fighter units from Vietnam, with the fighter units operating "Nates" and later "Oscars" - There were no land based IJNAF fighters close to where the AVG was stationed, from what I have read most land based IJNAF Zeros were located in either north central China, Formosa or at Japanese pre-war garrisons with the remaining aircraft assigned to the 1st Air Fleet at the start of the war and during early 1942. As Japanese conquests expanded into early 1942, Zero units were moved more into the South Pacific to support spring/ summer 1942 operations, again quite a distance from the AVG. Here's a 1942 map showing where the Japanese were after the fall of Burma.







Here's a list of the top 15 AVG group pilots and their list of claims. No Zeros are listed anywhere and most certainlly if the AVG fought aganist the Zero at least one of these guys would have showed it as a claim.

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

During this period there were only 328 - 420 Zeroes in operational service, none of them were model 21s which did not fly until June 1942. The first "Hamps" did not reach Rabaul until the late summer of 1942; the AVG was dissolved on July 4, 1942 and absorbed into the 23rd Fighter Group, USAAF.

There were several "stories" of AVG pilots stating that they fought against the Zero, in the end none of these stories were never substantiated. As Far as Chennault learning about the Zero and trying to tell American Intelligence about this aircraft? Totally true, but this was based on information from the Nationalist Chinese AF during the first encounters with the aircraft over Chungking in September 1940, hundreds of miles away from Burma.

Now 2 wrecked Zeros were found by the Chinese. These aircraft were based out of Formosa and crashed on a beach in NOVEMBER 1941. Eventually one of these aircraft found their way to Liuchow and were reassembled by Chinese and American mechanics. This all happeneing during the sumer of 1942. These were A6M2, not A6M3 Hamps.

http://www.j-aircraft.com/research/WarPrizes.htm

Here's one of the guys who assembled the aircraft - He was actually German!

http://web.mit.edu/invent/iow/neumannrevised.html

Some of the photo credits say this aircraft was captured by the AVG - not true as all this happened AFTER the AVG was disbanded.

http://www.j-aircraft.com/research/additional_photos_for_zero_war_p.htm

AVG over Hong Kong??? Simply not true. One of the few long range raids AVG P-40s made were into Vietnam where JAAF bases were located. BTW the Distance between the Mid April 1942 location of the AVG Baoshan, China was over 950 miles to Hong Kong, the P-40 had a range of just over 650 miles. 

Later in 1942 when *former* AVG pilots were absorbed into the USAAF is when P-40s battled Zeros over Hong Kong, this not happening until months after the AVG was dissolved.

So please, provide us with YOUR references to back up claims that the* AVG * (not the 23rd Fighter Group) fought against the Zero and were involved with the discovery of a "Hamp." There is nothing "revisionists" about any of this and as suggested if you ever read the book "Bloody Shambles" all of this is well documented by information from BOTH sides of participating combatants. I think you're confusing the initial AVG which was disbanded in July 1942 with operations of the 23 Fighter Group in which was under Chennault’s command and inherited the AVG mission along with pilots and staff personnel. Although labeling themselves as "Flying Tigers" they were NOT the AVG although FORMER members of the AVG flew with the 23rd.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 21, 2011)

MikeGazdik said:


> Speaking of the P-40, something I have always wanted to know. The radical changes done between the C model and onto the E, with the major change in the fuselage / cockpit section, and also the change to the "spur" gear on the nose of the Allison. I know this has nothing to do with performance, just asthetics. The original beauty of the P-40 was lost forever with the change. Was there any real gain with this?? Same with the change with the nose because of the reduction gear. Was it a real problem, or another pre war misconception by the Army Air Corps ? Has anyone ever seen the P-40 prototype with a belly radiator like the Mustang? How things may have been different!



They would have been different, like much worse. 
Just because a plane has a radiator located under or behind the cockpit does NOT mean it was like the Mustang's radiator setup. Production P-40s (long noses) had the radiator in the 3rd position tried. There are story's that the nose/chin radiator was done because of the sales/marketing department. However all configurations were test flown and the highest speeds were achieved with the nose/chin radiator like the production model had. The Speed difference was around 20mph. The Army engineering dept had told Allison that the type of reduction gear used on the 'long nose' engine was suspect even before it went into production. They were proved right ( there were reduction gear failures) so this 'problem' can NOT be laid at the Army Air Corps door step. 
Curtis is "supposed" to have sold the radiator design to North American for use in the Mustang, if this is true they much have sold all rights to it because no Curtiss ever used that design. Not the P-46, or the P-55 or any of the liquid cooled P-60s or any of the several modified P-40s in experimental programs. 
See: http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/5160/xp4011.jpg
or find the XP-40K that used radiators and oil coolers in a thicker than normal wing center section which was different that the radiator set up used in the P-40Q. 

The original P-40 was tested in the Full size wind tunnel at Langley because it was NOT performing up to expectations. Of course to some people this means that Langley (and/or the Air Corp) ruined the P-40 like they did the P-39. Of course the fact that not only was this the ONLY full sized wind tunnel in the country ignored but so is the fact that if either company even had a tunnel it was the size of a bread box.


----------



## renrich (Oct 21, 2011)

According to my source, "The Great Book of WW2 Airplanes," the first Hamps were encountered by the Allies in October, 1942, over the Solomon Islands. The AVG had essentially ceased to exist in July, 1942.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 21, 2011)

renrich said:


> According to my source, "The Great Book of WW2 Airplanes," the first Hamps were encountered by the Allies in October, 1942, over the Solomon Islands. The AVG had essentially ceased to exist in July, 1942.



July 4th to be exact.

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/bf-109-vs-p-40-a-16213-28.html#post831133


----------



## renrich (Oct 21, 2011)

A couple of comments about the P40. In reading a recent book about the AVG, I believe it was stated that the AVG pilots, new to the P40, wrecked quite a few before getting used to its less than outstanding landing characteristics. From a delightful read, "Flying Through Time" by James Doyle. A pilot who flew the P40, Lt. Robert C Hansen, "The P40 was a rotten little airplane. I did not like the plane and nobody I never knew liked the plane." Just one man's opinion and probably had someting to do with those landing characteristics.

Another book I just finished, "Escape From Davao," by John Lukacs is about a group of American servicemen who escaped from a Japanese prison camp on Mindanao about a year after being captured. One of the leaders of the escapers was Ed Dyess, USAAF. He flew a P40E named KIBOSH off of an airfield on Bataan. I believe it was the last operational P40 still flying toward the end and the surrender. They had rigged up a way for it to carry a 500 pound bomb and he took off at night and bombed Japanese vessels in Subic Bay. Dyess Air force Base in Abilene, Texas is named for him. A really good read.


----------



## tyrodtom (Oct 21, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> "_Who fricken cares about a single pilot shooting down many aircraft with a specific type. In the end it only proves he was a good pilot, but it says nothing about the aircraft or which one is better_."
> 
> I can't see how this is a valid point. The aircraft and the pilot work as a team, like a horse and rider. You put Hartmann in a Storch against and mediocre Allied pilot in a P-47 and Hartmann won't last very long. As I said earlier, the worlds best aircraft is just another sitting duck without a pilot.
> 
> ...


 
I think you're confusing the Hollywood version of Pearl Harbor with what really happened. P-40 pilots Lts. Welch- 4, and Taylor- 2, but only one of those claims was for a Zero.


----------



## post76 (Oct 21, 2011)

I think the AVG still referred to the type 96 and 97 as Zeros since they resembled the same carrier based version the A5M claude. 
They also encountered ki-44 and 43. 
The bulk of their kills appear to be Oscars, Nates and Sallys.
I wonder what Erich Schillings rather descriptive encounters with "Zeros" refers to.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 21, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> "_Who fricken cares about a single pilot shooting down many aircraft with a specific type. In the end it only proves he was a good pilot, but it says nothing about the aircraft or which one is better_."
> 
> I can't see how this is a valid point. The aircraft and the pilot work as a team, like a horse and rider. You put Hartmann in a Storch against and mediocre Allied pilot in a P-47 and Hartmann won't last very long. As I said earlier, the worlds best aircraft is just another sitting duck without a pilot.



Think about it. How the hell does one pilot having success with an aircraft prove that the aircraft was better. A few Finnish pilots had great success with the Buffalo. Does that it make it a better aircraft than the Bf 109?

Again, think about it...

Of course you have to take into account all factors including pilots. My point was being that both *you* and *Nxthanos* keep throwing out single pilots, and their achievements, and in the end it proves nothing. In the end it is nothing more than bickering. I think several people have tried to explain this to both of you.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 21, 2011)

post76 said:


> I think the AVG still referred to the type 96 and 97 as Zeros since they resembled the same carrier based version the A5M claude.
> They also encountered ki-44 and 43.
> The bulk of their kills appear to be Oscars, Nates and Sallys.
> *I wonder what Erich Schillings rather descriptive encounters with "Zeros" refers to*.



Encounters with the Zero in the post AVG days.


----------



## vanir (Oct 21, 2011)

FlyboyJ I thought the Zero went Model 11, 21, 32, 22, 52, etc. The first number the airframe/anciliaries mod, second one the engine mod.

Initial A6M2 then Model 11 no carrier gear about 50 made for service trials.
Model 21 was fitted with carrier gear, that's the airframe modification for the new model designation. Several hundred built and initial carrier version.
Model 32 cut the wingtips (just a removal of the folding tips), lowered internal tankage (for balance) and upgraded the engine, they were meant for land based operation but kept carrier gear. Both numbers changed.
At the end of 43 fields in Rabaul were putting the wing tips back on their Model 32 so making them Model 22, also a Hamp.


I've heard it said directly the Hamp was intended as a land based Zero specific to operations like the Solomons (not necessarily that one specifically but for stations like that and as a quick and easy land based navy interceptor ready for production). That would infer the first dedicated update of the Zero specifically for carrier operations was the Model 52, which actually isn't a bad plane once they introduced armour and water injection in 1944 production, but it should have had those in 43 and suffered the operational range hit for better mission survivability.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 22, 2011)

vanir said:


> FlyboyJ I thought the Zero went Model 11, 21, 32, 22, 52, etc. The first number the airframe/anciliaries mod, second one the engine mod.
> 
> Initial A6M2 then Model 11 no carrier gear about 50 made for service trials.
> Model 21 was fitted with carrier gear, that's the airframe modification for the new model designation. Several hundred built and initial carrier version.
> ...



All points taken and you're probably right. My point here was the AVG DID NOT capture a "Hamp", DID NOT engage Zeros and DID NOT do penetration raids over Hong Kong.


----------



## post76 (Oct 22, 2011)

Thanks for making those distinctions.

It would still be a correct statement to say "The Flying Tigers" encountered the Zero understanding that by the time they did they were no longer called the AVG, they had become the 23rd fighter group.


----------



## vanir (Oct 22, 2011)

Absolutely agree FlyboyJ, I'm just not very confident with anything Pacific and try to corroberate what I've heard so far at places like here.


----------



## Ratsel (Oct 22, 2011)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Again, think about it....



Alright I did think about....

Take the P-40M-15-CU (last version used in Europe)

~ six .50's
~ Allison V-1710-81 - 1,200hp
~ max speed 360mph @ 15,000ft
~ cruise speed 290mph
~ rate of climb 2,050ft/min
~ ceiling 30,000
~ combat range 700 miles
~ wing loading of 36lb/sqft

compare it to the Standard Me 109G-6 

~ 2xMG 131 machine guns one 2cm or 3cm engine mounted cannon
~ DB 605ABM - 1,475ps
~ max speed 390mph @ 16,000ft
~ cruise speed 340mph
~ rate of climb 2,850ft/min
~ ceiling of 36,000ft
~ combat range 550 miles
~ wing loading of 40lb/sqft

Nevermind the G-5/AS or G-6/AS which was considerably faster w/ greater rates of climb. These 109's were up at 25,000ft engaging B-17/24 when the P-40M was for the most part ground strafing and bombing soft targets.. hence its 'other' nickname the B-40. You can compare the 109G-2/4 to the P-40K, the 109F to the P-40F/E (timeline wise) with simular results. Yah the P-40 did alright in N.Africa, but came up short to its rival. Seems the only advantage the P-40 had in the desert was when it met the 109, the Luftwaffe was usually outnumbered. The P-40 was a great handling a/c that could out turn a 109 at slower speeds.. but the 109 had the speed advantage. Speed = Life.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 22, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> Alright I did think about....
> 
> Take the P-40M-15-CU (last version used in Europe)
> 
> ...



Much better to compare aircraft that way...

Besides it is better than the "He Said, She Said" crap that you and Nxanthos keep throwing out. To say the P-40 or the Bf 109 were better than the other because of what a few pilots did is absurd (which is what everyone has been telling you guys), because in the end it *becomes nothing more than bickering*.


----------



## post76 (Oct 22, 2011)

Agreed, the 109G was the first to make the P-40 seem dated, otherwise the P-40 stood up well in the areas it confronted the 109. 
The reason for the G superiority would be the higher FTH, which usually correlates with higher top speed. 


As always, forums like these reveal the ratings the Allison used to come to their climb rates and top speeds.
+/-2000ft per minute was achieved at max continuous settings and 1200hp was often the military rating. 
You could easily attribute differences in top speed to instrument errors. 
As already shown in the D 520 vs 109 test. 

In my reading, the P-40 was never designed to fly higher than 15,000ft. 
Quite often pilots admit it was used in situations it wasn't designed for, aka, taking on A6M or 109s from 27,000ft.


----------



## post76 (Oct 22, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> They would have been different, like much worse.
> Just because a plane has a radiator located under or behind the cockpit does NOT mean it was like the Mustang's radiator setup. Production P-40s (long noses) had the radiator in the 3rd position tried. There are story's that the nose/chin radiator was done because of the sales/marketing department. However all configurations were test flown and the highest speeds were achieved with the nose/chin radiator like the production model had. The Speed difference was around 20mph. The Army engineering dept had told Allison that the type of reduction gear used on the 'long nose' engine was suspect even before it went into production. They were proved right ( there were reduction gear failures) so this 'problem' can NOT be laid at the Army Air Corps door step.
> Curtis is "supposed" to have sold the radiator design to North American for use in the Mustang, if this is true they much have sold all rights to it because no Curtiss ever used that design. Not the P-46, or the P-55 or any of the liquid cooled P-60s or any of the several modified P-40s in experimental programs.
> See: http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/5160/xp4011.jpg
> ...





Where are you getting that?

I read the radiator at the front of the plane was a higher drag location than the rear scoop position.
In part because it disrupts the boundary layer over the wing, multiplying drag. 
This was based on a 1976 publishing.


----------



## fastmongrel (Oct 22, 2011)

post76 said:


> In my reading, the P-40 was never designed to fly higher than 15,000ft.



Surely no aircraft company would design a fighter to only operate below 15,000ft. Ground attack wasnt really considered in the mid 30s what was considered was attacking bombers and the US must have known new designs of bomber were coming that would be flying well over 20,000ft, they after all were designing them. When compared to mid/late 30s design contemporaries the P40 wasnt noticeably worse at altitude.


----------



## Ratsel (Oct 22, 2011)

post76 said:


> Quite often pilots admit it was used in situations it wasn't designed for, aka, taking on A6M or 109s from 27,000ft.


Only if the A6M or Me 109's were 17,000ft below the P-40.


----------



## post76 (Oct 22, 2011)

I think looking at climb to height and top speed are different than what becomes apparent when reading about the P-40.
Think of design height. It has a wing loading and shape that favors a certain altitude range. 
It might fly up to its cieling, but what could it do beyond a diving pass?
Above that range makes for unfavorable performance characteristics. 
One of those often mentioned by pilots was a mushing effect in turns, particularly because of weight. 
This causes the bleeding of speed in turns and loss of sustained turn ability. Nevermind climb....
I'd be guessing, but that range was probably above 20,000ft for the P-40, but looking at performance it probably started closer to around 16000ft.

You can look at parallel development of the Fw-190 and it had similar problems despite increases in power, though probably more capable above 20,000ft.
It needed to be reengined and re-winged to compete, but they called that a Dora, otherwise it held well against most allied fighters in the same altitude range as the P-40. 
Similar developments along the P-40 line reveal the P-40K prototypes that lead to the P-60 and the P-40Q both reorganizing the wing and engine placement for better altitude performance. 
I should mention the P-39 here, and even though it was considered a minor improvement beyond the P-40 it had the same issues up high. 
Using 2nd gear supercharger out of the question for that reason??


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 22, 2011)

The P-39, -40 -51 have had about equal wing loading, so at the end it was all about the capability of the engine to produce more power at high altitude. The P-51 received it, and became one of the top planes from 20-35K. Never happened to the 39 40.


----------



## billswagger (Oct 22, 2011)

> The P-39, -40 -51 have had about equal wing loading, so at the end it was all about the capability of the engine to produce more power at high altitude.



If it was only about output they would've just installed 2nd stage/geared superchargers, no?

Aside from wing loading, the wing has other factors that contribute to performance characteristics, aspect ratio and lift to drag to name a couple.
More power is usually the way to circumvent an inadequate wing design.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 22, 2011)

post76 said:


> In my reading, the P-40 was never designed to fly higher than 15,000ft.
> Quite often pilots admit it was used in situations it wasn't designed for, aka, taking on A6M or 109s from 27,000ft.



I think this is one of those often repeated myths. Can anybody come up with any documents from the late 30s (1937-1939) that say that the USAAC didn't want planes that could fly higher than 15,000ft? 

Achieving peak speed at 15,000ft and not being designed to fly higher that 15,000ft are not at all the same thing. 

In 1938-early 1939 the USAAC was very interested in Turbo supercharged aircraft, they had been for years. From their experience they judged that turbo equipped aircraft would not be ready for about two years from the spring of 1939 when they placed the initial contract for P-40s. The P-39 and P-40 without turbos were supposed to ready in just one year. 

What helped kill P-40 altitude performance was a steady and large weight growth. 

Planes at the 1939 fighter trials included not only the P-40 but a YP-37 with a turbo-charger, a Hawk 75R ( P-36 with a TWO-stage supercharger). the XP-39 and the Seversky AP-4 ( P-35 with inward retracting landing gear and the SAME two-stage supercharged P&W engine and the Hawk 75R). The P-40 was judged the winner, in part because it would be available (in production) the quickest. 

Getting back to the weight growth. The XP-40 weighed 5,184 pounds empty and had a normal gross (not max) of 6280lbs. the First production versions went to 5,376lbs empty and 6,787lbs gross (normal), the P-40B (Tomahawk IIA) went to 5,590lbs empty and 7,325lbs gross and the P-40C (Tomahawk IIB) went to 5,812lbs empty and 7,549lbs gross (normal). A 20% increase in weight can do serious things to both rate of climb and ceiling. The P-40E gained some power low down (little or none at 15,000ft) but weight went to 6069lbs empty and 8290lbs Clean (max internal fuel but no external fuel or bombs). Again, it is easy to see why the P-40 did not perform at altitude, and it has little to do with the initial design requirements in 1938. It has something to do with a lack of engine development and the lack of effective light weight guns. Swapping in a DB601 would have done little or nothing until you get to the 601E. The 109 got it's altitude performance, not from a better supercharger or trick supercharger drive but from being almost a ton lighter.


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 22, 2011)

billswagger said:


> If it was only about output they would've just installed 2nd stage/geared superchargers, no?



The only two-stage in-line engine available for USAAC early enough was the Packard Merlin V-1650-3, and it was duly installed into a best airframe available. By the time US have had both 2nd stage Allisons and Merlins in quantity, P-39 -40 were being phased out. 



> Aside from wing loading, the wing has other factors that contribute to performance characteristics, aspect ratio and lift to drag to name a couple.
> More power is usually the way to circumvent an inadequate wing design.



Good points.


----------



## Ratsel (Oct 22, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> Again, it is easy to see why the P-40 did not perform at altitude, and it has little to do with the initial design requirements in 1938. It has something to do with a lack of engine development and the lack of effective light weight guns. Swapping in a DB601 would have done little or nothing until you get to the 601E. The 109 got it's altitude performance, not from a better supercharger or trick supercharger drive but from being almost a ton lighter.


Well the Me 109G-6 was 1/2 ton lighter (normal flying weight) then the P-40E and killed the P-40E performance wise (even at empty weight). In the case of the DB 605A along with its props and gear reduction, it was a much much better settup the the P-40's Allison/prop/g-r. That big chin hanging low out front of the P-40D up had alot to do with its lack of level flight speed. The P-40A/B/C had a much cleaner nose areodynamically speaking. Why Cutriss decided to go with a 10" lower crankshaft centerline is beyond this reporters mind.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 22, 2011)

post76 said:


> Where are you getting that?
> 
> I read the radiator at the front of the plane was a higher drag location than the rear scoop position.
> In part because it disrupts the boundary layer over the wing, multiplying drag.
> This was based on a 1976 publishing.



I am getting this from a number of sources. Any good history of the P-40 will tell you that the XP-40 was much slower with the radiator in the rear position than when moved to the front. According to the sources it varied from 299mph to 324mph. there were two other changes that could have affected speed. One was the change to ejector exhaust stubs with the XP-40 did not have and the other was moving the air intake forward a number of feet. After the changes the Plane got into the 340mph region. The Army wanted a Guaranteed speed of 350mph and later upped it to 360mph. Curtis promised they could meet the speeds. Failing to meet the guaranteed speeds would have meant a penalty for each and every aircraft made that did not reach the guarantee speed ( or an agreed upon tolerance). Moving a radiator and increasing drag to please the marketing dept would have been a very stupid thing to do. Curtiss lost over $14,000 on the P-46 contract because the second prototype to fly would not reach the guaranteed speed.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 22, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> Well the Me 109G-6 was 1/2 ton lighter (normal flying weight) then the P-40E and killed the P-40E performance wise (even at empty weight). In the case of the DB 605A along with its props and gear reduction, it was a much much better settup the the P-40's Allison/prop/g-r. That big chin hanging low out front of the P-40D up had alot to do with its lack of level flight speed. The P-40A/B/C had a much cleaner nose areodynamically speaking. Why Cutriss decided to go with a 10" lower crankshaft centerline is beyond this reporters mind.



They went with the change in thrust line to get the better reduction gear design. Curtiss really didn't have any choice. Allison made the engines and the reduction gears. The Long nose engines were having trouble with the gears at 1040hp, going to 1150HP (or more) with the old style gear would just be inviting trouble. 
The chin radiator may not have been as bad as many people claim. P-40E could do 360mph at 15,000ft on 1150hp. That is assuming that the "RAM" lifts the FTH from 12,000ft to 15,000ft. if not then it is getting 360mph on less power. The 109F-1/2 was good for about 370-380mph at 15,000ft using about 1160hp? Now not only does the P-40 have that big chin radiator but it is a lot heavier, has about 36% more wing area and is generally bigger in General. Even if the wings had the same profile (airfoil) the P-40s larger wing would be good for about 10-12mph worth of the difference. 
Without access to the flight test data of the planes (p-40s) with the various radiator installations we are just guessing. Considering that there were 7 different radiator configurations tried on the P-40 somebody must have accumulated some interesting data on radiator drag


----------



## vanir (Oct 22, 2011)

That was where Curtiss got their French orders from you know, the French wanted dive speed which is what sold them on the P-36 originally and in turn the P-40, which they considered simply a re-engined P-36 of which there were already two radial variations. It was actually the British that requested all the extra gear in the P-40 like extra armouring and self sealing tanks but these didn't appear until the P-40B, French and initial Army orders were for the plain P-40 based off the prototype.

I read the original Curtiss marketing flight tests of the P-36, power on vertical dives to a minimum speed of 400mph etc. It actually hit 450 in the test, French made an order within the month.

The thing which strikes me though is it being fairly unusual the US level speed requirements. It sounds suspiciously competitive with the European arms race of the thirties. Top speed ratings are for brochures in the marketing department, they don't relate much to military interests. RAF requirements are things like throttle heights and loadbearing. German ones altitude, cruise and rough field performance. The high top speeds of British and German fighters was incidental, not specified as far as I can remember.

Anyways we had a lot of P-40E and P-40M with a handful of F and K in Australia (NZ got the N and we went to the Spit), I have been around these warbirds and people who've flown them. Relating mostly to the P-40M, what I've heard is marginally slower than a LF MkV Spit. Marginally.
Yeah heresay, take it for whatever it's worth.


----------



## Wildcat (Oct 22, 2011)

vanir said:


> Anyways we had a lot of P-40E and P-40M with a handful of F and K in Australia (NZ got the N and we went to the Spit), I have been around these warbirds and people who've flown them. Relating mostly to the P-40M, what I've heard is marginally slower than a LF MkV Spit. Marginally.
> Yeah heresay, take it for whatever it's worth.


Actually Australia received 553 P-40N's, making it the most numerous of all P-40 marks to serve the RAAF in the Pacific.


----------



## vanir (Oct 22, 2011)

The three front line sqns in PNG had MkIa and MkIII. They started transitioning to SpitXIII in 43 and I was under the impression NZ wound up with the Ns.
I've not looked it up for a year, I'm going by memory and what I read in passing. That was just what I was thinking.

Happily stand corrected.


----------



## Ratsel (Oct 22, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> They went with the change in thrust line to get the better reduction gear design. Curtiss really didn't have any choice. Allison made the engines and the reduction gears. The Long nose engines were having trouble with the gears at 1040hp, going to 1150HP (or more) with the old style gear would just be inviting trouble.
> The chin radiator may not have been as bad as many people claim. P-40E could do 360mph at 15,000ft on 1150hp. That is assuming that the "RAM" lifts the FTH from 12,000ft to 15,000ft. if not then it is getting 360mph on less power. The 109F-1/2 was good for about 370-380mph at 15,000ft using about 1160hp? Now not only does the P-40 have that big chin radiator but it is a lot heavier, has about 36% more wing area and is generally bigger in General. Even if the wings had the same profile (airfoil) the P-40s larger wing would be good for about 10-12mph worth of the difference.
> Without access to the flight test data of the planes (p-40s) with the various radiator installations we are just guessing. Considering that there were 7 different radiator configurations tried on the P-40 somebody must have accumulated some interesting data on radiator drag



The P-40-CU ( Tomahawk II) did 360mph with a Allison V-1710-33 making 1,090hp. Max ceiling was 33,000ft and climbed at 3,080ft/min. Seems the 'E' went the opposite direction with that big old chin


----------



## vanir (Oct 22, 2011)

worth it for the sharks teeth pal


----------



## Ratsel (Oct 22, 2011)

vanir said:


> worth it for the sharks teeth pal


Some Tomahawks had the Shark-teeth too. Both in the Pacific N.Africa.


----------



## vanir (Oct 22, 2011)

okay I fail at facetious


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 22, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> The P-40-CU ( Tomahawk II) did 360mph with a Allison V-1710-33 making 1,090hp. Max ceiling was 33,000ft and climbed at 3,080ft/min. Seems the 'E' went the opposite direction with that big old chin



I think you are confusing the cause and effect of that big old chin and the 1500lb (22%) weight gain.
Considering that the Tomahawk IIB (P40-C) was down to 345mph, ceiling of 29,500ft and initial climb of 2650fpm with exactly the same radiator and engine as the P-40-CU ( Tomahawk I). And considering that the Allison V-1710-33 was good for 1090hp at 13,200ft compared to the 1150hp at 12,000ft for the P-40E and knocking off 2% for the adjustment in altitude means that the "E" had a whopping 35-40 more HP in the 15,000ft area than the P-40-CU.


----------



## Wildcat (Oct 22, 2011)

vanir said:


> The three front line sqns in PNG had MkIa and MkIII. They started transitioning to SpitXIII in 43 and I was under the impression NZ wound up with the Ns.
> I've not looked it up for a year, I'm going by memory and what I read in passing. That was just what I was thinking.
> 
> Happily stand corrected.



Hi Vanir. Delivery's of P-40N's for the RAAF began in July 1943. 75, 76, 77, 78, 80, 82, 84, 86 and 120(NEI) squadrons were all eventually equipped with, and saw combat with, the N model. No 80 Wing (79, 452 457 sqn's) were the Spitfire MkVIII equipped units you might be thinking about.
HTH


----------



## Njaco (Oct 23, 2011)

vanir said:


> That was where Curtiss got their French orders from you know, the French wanted dive speed which is what sold them on the P-36 originally and in turn the P-40, which they considered simply a re-engined P-36 of which there were already two radial variations. It was actually the British that requested all the extra gear in the P-40 like extra armouring and self sealing tanks but these didn't appear until the P-40B, French and initial Army orders were for the plain P-40 based off the prototype.
> 
> I read the original Curtiss marketing flight tests of the P-36, power on vertical dives to a minimum speed of 400mph etc. It actually hit 450 in the test, French made an order within the month.
> 
> ...



I'm not so sure. The reason many early LW bombers had minimum defensive weapons was because they believed that the speed of the bomber was faster than the defending fighters. So speed was a military consideration at some point although it may have not been a major consideration.


----------



## post76 (Oct 23, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> What helped kill P-40 altitude performance was a steady and large weight growth.


Exactly, weight growth. 
Is that not an opposing design feature to "design to fly higher"?


----------



## vanir (Oct 23, 2011)

Njaco said:


> I'm not so sure. The reason many early LW bombers had minimum defensive weapons was because they believed that the speed of the bomber was faster than the defending fighters. So speed was a military consideration at some point although it may have not been a major consideration.



That was the medium bomber requirement though, actually the trend started by the SB2 and taken up by dornier, blenheim, etc. The philosophy was speed over defensive armament. That was doctrine based.
I was more thinking of fighter requirements, British Air Ministry and RLM gave no speed requirements for fighters that I can think of appearing in any records, I mean I'm existentialising not making unfalsifiable claims, but the points that stood out were things like throttle height, or rough field performance, all combat related stuff. Max level speeds as you know aren't very reflective of combat performance or even what the envelope for that aircraft is like. Even the Japanese had no particular requirement for speed, or the Russians. The US which coincidentally had marketing interests and ambitions for the postwar aero industry, they're the only ones I can think of that offered a model contract on the basis of "must exceed 400mph in level flight, etc."

Hey I could be way wrong, has anybody come across anything along these lines? Some of you have much better libraries than me. Stuff I think is just a work in progress.


Oh and hey Wildcat, thanks for the info there. I lose track reading so much in passing, but really my memory retention is only good when it's very specific to a project, and on the one where I was reading Kittyhawk stuff it was for some Il2 flight remodelling of the P-40E and M in a mod I uploaded. I was trying to get accurate RAAF spec for the MkIa and MkIII and traced those stationed for a bit, it wasn't detailed research on the RAAF squadrons in total or their equipment and I can't remember how I got my impressions.

I like to get it right though, I write a little fiction with historic backdrops and it's nice to be pedantic about details I think, just good habit, write fiction like a documentarian. I tend to write matter-of-factly so it's better if the facts are correct. At some stage I planned writing something about the fighter combat over PNG, but I'm at the Eastern Front at the moment.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 23, 2011)

A few comments here folks about the P-40 and USAAC procurement.

The P-40 design started in 1937 with the first flight occurring in October 1938. The design requirement issued at the development of the P-40 was loosely based on what the status-quo at the time really wanted in a "pursuit" aircraft (note we're not talking fighter). During that period the US was an isolationist country and its primary military doctrine was protection of US territory and interest and the thought process was just to "pursue" the forigen enemy and rid them of US territory. Additionally the US Navy saw protection of American shores as THEIR mission and there was a lot of inter-service bickering that led to many program hampered by politics and red tape. 

Things changed with a NEW fighter specification issued January 25, 1939 that not only saw additional requirements placed on developing aircraft, but also introduced the specification for a fast medium bomber that would eventually bring about the B-25 and B-26, also being developed at this time. It was thought that most air combat was going to be occurring at lower altitudes 10 - 15,000 feet, 20K max. Look at the operating altitudes of the bombers of early 1939, early JU-88s had service ceilings barely reaching 30K, their best operating altitudes were going to be between 15 - 20K. A lot of the thinking was based on what was being operated over Spain just a few years earlier.

Basically American industry gave the customer what they asked for when the P-40 arrived but military planners were either stubborn or too political to see what was on the horizon. Considering the political climate of this period, the P-40 turned out to be an excellent design despite its short comings.

Read Victory Through Airpower by Serversky - he hints of this through out his book and talks about the P-40 lacking horsepower and and being void of a good cannon armament. Additionally he calls the Allison engine the "pet" of the AAC, but also remember when this book was written he was just ousted as the head of Republic. Its a good read and takes you back in time to the thinking of those who were actually involved in developing American hardware that would eventually see combat in WW2.


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 23, 2011)

I'd say that USAAC planers were trying to have all bases covered (hope that's the slang?), since they've ordered 13 pre-series YP-38s in April 1939, and we can be certain they knew such an airplane was to be suitable for altitudes from 20K up. The single-engined, turboed pursuit plane was to be available a year or two later compared with mech-supercharged plane, so they went for the later.

As for claims by A. Seversky that V-1710 was AAC's pet plane, that seems not to hold water - USAAC went for R-2800s for their next-gen fighter, the P-47, already in June 1940. They also looked after a 'second source of inline engines', and found that in Packard (=Merlins) - according to the 'Vee's for victory'.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 23, 2011)

post76 said:


> Exactly, weight growth.
> Is that not an opposing design feature to "design to fly higher"?



It is not a "design feature". It is a consequence of adapting an existing design to contemporary combat conditions. Nobody designed their planes to be heavier than they needed to be to perform the functions required of them. If the D.520 had survived another year (France not fallen in 1940) and they had added 400-500lbs worth of armor and self sealing tanks to the D.520 and it's altitude performance suffered as a result would you be claiming that the D.520 was not designed to fly at more than 15,000ft?


----------



## Ratsel (Oct 23, 2011)

You know, I was trying and trying to find the book where the designer of the P-40D stated that the chin was a big problem for level flight speed directional stability, but I cant find it. Go figure. Anyways, just wanted to point out that even he thought that was the problem. So they came up with the XP-40K-CU-15, the forerunner to the P-40Q. I also read somewhere that North American '_borrowed_' Curtiss's data on that ship (before it was built), and hence the P-51 was born.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 23, 2011)

Us Procurement was also done in stages, at least at times. The USAAC would issue a "requirement" to which a number of manufactures would respond with paper proposals. The USAAC would evaluate these proposals and pick one or more (or none) to be developed further. After a bit of negotiations a contract would be written covering the construction of one or more prototypes and it is here that performance guarantees start to show up. If the plane does not reach it's performance guarantees the Army does not have to pay full price for the plane. You could think of the first part as a "wish list" and after the manufacturers come up with their proposals of how close they can come the Army starts to get real settles for what is achievable in the next few years. 
The USAAC was to put it mildly, very frugal in the 1930s. Like with engine development. If they contracted for a test engine to develop XXX horse power an under test it did not make it, the Army could refuse to pay for the engine. If the engine broke on the test stand before the completion of the test it was up to the manufacturer to repair it and test it again in order to complete the contract. 

If the Allison was "pet" of the USAAC they had a funny way of showing it. In the Spring of 1939 the USAAC was over $900,000 behind in payments to Allison for work already done. They got out of paying it by swapping the debt for permission to export the V-1710 to France and England. I don't want to think of what they did to companies that were not "pets"

Other countries had a number of requirements, sometimes general requirements were put out in a booklet or paper that covered ALL aircraft. Things like "G" loading's for various types of aircraft, perhaps ground pressure of tires, materials or fittings standards. This way when issuing a fighter (or pursuit) or bomber "requirement" it would focus on the performance desired and all the little details (or not so little) would be covered by saying "refer to requirements booklet XXX for all other specifications".

One book on the Bf 109 gives a German tactical requirement for fighters dated 6/7/1933.

Armament is listed as is a maximum speed (400kph at 6000meters), Range/endurance, Climb to altitude, ceiling, and airfield size (400 meters X 400 meters) along with some other considerations. 

It seems that it is some of these "details" that decisions were made that seriously affected some aircraft's performance as time went on.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 23, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> You know, I was trying and trying to find the book where the designer of the P-40D stated that the chin was a big problem for level flight speed directional stability, but I cant find it. Go figure. Anyways, just wanted to point out that even he thought that was the problem. So they came up with the XP-40K-CU-15, the forerunner to the P-40Q. I also read somewhere that North American '_borrowed_' Curtiss's data on that ship (before it was built), and hence the P-51 was born.



It still doesn't stand up. The XP-40K with the cooling modifications doesn't show up until about 2 years after the the Prototype P-51 is rolled out the door. Granted you did say before the the XP-40K was built, but that is an awful long time to be sitting on that kind of information. It has also been said that the XP-46 used the same type of radiator that the P-51 did but Curtiss sure didn't seem to get the performance out of it. And as I keep pointing out, Curtiss didn't use that style of radiator on any of the liquid cooled P-60 aircraft.
Curtiss had been the #1 supplier of fighters to the US Army for a good part of the time between the wars, It seems hard to believe they wouldn't use every trick they knew to try to regain that position. Instead they churned out a succession of duds while giving away speed secrets to their competitors?


----------



## Ratsel (Oct 23, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> Curtiss had been the #1 supplier of fighters to the US Army for a good part of the time between the wars, It seems hard to believe they wouldn't use every trick they knew to try to regain that position. Instead they churned out a succession of duds while giving away speed secrets to their competitors?


So it would seem. Curtiss also was working on a turbo/supercharged version called the XP-40J. IIRC with simular lines to the XP-40K-CU-15. I think that the USAAF had a _bromance_ with the P-38, which effectively killed the P-40. But the USAAF had contractual obligations to Curtiss so kept the P-40 w/o major improvements. I mean after all, dosn't all relevant data go to the USAAF for evaluation? This is just a theory of mine.

found it:

source (about speed stability) pg.23 of Curtiss_P-40_in_action. Don Berlin was the guys name.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 23, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> So it would seem. Curtiss also was working on a turbo/supercharged version called the XP-40J. IIRC with simular lines to the XP-40K-CU-15. I think that the USAAF had a _bromance_ with the P-38, which effectively killed the P-40. But the USAAF had contractual obligations to Curtiss so kept the P-40 w/o major improvements. *I mean after all, dosn't all relevant data go to the USAAF for evaluation?* This is just a theory of mine.



Only if there is a contract to do so. There is a lot of proprietary information held by manufacturer and even if the government wants the information in interest of national security, it is sold to the government.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 23, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> So it would seem. Curtiss also was working on a turbo/supercharged version called the XP-40J. IIRC with simular lines to the XP-40K-CU-15. I think that the USAAF had a _bromance_ with the P-38, which effectively killed the P-40. But the USAAF had contractual obligations to Curtiss so kept the P-40 w/o major improvements. I mean after all, dosn't all relevant data go to the USAAF for evaluation? This is just a theory of mine.
> 
> found it:
> 
> source (about speed stability) pg.23 of Curtiss_P-40_in_action. Don Berlin was the guys name.



There already was a P-40 with a turbocharger. It was called the P-37. There was an XP-37 and 13 YP-37s. The First YP-37 flew in Jan of 1939 and was delivered to the army in March. 

The USAAF had NO long term contractual obligations to Curtiss. For example the last batch of 1000 (P-40N-40) was ordered on June 30 1944. It was later cut back to 220 aircraft. The Previous order for 1000 planes (500 P-40N-30s and 500 P-40N-35s) was placed on Feb 14 1944. If Curtiss could demonstrate (or even show detailed proposals) for improved P-40s existing contracts could be amended or new contracts placed. 

The P-40 was initially ordered and kept in production, not because it was the best but because it was available and once in large scale production ( at it's best, Curtiss could build over 400 fighters per month) the numbers of fighters lost to retooling for a major change would run to many hundreds of aircraft.


----------



## claidemore (Oct 23, 2011)

RAF did have minimum speed requriements with some of their specifications. 
Air Ministry specification F.7/30 specified a fighter with a minimum speed of 250mph, which was the start of the Spitfire. 
Specification F.35/35 was for a 'very' high speed fighter, to be made by Airspeed, but never built. 
Specification F.18/37 was for a 12 gun fighter capable of at least 400mph, from which the Hawker Typhoon emerged.


----------



## vanir (Oct 23, 2011)

Oh yeah I forgot about that early Spit requirement, I think it's in one of my Price books and a sea level requirement if I'm not mistaken, they were big on that in the late-thirties but not so much top speed at altitude, at least in the speed races of the day which trialled a lot of european fighters. I never got the impression the RLM or British were quite like the USAAF/USN about the speed requirement, then when I thought about it neither the Russians nor the Japanese either. Would you agree or do you think I might be off on this (I mean I could be, sure)?

Hey and the way I read it (Price again, but he's been wrong before) the Typhoon started as a private venture and the specification was written around it. Is this not correct?


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 23, 2011)

Some authors say that the Japanese navy had a requirement for a fighter that could do 310mph ( or the metric equivalent) plus a few other performance specs that led to the Zero. 

British air ministry may have put out feelers or a wish list to which manufacturers responded before official specifications were written up. 

Specification F.18/37 , just as Claidemore stated, called for a minimum speed of 400mph and while Hawker got a contract for the Typhoon out of it, Hawker was by no means the only company to submit proposals. It was policy in those days to start the procedure for an aircraft's replacement even as it was coming into service. Hawker had gone to the Air Ministry with a proposal but were told to hold onto it as the F.18/37 specification would be coming out soon and they might want to revise their proposal to fully meet the specification. Bristol, Gloster, Supermarine all submitted proposal in addition to Hawker.


----------



## vanir (Oct 23, 2011)

Cheers, learning stuff is partly why I'm here


----------



## post76 (Oct 24, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> It is not a "design feature". It is a consequence of adapting an existing design to contemporary combat conditions. Nobody designed their planes to be heavier than they needed to be to perform the functions required of them.
> 
> Again, if it was designed to fly at high altitude, why add the weight?
> The way this reads is, "i'd rather have toughness than a plane that flys higher."
> ...


----------



## MikeGazdik (Oct 24, 2011)

A few points I recall from various readings over the years. The Army Air Corps was infatuated with the inline liquid cooled engine, thus the P-38, P-39, and 1/2 our topic, the P-40. Don't forget the P-40 was really a P-36 with the radial removed. All of those aircraft were powered by the Allison because the customer, the USAAC, wanted it that way. Alot of misguided desires by the USAAC , were produced in all of these aircraft. From what I recall, Lockheed basically HAD to design a twin engine aircraft to meet the performace desired by the USAAC, because they wanted the Allison used.

The best two U.S.A. fighters in Europe, were not designed as the Army specifically asked. Republic used a radial in thier design despite the preference of an inline. The performance of the design forced it's acceptance. And we all know how the P-51 came into existence, with the USAAC not even involved and even delayed "looking" at the aircraft.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 24, 2011)

you seem to having a lot of trouble with the difference between "as designed"" and as used 2-4 years after the initial design was done. 

Why add the weight?
British opinion at the time (summer/fall of 1940) was that a fighter without armor and self-sealing tanks was good for little more than being a trainer. Two synchronized .50 cal MGs were hardly an effective armament. With even the free firing .50 cal guns at the beginning of 1940 cycling at 600rpm the Sychro guns were down well under 500rpm. Even later installations (P-39 and British Mustangs) with nominal 800rpm guns often couldn't top 500rpm when synchronized. 

A high flying plane that was an unprotected torch and was lacking in fire power doesn't really do much good.

Extra gun ports/cartridge chutes, protruding gun barrels and such also hurt. Original design requirement was for two .50 cal guns with just 200rpg. Just think about that and see how well it lines up with the oft told tale about the P-40 being "designed" to be a ground straffer. A US .50 weighed about as much (or more) than a German 20mm MG/FF. 



WW II turbos were not an add on accessory like a car turbo. Because of their weight and bulk (for fighters) you either designed them in from the start or you did without. 



A second gear on the Allison would have done next to nothing. It was already using a altitude gear. Please go over existing threads and learn why and how supercharger gears work and the effect they have. Also learn why the German engines performed at the altitudes they did or didn't perform. the Db 601Aa in the 109E made slightly less power at 12,000ft than the engine in a P-40C and despite the hydraulic drive it didn't get better at higher altitude. The DB 601N engine made about 20hp more than an Allison with 9.60 supercharger gears about 1200ft higher. The DB Hydralic supercharger charge drive did ZIP for high altitude performance. 

Could the P-40 have worked better? Yes just look at the P-40F but it was still a bit late and too heavy. Part of that goes back to the very beginning. You can take a fuel tank out of a plane to lighten it up very easily, but taking out the extra wing area and structural weight that allowed the plane to carry the fuel tank and/or take off in a given distance with that tank are a lot harder to take out later vs designing them out to begin with. The XP-40 was designed to hold 158 US gallons in unprotected tanks and this went to 180 US gallons in the P-40-CU. that is just about 150 imp gallons. Think about adding a 55 gallon fuel drum to the INSIDE of either a Spitfire or 109 in addition to what is already there. Range (fuel capacity) vs take-off distance (field length) is a trade-off every plane designer/manufacturer and air force had to make. The more fuel the bigger the wing needed to be, the bigger the wing the heavier the wing and so on. 

The US seems to have had a tendency to over gun their aircraft, especially in the 1940-42 time frame.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 24, 2011)

MikeGazdik said:


> A few points I recall from various readings over the years. The Army Air Corps was infatuated with the inline liquid cooled engine, thus the P-38, P-39, and 1/2 our topic, the P-40. Don't forget the P-40 was really a P-36 with the radial removed. All of those aircraft were powered by the Allison because the customer, the USAAC, wanted it that way. Alot of misguided desires by the USAAC , were produced in all of these aircraft. From what I recall, Lockheed basically HAD to design a twin engine aircraft to meet the performace desired by the USAAC, because they wanted the Allison used.



Lockheed had to use the Allison because there was no Single 1500hp engine available. The Wright R-2600 was on the way but in 1937 it wasn't really flyable hardware and needed more time. The R-2800 was two years away from being put in a test mule. Nobody was sure that an aircooled radial would stand up to being turbo charged, they hadn't tried it yet. The Allison wins by default. 



MikeGazdik said:


> The best two U.S.A. fighters in Europe, were not designed as the Army specifically asked. Republic used a radial in thier design despite the preference of an inline. The performance of the design forced it's acceptance. And we all know how the P-51 came into existence, with the USAAC not even involved and even delayed "looking" at the aircraft.



The design of the P-47 was a bit tortured. It started out as a very small Allison powered fighter but it was soon realized that initial estimates were way off the mark and weight growth ( which required ever larger wings) would soon leave the plane no better than what was already being made lead to a re-think. The Army was also starting to worry about being able to supply enough Allisons for all the different programs. I don't know who came up with the eight .50 cal gun requirement but that sealed the deal. Eight .50s could not be carried by a 1150-1350hp engine.


----------



## vanir (Oct 24, 2011)

Seriously some of you blokes here have an incredible array of specific and detailed knowledge. I have trouble remembering half the stuff I read.


----------



## davparlr (Oct 24, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> The US seems to have had a tendency to over gun their aircraft, especially in the 1940-42 time frame.


Could you expound on this a bit. Not that I doubt it, I am just interested in your rationale.


----------



## MikeGazdik (Oct 24, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> Lockheed had to use the Allison because there was no Single 1500hp engine available. The Wright R-2600 was on the way but in 1937 it wasn't really flyable hardware and needed more time. The R-2800 was two years away from being put in a test mule. Nobody was sure that an aircooled radial would stand up to being turbo charged, they hadn't tried it yet. The Allison wins by default.
> 
> *Agreed, you spelled it out better than I. To deliver what was asked for, Lockheed had to use two Allisons.*
> 
> The design of the P-47 was a bit tortured. It started out as a very small Allison powered fighter but it was soon realized that initial estimates were way off the mark and weight growth ( which required ever larger wings) would soon leave the plane no better than what was already being made lead to a re-think. The Army was also starting to worry about being able to supply enough Allisons for all the different programs. I don't know who came up with the eight .50 cal gun requirement but that sealed the deal. Eight .50s could not be carried by a 1150-1350hp engine.



Again, I agree. Severesky / Republic had gained thier turbo-supercharged radial knowledge with the P-43 Lancer. When the orginal design (little of anything I can find to read about) of the inline P-47 was obvious to achieve nothing in performance gains, Republic basically enlarged the P-43 design to use the new R-2800, along with Rebuplic's method of turbo-charging the engine.


----------



## fastmongrel (Oct 24, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> The design of the P-47 was a bit tortured. It started out as a very small Allison powered fighter but it was soon realized that initial estimates were way off the mark and weight growth ( which required ever larger wings) would soon leave the plane no better than *what was already being made lead* to a re-think.



First time I read that I thought "planes made out of LEAD" no wonder the P40 struggled at altitude


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 24, 2011)

davparlr said:


> Could you expound on this a bit. Not that I doubt it, I am just interested in your rationale.



The US was coming off a decade long one .50 and one .30 cal gun standard. Usually 200 rounds for the .50 and 500 rounds of the .30 although two .30s could be and were fitted at times. in the 1939-40 period Navy planes went to one .30 and three .50s and then four .50s while doubling the ammo load per gun (or more), unfortunately without a compensating increase in engine power. Throw in the fitting of armor and self-sealing tanks and weight was certainly going up faster than power. Good as the .50 was it was a heavy gun and used heavy ammunition. 
The Army over did things as well. Adding a pair of .30 cal guns to the P-39 (in the nose) was bad enough but when they went to four .30s in the wings with 1000rpg things were getting just a bit silly. That is approximately 240lbs of .30 cal ammo and the .30 cal ammo was going to last over 30 seconds longer than the 37mm and .50 cal ammo. Fitting the early P-40s with 380 rpg of .50 cal ammo for the fuselage guns went the other way. the .50s might have 20 seconds of firing time after the wing .30s ran dry. 
The P-46 prototype with TWO .50s and EIGHT .30s? 
The P-40E with SIX .50s? impressive firepower but one .50 gun weighs almost 3 times as much as a .30 and the ammo is 5 times heavier. Upping the engine power by 50-100hp doesn't quite cut it. 
P-47? well it had 2000hp but at 425rpg of .50 cal ammo the P-47 was carrying over 1000lbs of ammo. They often flew with much less ammo. 
The prototype P-55 originally had two 20mm and two .50s for a 1250hp engine.
The P-54 had more power but had TWO 37mm guns in a tilt-able nose mount to match the trajectories of the two .50s. 
The P-53 (or P-60) was supposed to have EIGHT .50s but didn't get the 2000hp engine until much later in development. 
And so on. 

As an Idea of the weights involved a P-40C carried around 590lbs of guns and ammo compared to a Spitfire with eight .303s 440lbs or so. A P-40E carried just over 900lbs and a P-39 was around 860lbs. Spitfire with two 20mm and four .303s was about 650lbs.

The entire reason for being for a fighter/pursuit/interceptor is to get a battery of guns into firing position against an enemy aircraft. Too light an armament and even the best performing aircraft will find success difficult. Too heavy an armament and the aircraft will face extreme difficulty in getting into firing position.


----------



## Nxthanos (Oct 25, 2011)

Famous P-40 pilots

Nicky Barr: RAAF ace (11 victories); also a member of the Australian national rugby team. 
Gregory Boyington: AVG/US Marine Corps; later commanded USMC VMF-214, the "Black Sheep Squadron".) 
Clive Caldwell: RAAF, highest-scoring P-40 pilot from any air force (22 victories); highest-scoring Allied pilot in North Africa;[85] Australia's highest-scoring ace in World War II (28.5 victories). 
Daniel H. David: USAAF; later famous as the comedian and actor Dan Rowan; scored two victories and was wounded, while flying P-40s in the Southwest Pacific. 
Billy Drake: RAF, the leading British P-40 ace, with 13 victories. 
James Francis Edwards: RCAF, 15.75 victories (12 on the P-40); also wrote two books about British Commonwealth Kittyhawk pilots.[86] 
Geoff Fisken: RNZAF, the highest scoring British Commonwealth ace in the Pacific theater (11 victories), including five victories in Kittyhawks. 
Jack Frost: SAAF, the highest scoring air ace in a South African unit, with 15 victories (seven on the P-40); missing in action since 16 June 1942.[86] 
John Gorton: RAAF; Prime Minister of Australia, 1968–1971; flew Kittyhawks with No. 77 Squadron in New Guinea and was an instructor on the type. 
John F. Hampshire Jr.: USAAF, 23rd FG, China; equal top-scoring US P-40 pilot (13 victories). 
David Lee "Tex" Hill: AVG/USAAF, 2nd Squadron AVG and 23rd FG USAAF, 12.25 P-40 victories (18.25 total). 
Bruce K. Holloway: AVG/USAAF, equal top-scoring US P-40 pilot (13 victories); later a USAF general (four-star) and commander of Strategic Air Command.[87] 
James H. Howard: AVG/USAAF, six victories in P-40s with the AVG; later awarded the Medal of Honor following a single action in a P-51 over Europe. 
Nikolai Fyodorovich Kuznetsov: VVS, twice Hero of the Soviet Union; most of his 22 victories were scored in P-40s. 
Stepan Novichkov: VVS, highest scoring Soviet P-40 ace, with 19 victories; a further 10 victories on other types. 
Petr Pokryshev: VVS, 14 victories in P-40s; twice Hero of the Soviet Union; eight victories on other types. 
William N. (Bill) Reed: AVG/USAAF, commanded 3rd FG, Chinese-American Composite Wing (Provisional), 14th Air Force; nine victories in P-40s. 
Robert Lee Scott, Jr.: USAAF, commander of the 23rd FG, China; more than 10 victories in P-40s. 
Kenneth M. Taylor: USAAF; one of only two US pilots to get airborne (in a P-40) during the attack on Pearl Harbor (7 December 1941), during which he shot down two aircraft and was wounded in the arm. 
Keith Truscott: RAAF; pre-war star of Australian football; became an ace in the UK during 1941, while flying Spitfires; commanded a Kittyhawk squadron at the Battle of Milne Bay (New Guinea, 1942); killed in an accident in 1943, while flying a P-40. 
Boyd Wagner: USAAF; while flying P-40s, Wagner became the first USAAF ace of World War II (on 17 December 1941), during the Philippines Campaign. 
Len Waters: RAAF, the only Australian Aboriginal fighter pilot of World War II. 
George Welch: USAAF; one of only two US pilots to get airborne (in a P-40) during the attack on Pearl Harbor. Welch destroyed three Japanese aircraft that day. 

Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtiss_P-40_Warhawk#Famous_P-40_pilots

Quite a few aces there, the Soviet pilots are particualrly impressive, as they fought the 109 head to head same as the brits, and their P-40s came out on top.


----------



## Nxthanos (Oct 25, 2011)

FLYBOYJ said:


> NOT TRUE.


Actually it is true.

Very impressive post.

Ever hear of Guangzhou? In the west they called it canton.

Guess what outfit escourted B-25 bombers there on its final day of operatrion, july 4th 1942.

http://www.flyingtigersavg.com/tiger1.htm

Yes, the AVG, NOT 23rd Fighter Group.

On that mission, the Tigers reported an odd shaped aircraft with a square wing (Col Scott mentions this in his book, and Tex Hill also brought this up at an airshow I saw him give a lecture at in the 1980s, in response to someone saying the Tigers never fought zeros), the only such aircraft was the imperial Navy's A6M3 'Hamp'. So no offense, but I'll take the word of the 23 FG CO, Col Scott, and of one of the best AVG pilots, Tex Hill over revisionist history.

You yourself mentioned that two zero wrecks were found by the chinese, the only ones who would. The AVG bases were in a very primative area of china, travel except by air took quite a long time even from relitively close by.

I never said they mixed it up every day, but they did fight the Imperial navy at times.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 25, 2011)

Nxthanos said:


> Actually it is true.
> 
> Very impressive post.
> 
> ...



The distance between Hong Kong and Guangzhou is over 100 miles, not quite the same place and its even further north east. Indeed it was the AVG's last mission and what was left of the AVG had already abandoned its bases in the west and was already being planned to be merged into the 23rd which was based towards the east. All this is documented in David Jablowonski's book "Greater East Asia Cp-Prosperity Sphere" part of the "Airwar" series. Another read that states that there were no Mitsubishi fighters being flown against the AVG. I give you that - it was their last mission but you're original statement... 


> _"Chennault also identified the plane and sent full reports on it when the Japanese operationally tested it in China. A lot of people today want to claim the AVG only fought nates and some Oscars,* but they also mixed it up with Zeros. Not over Burma, but often during pentration attacks on places like Hong kong*, whcih were defended by the Imperial Navy not army fighters."_


 
I guess one mission on their last day of operation 100 miles from your claim counts as "often"?!?  BTW, 4 enemy aircraft were claimed that day, any information on what they were and who claimed them????

I'll tell you - *The AVG's last combat was over Hengyang on the day it was disbanded, 4 July. In this final action, four Ki-27s were shot down for no loss.* This was taken from one of the AVG sites.

Do you have proof to back up your claim about the IJNAF fighting in South Eastern China??? Do you have lists of the flotillas or squadrons based in that part of China??? Did the AVG ever claim one? NO. Here's a list of KIA/ MIA/ POW JAAF pilots who flew against the AVG. Not one Naval Officer.

http://chinaburmaindiawwii.devhub.c...hter-pilots-lost-in-china-burma-area-1941-42/

BTW - two on the list were from July 4, 1942, the AVG's last mission.




Nxthanos said:


> On that mission, the Tigers reported an odd shaped aircraft with a square wing (Col Scott mentions this in his book, and Tex Hill also brought this up at an airshow I saw him give a lecture at in the 1980s, in response to someone saying the Tigers never fought zeros), the only such aircraft was the imperial Navy's A6M3 'Hamp'. So no offense, but I'll take the word of the 23 FG CO, Col Scott, and of one of the best AVG pilots, Tex Hill over revisionist history.
> 
> You yourself mentioned that two zero wrecks were found by the chinese, the only ones who would. The AVG bases were in a very primative area of china, travel except by air took quite a long time even from relitively close by.
> 
> *I never said they mixed it up every day, but they did fight the Imperial navy at times*.



Hmmmm, from "often" to this?

It sounds like you're side-stepping. The two wrecks found were well documented and weren't made airworthy until the AVG was disbanded. Those aircraft were enroute to Hanoi and were pre-propduction A6M2s. At the time those aircraft went missing the AVG wasn't even operational! The AVG had nothing to do with the recovery and it was documented from several sources that those aircraft were A6M2s even though one photograph identifies the aircraft as a "Hamp" it serial number showed what it really was. An AVG mechanic (Neumann) eventually assisted in getting one aircraft airworthy and it is shown clearly in the sources I posted.

Despite what you claim Tex Hill says, HISTORY not "revisionist history" shows there were absolutely NO "Hamps" any where in that area on July 4, 1942, as a matter of fact there is no documented evidence that there were any IJNAF units anywhere close to where the AVG were operating, especially in their last month. There have been numerous other sources besides "Bloody Shambles" that places the first Hamps in in the Rabual area during the last part of the summer, 1943. I've met many PTO aces who have claimed that the Japanese have used the Bf-109 and Me-110 as well.

Here's a site that says Robert Scott took on "twin engine Messerschmitts." Is this revisionist history as well???

The Flying Tigers

Go back to the AVG aces and kill lists. Not one Zero shown. 

Here's a discussion about the very same subject. It seems the IJNAF did not make an apperance in south eastern China until 1943, but again, provide us with your sources to say otherwise...

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

I have met dozens of WW2 aces who I have the highest respect for but many times they have misspoken about events and aircraft and I think its more of "father time" catching up with them. No doubt that Scott shot down Zeros, he didn't do this prior to July 1942. If you're so certain the AVG fought against Zeros, provide up with those units. JAAF and IJNAF unit locations are well documented and we even have researches on this site from Japan who can assist you, so please, let us know your sources, I'm all ears!


----------



## vanir (Oct 25, 2011)

keep in mind too, the "squared wingtips" of the Hamp are just the folding wingtips of the A6M2 removed for land based operation (improved dive acceleration slightly). So any crashed A6M2 could look exactly like a Hamp...except for the engine. The mount is moved back, cutting into the front fuselage fuel tank space. That's the best way to pick them at a glance, never the wings.

Oscars have squared wings too, easiest tell for them is the main gear.

No kidding otherwise they all look alike in old war footage, they really do. But why does it make such a big difference anyway? they all perform similarly. Zero has more guns but Oscar will kill you just as dead.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 25, 2011)

vanir said:


> keep in mind too, the "squared wingtips" of the Hamp are just the folding wingtips of the A6M2 removed for land based operation (improved dive acceleration slightly). So any crashed A6M2 could look exactly like a Hamp...except for the engine. The mount is moved back, cutting into the front fuselage fuel tank space. That's the best way to pick them at a glance, never the wings.
> 
> Oscars have squared wings too, easiest tell for them is the main gear.
> 
> No kidding otherwise they all look alike in old war footage, they really do. But why does it make such a big difference anyway? they all perform similarly. Zero has more guns but Oscar will kill you just as dead.



Agree 100%

The Hamp made up for a lack of performance on that model. I think the clipped wings actually hurt its maneuverability.


----------



## vanir (Oct 25, 2011)

That's what pilots at Rabaul found out. It was only about six months in service when they put the wingtips back on. What I suspect though is both manoeuvrability...and an ever so slightly improved cruise economy. I mean without the wingtips Zeros couldn't quite make it back to Rabaul bases, if they had nowhere else to put down for refuelling (they did have a couple of partial fields on the way serviced by subs), those Guadal raids could be one way for Zeroes.

I'm just thinking ad hoc here but what do you think as a pilot FlyboyJ, is it conceivable the wingtips could give you a couple of hundred km maybe more range, squeeze your way back to Rabaul with the smaller front tank?
I mean it does seem rather strange the whole airbase took them off, then put them back on. More than just pilot preference.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 25, 2011)

I've heard about designers (and mechanics) "clipping" the wings of their aircraft You're removing wing area when you do so but you can pick up speed. Additionally the aircraft is a lot less stable and range will suffer. Look at the unlimiteds at Reno.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 25, 2011)

"Clipping" the wing not only reduces the square footage, it changes the aspect ratio of the wing. Probably by a bigger percentage than the change in wing area. I am not sure what that does to the lift/drag ratio of the wing as a whole.


----------



## vanir (Oct 26, 2011)

I'm kind of really fascinated by this now. I might try roaming around the web a bit and see what I can dig up about quantifiable performance variations achieved by clipping wings. I suspect the pilot would be using more AoA through manoeuvres and at cruise, for which both altitude and airspeed would suffer I should think even if level speed gains are to be made at all out power settings. I'll look up unlimiteds at Reno, I read up the Bearcat site and checked out some mad hotrod Mustangs once, geez those things look fun.

I just know so little about it in any mathematical capacity which is really what's called for here I think, you guys are much better at the figures than me.


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 26, 2011)

Spitfire - effects of clipping the wings:


----------



## vanir (Oct 26, 2011)

I couldn't open the pdf for some reason but I should've thought, of course I can check the spitfireperformance website, they'll have info.

Thanks tomo


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 26, 2011)

? 
I've opened it jus now, in PDF XChange Viever though.


----------



## riacrato (Oct 26, 2011)

Nxthanos said:


> Famous P-40 pilots
> 
> Nicky Barr: RAAF ace (11 victories); also a member of the Australian national rugby team.
> Gregory Boyington: AVG/US Marine Corps; later commanded USMC VMF-214, the "Black Sheep Squadron".)
> ...


And what is this supposed to prove? The list of Bf 109 aces will be by far longer and more impressive (as in: the sum of claimed kills will be much, much higher). Caldwell got 10 Bf 109s awarded, I stopped counting Marseille's P-40 kills after no. 17 (and I already removed misidentified Hurricanes).


----------



## MikeGazdik (Oct 26, 2011)

That list just proves it was _slightly_ better than a Cessna 150 ! (I'm trying to be funny, fyi)


----------



## tbfighterpilot (Nov 5, 2011)

I think the P-40 is better, partly because it's my favorite. Also, the P-40 was very rugged.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 6, 2011)

Favorite does not always equal the best...


----------



## Francis marliere (Nov 7, 2011)

Flyboy,

I may be wrong but I think that the 21 kokutai, which arrived at Rabaul in summer 42, was equipped with A6M3 'Hamp'. Please correct me if I'm wrong.


Regards,

Francis


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 7, 2011)

Francis marliere said:


> Flyboy,
> 
> I may be wrong but I think that the 21 kokutai, which arrived at Rabaul in summer 42, was equipped with A6M3 'Hamp'. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
> 
> ...


Hi Francis;

You are probably correct. Point earlier that the first A6M3 WERE NOT assigned to China anywhere close to the AVG.


----------



## JoeB (Nov 7, 2011)

Francis marliere said:


> Flyboy,
> 
> I may be wrong but I think that the 21 kokutai, which arrived at Rabaul in summer 42, was equipped with A6M3 'Hamp'. Please correct me if I'm wrong.


I believe you mean the 2nd Air Group (or 'kokutai'). Their Model 32 Zeroes (A6M3 later codenamed 'Hamp') were AFAIK the first encountered in combat by the Allies, against unescorted bombers in defense of Rabaul and then against US Army and RAAF fighters in New Guinea from August 1942. Due to their shorter range (than the Model 21) they were not encountered on offensive operations over Guadalcanal until the Japanese set up bases closer to that island.

As far as AVG v JNAF, Flyboyj is correct: never happened by any credible evidence. The victories claimed by the AVG on July 3/4 1942 were against Type 97 Fighters (later codenamed 'Nate') of the 54th Flying Regiment ('sentai') JAAF, 8 were claimed over the two days, 4 actually lost. At that time late in AVG's career they may have encountered Type 1 Fighters (later codenamed 'Oscar') of the 10th Independent Company ('chutai') JAAF which was also in Southern China, in addition to their regular retactable undercarriage opponents, Type 1's of the 64th Flying Regiment based in Thailand. There were no JNAF fighter units based in China between September 1941 and 1944*, Hong Kong or anywhere else.

This isn't 'revisionist history' but simply a matter of filling in details from the Japanese side which weren't known to pilots of the AVG (or 23rd FG). Also note that the Navy Zero and Army Type 1 weren't definitely recognized by the Allies as being different types until 1943, nor was the codename system (Zeke, Oscar, Nate etc) made standard until '43 either. On one hand, anachronistically using the codenames to refer to Japanese a/c encountered in '42 might clarify for the modern casually interested reader what plane is being referred to. But in this discussion we see the downside: using the later well known codenames to refer to 1942 tends to give the impression that the Allies knew much about their Japanese opponents in '42, when in fact they didn't. There was no way for AVG pilots meeting Type 1's in Burma and China to accurately compare notes with, say, USAAF pilots meeting Zeroes in the Philippines and Dutch East Indies at the same time to determine whether it was really the same plane or a different one they were encountering...if they'd even had any time or any mechanism for that kind of real time communication, which they didn't. It took quite awhile to sort out all the observations being made from the Allied side; but even then WWII observers on one side simply didn't have the information we now have from both sides, which says pretty strongly: no Zeroes v AVG.

*or at least were not encountered by US fighters until then, units based on Hainan island to protect convoys from US bombers, and training units in Shanghai area encountered by 14th AF units after they got long range P-51's to reach those areas, up to then safe rear areas used for training.

Joe


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 8, 2011)

Great post Joe, thanks!


----------



## renrich (Nov 8, 2011)

Joe, many thanks for your post. Was hoping to hear from you.


----------



## davparlr (Nov 10, 2011)

JoeB said:


> As far as AVG v JNAF, Flyboyj is correct: never happened by any credible evidence. The victories claimed by the AVG on July 3/4 1942 were against Type 97 Fighters (later codenamed 'Nate') of the 54th Flying Regiment ('sentai') JAAF, 8 were claimed over the two days, 4 actually lost. At that time late in AVG's career they may have encountered Type 1 Fighters (later codenamed 'Oscar') of the 10th Independent Company ('chutai') JAAF which was also in Southern China, in addition to their regular retactable undercarriage opponents, Type 1's of the 64th Flying Regiment based in Thailand. There were no JNAF fighter units based in China between September 1941 and 1944*, Hong Kong or anywhere else.
> 
> Joe


 
The is a new show on military called "missions that changed the war" emceed by Gary Sinise. On an episode about the AVG, it stated that Rangoon was attacked on Dec. 25th by 20 Sallys and 15 Oscars and was defended by 12 P-40s and some buffaloes. Three Japanese fighters were shot down and 12 Bombers. These claims were countered by 50% by Japanese reports. Two P-40s and some buffaloes were shot down. The Oscars were later mistaken for Zeros.


----------



## JoeB (Nov 11, 2011)

davparlr said:


> The is a new show on military called "missions that changed the war" emceed by Gary Sinise. On an episode about the AVG, it stated that Rangoon was attacked on Dec. 25th by 20 Sallys and 15 Oscars and was defended by 12 P-40s and some buffaloes. Three Japanese fighters were shot down and 12 Bombers. These claims were countered by 50% by Japanese reports. Two P-40s and some buffaloes were shot down. The Oscars were later mistaken for Zeros.


According to Senshi Sosho Vol. 34, the strikes on Rangoon Dec 25th consisted of one formation of 27 Type 97 Heavy Bombers (*later* codenamed 'Sally') and 25 Type 1 Fighters of what was to become the AVG's frequent opponent, 64th Flying Regiment. However this formation became separated into two pieces. Then another formation consisted of 8 Type 97 HB's, 27 Type 97 Light Bombers (later 'Ann') and 32 Type 97 Fighters of the 77th Flying Regiment. The Japanese lost 3 Type 97 HB's (although many others were hit), 2 Type 1 Fighters and 2 Type 97 Fighters*, while the 64th claimed 10 enemy fighters, 77th claimed 7, and the Type 97 bombers claimed 19(!) attacking fighters downed. "Flying Tigers" by Dan Ford and "Bloody Shambles Vol 1" by Chris Shores, et al, have the same info, the former book footnotes SS V. 34, and the latter appears to use it too though it doesn't have footnotes.

Those two books largely agree that 13 AVG P40's claimed 15 bombers, 7 'Navy Zeroes', 1 'Type 96' fighter, and a Bf109(!). Two P-40's belly landed in fields, one shot up by a 'Zero', and one by bomber return fire, another dead sticked landed on its wheels, apparently from bomber return fire.

12 67th Sdn RAF Buffaloes claimed 1 bomber, 2 Zeroes and 1 'Type 96'. 4 Buffalo's were shot down outright pilots KIA, and 2 landed on their wheels badly damaged, all apparently by enemy fighters. The Buffalo's also spotted Bf109's so that wasn't just the AVG's imagination, though obviously none were actually present.

Not including 'probables' for any of the claimants.

Note that AVG claims later on were usually less exaggerated than in this case, and most of their later combats were alone, so this case is relatively unusual in having overlapping AVG and RAF claims. It appears from Japanese accounts that both Type 1's were lost to P-40's, one definitely (in a collision both sides mentioned, the P-40 survived, Type 1 didn't). Other than that it's unclear who shot down what.

*one of the pilots, Sgt Akira Aoki, was captured, the first Japanese POW in the theater. He was a Korean actually, and under his real name Lee Geun-seok was a founding member of the ROKAF after WWII. He was KIA attacking an NK tank formation in an F-51 in early July 1950. 

Joe


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 11, 2011)

JoeB said:


> one of the pilots, Sgt Akira Aoki, was captured, the first Japanese POW in the theater. He was a Korean actually, and under his real name Lee Geun-seok was a founding member of the ROKAF after WWII. He was KIA attacking an NK tank formation in an F-51 in early July 1950.
> 
> Joe



Great info Joe, you're a wealth of knowledge!!!!


----------



## Siegfried (Nov 11, 2011)

The Allison V-1710 was a decent engine when fitted with a two stage, infinetly vairable supercharger as used in the P-40Q.

Why would it take Allison 2 years after the start of the war to offer variable speed supercharger (either 2 speeds or hydraulic) let alone two stages when every American radial offered a choice of two speeds, often two stages as a further option or turbo as another option.

Granted it wasn't going to completely make up for the P-40/Me 109 weight difference but it would have given more power at all altitudes through a better matching of blower power to requirements.

_sorry I posted this in the wrong thread_


----------



## Francis marliere (Nov 14, 2011)

JoeB said:


> I believe you mean the 2nd Air Group (or 'kokutai').



Joe,

sorry for answering so late. Thanks for the precision.

Best regards,

Francis


----------



## Arossihman (Nov 20, 2011)

Man i got a lot of catching up to do!


----------



## Sagittario64 (Nov 21, 2011)

this is a very hard decision without the "tie" option. on one hand, what model of 109 are you referring to? second lets just say early G maybe G-2. The 109's cannon gives it a slight edge in single-shot destructive capability, plus the 2 machine guns to finish the job. on the other hand for raw hitting power the 6 .50cals of the P-40 would shred the 109 in an instant, provided it can get in line for the shot. im not sure how well the p-40 turns as compared to the 109, but whatever the result, it comes down to pilot skill. id say you cant rely on aircraft specifications alone. look at whos flying them. if i must choose, then i choose the p-40, despite the 109 being my favorite. theres many many factors i have to consider when making decisions. aircraft alone, p-40s are slightly(only very slightly) better than the 109 if the task is to obliterate the opposition plane. but im also a newbie so if im wrong i would like to be shown whats right too


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 28, 2011)

Just found this about the Hamp in the Pacific. Good info!

_"On August 6, 1942 the Yawata Maru (UnyÅ) deivered fifteen A6M3 Model 32 Zeros to Lakunai Airfield near Rabaul. Their first interception was the next day against 5th Air Force B-17s. On August 22, a detachment flew to Buna Airfield."_

Pacific Wrecks - 2nd Kokutai (582nd Kokutai)


----------



## Friskykillface (Mar 23, 2014)

I'm not to keen on all the models used and what time period they were used, but the P40 was used at pearl harbor correct? so it was a very early model plane. Given its early development I dont think its fair to pit it against planes improved and "redesigned" using the knowledge gained through "trial by fire" so to speak, in the 1943 time period. The P40's may have been around then, but that doesn't mean they will compete directly with the newwer planes. Also, just like the russians did with their I-16's the proper tactics are crucial. The I-16 pilots HAD to draw the 109's into a turn fight to have a fighting chance at all. Same could be said about the P40's. Obviously the P40 pilots would draw the enemies into a fight on THEIR terms, giving themselves every advantage they could get. There were good planes on all sides. My PERSONAL OPINION is not that the P40 was "better" but I favor it over the 109.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 23, 2014)

Welcome to the forum.
Unfortunately, the P-40s were pitted against Bf-109s in real world. We can judge real-world capabilities. Those changed much as the ww2 progressed.
The P-40 (no suffix) was 1st delivered in June 1940, ie. almost two years behind the Spitfire I and Bf-109E, and in the time the Spit II and 109E-7 will become available. While more useful, due to much more fuel, the timing is wrong, ie. late. The Spit II and 109E were also featuring a more substantial protection.
The P-40B and P-40C were roughly comparable to the B-109E-7 and Spitfire II, ie. the drop tank capable aircraft of later BoB vintage. Those P-40s were maybe half a year later introduced than Europeans. 
Once the next major version is available, the P-40D, the Bf-109 is at the version F-4. It has a much better engine, and 20mm cannon more or less nullifies the improved protection of the P-40D. The main problem is that the engine, while a bit more powerful than the old V-1710-33, does not offer any more HP above 14000 ft. With 2 more guns their ammo, from the P-40E on, the 'basic weight' is now 6700 lbs, vs. 5990 lbs of the P-40B. The P-40 is now not only bigger (= more drag = less speed) than Bf-109, it is much heavier, and the engine power is not sufficient to make it a performer. Even when war emergency rating for the V-1710s was introduced, that helped only under 10000 ft. 
The installation of the Packard Merlin V-1650-1 slightly improves the situation above 15000 ft, but the 109 is still a far better performer, circa 50 mph of speed difference is simply too big, as it is the rate of climb.

As for the P. Harbor comment - the 1st users in a shooting war were RAF, RAAF and SAAF units, mostly in the N. Africa, from April of 1941 on. Their experiences were channeled to the USA, and many aircraft were modified accordingly. Hence introduction of self-sealing tanks and heavier armament in most of the combat A/C. P-40s problem was that it was much easier to cram in the protection and firepower, than it was to acquire a V-12 engine with greatly increased power, to cater for the great increase in weight.
If the pilot of P-40 is able to lure the enemy where it suits him, or not, that is a matter of pilots, not the aircraft.


----------



## Friskykillface (Mar 23, 2014)

"Once the next major version is available, the P-40D, the Bf-109 is at the version F-4. It has a much better engine, and 20mm cannon more or less nullifies the improved protection of the P-40D. The main problem is that the engine, while a bit more powerful than the old V-1710-33, does not offer any more HP above 14000 ft. With 2 more guns their ammo, from the P-40E on, the 'basic weight' is now 6700 lbs, vs. 5990 lbs of the P-40B. The P-40 is now not only bigger (= more drag = less speed) than Bf-109, it is much heavier, and the engine power is not sufficient to make it a performer. Even when war emergency rating for the V-1710s was introduced, that helped only under 10000 ft. 
The installation of the Packard Merlin V-1650-1 slightly improves the situation above 15000 ft, but the 109 is still a far better performer, circa 50 mph of speed difference is simply too big, as it is the rate of climb."


I agree with pretty much everything you said. Thanks for the "Welcome"  Its saddens me that the P-40 was so.... neglected? towards the latter part of the war. Even if not "neglected" I think a lot more work went into the BF-109's as far as "upgrades." Its a lot more cost efficient to improve what you have than to create a new fighter. Which works both ways as well, the Germans were updating and making revisions to the BF-109, but what were the Americans REALLY doing to improve the P-40? Bigger engine? Probably more of a weight and aerodynamics problem rather than engine power. The Germans added cannons, which is fine, but the American planes have always kinda stuck to those .50's so not having cannons doesn't seem like a big deal, Considering even the P51 was still using .50 cal. MG's. Were the Americans working on something else while the P-40 was quickly getting outclassed by all these later model 109's? The P-40 served well not only in africa, but also over in china and the pacific. This is irrelevant though considering this is a topic about the BF-109's and the P-40's. The BF 109's were UNDOUBTEDLY way better later on but I'm curious how they fared against its various opponents at the time it was introduced. Those 1941 BF 109's. I understand there were no MAJOR improvements made on the vulnerable P-40 that would allow it to "keep pace" with those BF-109's later on, but how did it compare when they both FIRST saw action against each other? I would think it would be a much more even fight at that point in time.


----------



## Friskykillface (Mar 23, 2014)

You're also playing to the BF-109's strong points. How would that same BF-109 fare at lower altitude where the P-40's engine was more efficient?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 23, 2014)

Friskykillface said:


> You're also playing to the BF-109's strong points. How would that same BF-109 fare at lower altitude where the P-40's engine was more efficient?



What model -109? IMO any "G" model -109 is superior to just about any model P-40 at any altitude. Even the -109F is more than a handful for any P-40 mark. The P-40 will have some advantages in roll rate (I believe the P-40 had a slightly lower wing loading) but outside of that one would be relying on tactics and/ or pilot skill. You might find some performance charts earlier in this thread or in some other threads that would at least compare both aircraft on paper. I do believe however that the P-40 was very under rated but again, it's not going to compete with G model -109s, that includes the later model production P-40s against say the Bf-109G6


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 23, 2014)

Friskykillface said:


> <snip>
> Its saddens me that the P-40 was so.... neglected? towards the latter part of the war. Even if not "neglected" I think a lot more work went into the BF-109's as far as "upgrades." Its a lot more cost efficient to improve what you have than to create a new fighter. Which works both ways as well, the Germans were updating and making revisions to the BF-109, but what were the Americans REALLY doing to improve the P-40? Bigger engine? Probably more of a weight and aerodynamics problem rather than engine power.



Historically, the USAF and other users were correct to 'neglect' the P-40 as the war wore on. The P-38, - 47 and -51 were offering far better capabilities. The engine power was a big problem for the P-40 - those other three fighters were also heavy, but have had plenty of power to make them performers. The P-38, -47 and -51 were also in production or in pipeline by the time of Pearl Harbor, and it made much more sense to improve those. The Curtiss have had a license to build P-47, but they botched that badly.
Maybe it would've been better that P-40 received a 2-stage V-1710 engine instead installing it on the P-63? 



> The Germans added cannons, which is fine, but the American planes have always kinda stuck to those .50's so not having cannons doesn't seem like a big deal, Considering even the P51 was still using .50 cal. MG's. Were the Americans working on something else while the P-40 was quickly getting outclassed by all these later model 109's? The P-40 served well not only in africa, but also over in china and the pacific. This is irrelevant though considering this is a topic about the BF-109's and the P-40's. The BF 109's were UNDOUBTEDLY way better later on but I'm curious how they fared against its various opponents at the time it was introduced. Those 1941 BF 109's. I understand there were no MAJOR improvements made on the vulnerable P-40 that would allow it to "keep pace" with those BF-109's later on, but how did it compare when they both FIRST saw action against each other? I would think it would be a much more even fight at that point in time.



Wouldn't want to sound rude, but you might really want to dwell into this 30+ page long thread. The Americans were busy designing and improving better fighters, and eventually produced and deployed piston engined fighters that were either equal or better than what Germans had. For major improvement of the P-40, you need a 2-stage engine made in USA, and those were not widely available, apart for P-51.
The 1941 Bf-109s were the best fighter when introduced. Only shortcoming was the combat radius, the punch was not the best either.



Friskykillface said:


> You're also playing to the BF-109's strong points. How would that same BF-109 fare at lower altitude where the P-40's engine was more efficient?



Point the nose up and start climbing. Once the P-40 is sufficiently under you, dive on it.
In fighter to fighter combat, strong cards of the Bf-109 were worth more than strong cards of the P-40.


----------



## Friskykillface (Mar 23, 2014)

Fair enough. I've been going through this topic page by page, its very interesting. You are right though, seems one of the main problems with the P-40's was the lack of a powerhouse 2 stage engine. Again, like I said in my original post, I'm quite content with the fact that the BF 109 was a better fighter in some or all aspects. I personally prefer the P-40 though. I always put my money on the underdog though  You don't happen to know how much ammo those BF109's would carry do you? Compared to the P-40? Ammo Capacity could be important given you survive long enough


----------



## michaelmaltby (Mar 23, 2014)

Some good insights here:

http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/romanenko/p-40/index.htm


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 23, 2014)

Friskykillface said:


> Fair enough. I've been going through this topic page by page, its very interesting. You are right though, seems one of the main problems with the P-40's was the lack of a powerhouse 2 stage engine. Again, like I said in my original post, I'm quite content with the fact that the BF 109 was a better fighter in some or all aspects. I personally prefer the P-40 though. I always put my money on the underdog though  You don't happen to know how much ammo those BF109's would carry do you? Compared to the P-40? Ammo Capacity could be important given you survive long enough



The P-40 carried between 200 and 615 (!? - on the -D version, hopefully it's not a typo) bullets per HMGs, and, if the LMGs were installed, 490-500 rpg. The Bf-109E carried 60 rounds for the 20mm cannons, the early 109F carried only one 20mm with 60 rounds drum. For the MG 151, between 150 and 200 rounds was carried. For two LMGs up to 1000 rpg was carried if the prop cannon was not installed, later reduced to 500 rpg from 109F on. The MG 131, that replaced the MG 17 as a cowl gun, was supplied with 250 rpg.


----------



## GingahNinja (Mar 24, 2014)

KrazyKraut said:


> I don't see where you get that from. The P-40s landing gear wasn't exactly a marvel either and its arrangement was aerodynamically inefficient. Most articles I have read describe the P-40's airframe as overly complex for a single engined fighter *(e.g. 5 spar wing)*. I do think the P-40s, in its Kittyhawk variants, were decently armed and overall acceptable fighters, but inferior to Spitfire and Bf 109 not to even mention the Mustang.



Not disagreeing with you at all but didn't P-40 pilots realized in the PTO that if faced with a head on pass against a Zero that the 5 spar wing actually had a better survivability than the Zero's? I believe there are stories claiming this as well.


----------



## Glider (Mar 24, 2014)

michaelmaltby said:


> Some good insights here:
> 
> The P-40 in Soviet Aviation



Excellent site many thanks for pointing it out. I was interested to see that the Russians didn't thik the B25 had sufficient protection in its fuels tanks and made a modification themselves. Thanks again


----------



## pattern14 (Mar 30, 2014)

The Bf 109 for sure; no contest.


----------



## fastmongrel (Mar 31, 2014)

pattern14 said:


> The Bf 109 for sure; no contest.



Yet for some strange reason it was a contest and one that the P40 sometimes won.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Mar 31, 2014)

fastmongrel said:


> Yet for some strange reason it was a contest and one that the P40 sometimes won.



Sometimes yes, frequently no


----------



## Schweik (Mar 15, 2018)

Glider said:


> Sometimes yes, frequently no




I have read this and many other similar threads with great interest over the years, and I hope I will be forgiven for commenting here and reviving this old thread with what I think is some new data.

In the past when these types of discussions were conducted we really had to guess as to the nature of these matchups. There was no hard data on things like turn rates, handling, comparative maneuverability between types, or most importantly, actual records of claims vs. real losses, as opposed to mere (unsubstantiated) victory claims. As a result we were forced to contend with competing anecdotes, a few rare descriptions by veterans, and amateur physics models.

Now however as more and more data continues to emerge from the surviving records of WW2, we are seeing new types of publications becoming available, such as the Black Cross / Red Star series by Christer Bergström (et al), vols 1-4, and the even more useful and impressive A History of the Mediterranean Air War series by Christopher Shores (et al), volumes 1-3 so far with volume 4 imminent.

These books break down casualties as well as claims and both squadron and personal accounts, with Shores Mediterranean books in particular providing very helpful summaries at the end of the entry for each day in the conflict, summarizing claims vs. actual losses for all sides involved in combat. In addition there are useful excerpts from aces on both sides.

I have volumes 1-3 of Black Cross and volumes 2 and 3 of Air War (i'll be getting Vol 1 soon and Vol 4 as soon as it's available), and I have been reviewing them casually prior to a more rigorous analysis. I thought it might be useful and perhaps appreciated if I shared some observations so far - these are based on Shores Books on the Med.

*Problems for P-40 pilots*

The main problem faced by P-40 pilots of all air forces (RAF, RAAF, SAAF, Free French and USAAF) was by far the effective altitude ceiling. The vast majority of engagements would start with a German attack which was a serious problem. In 1941 and most of 1942 Luftwaffe units were able to hunt DAF units at their leisure and engage or disengage at will.

The second most serious problem faced by Commonwealth pilots in particular was tactical. The English were using a variety of ineffective formations which German pilots were extremely critical of, and tended to fly at lower altitude than their operational ceilings allowed. They also went into defensive circles as a way to defend against attacks from above.

The third most serious problem faced by all DAF pilots, but Commonwealth pilots in particular, was training. Most Commonwealth pilots seem to have been fairly poorly trained particularly on the type. Many had never been trained in aerial gunnery at all for example, and few even realized that they could pull G's on their aircraft, what exactly were their limits of maneuverability or what the structural limits were in turns or dives. 

Early P-40's notably the earlier series P-40E / Kittyhawk I had problems with jamming or stoppages with their guns because of the way the ammunition was stowed. This seems to have been addressed by around mid -1942 but again, it cost many lives.
*How the problems were dealt with*

The last two issues mentioned, gunnery and extreme maneuvering, were gradually worked out by key individuals - often aces, and then disseminated to the squadrons though not always efficiently or equally shared. Clive Caldwell for example figured out how to practice gunnery by shooting at shadows on the ground and taught this technique to other members of 112 squadron. Nicky Barr, a former rugby player, figured out he could withstand high-G's and took the risk of making very sharp turns in the P-40, learning in the process that the P-40 could turn well. He shared this with his squadron mates who started taking more advantage of the P-40's maneuverability.

DAF very gradually improved their formations, but it wasn't until the USAAF units began arriving in Tunisia in 1942 that the switch to 'Finger four' and two pairs (or in some variants, three pairs) had been made. Commonwealth squadrons still seem to have flown at relatively low altitude but did become more aggressive as they switched to Kittyhawk II and III types with more power.
Overboosting of engines seems to have been rare at first but increasingly common. The P-40K was similar to the P-40E but had a strengthened crank shaft more able to withstand high boost (57" mercury) which was standard WEP setting on the P-40K.
P-40F/L were also sometimes overboosted, posisbly to 60" 

P-40 pilots also reported using flaps to achieve even tighter turns.
DAF pilots developed tactics for 'skidding' to avoid being hit when attacked from above. There are some detailed descriptions of this and it seemed to be an effective tactic.

*Units*
There was a wide disparity in success or failure between different P-40 units.

All the SAAF units did poorly with the P-40 (some worse than others) and also tended to get the older models. One SAAF squadron was still using Tomahawk / P-40C until the end of 1942 for example (facing by then Me 109F-4 and G-2). They also tended to get the Fighter-Bomber assignments which were more dangerous. They suffered very high losses.

In terms of losses to confirmed (by the German records) victories, the best Commonwealth squadrons were 112 RAF, 3 RAAF, 260 RAF, 250 RAF, and 450 RAAF, roughly in that order. These units also got the newer versions of the P-40 earlier, i.e. they were flying Mk II (260 RAF and 3 RAAF) or Mk III Kittyhawks when other Commonwealth fighters were still flying Kittyhawk I.

The USAAF P-40 squadrons (33rd FG, 79th FG, 324 FG, and 325 FG) seem to have done better than the Commonwealth units somewhat surprisingly, probably due to flying the more high powered (P-40F/L and K) versions - with a higher ceiling- and due to using finger 4 / pairs formation similar to what the Germans did. Also possibly due to flying more escort missions of medium bombers (B-25's and A-20's) than riskier fighter-bomber missions, though they did both.
*Characteristics of the aircraft*
All pilots seemed to agree, P-40 turned better and dove faster, Me 109 climbed and accelerated better and had a higher effective altitude.

It's worth remembering that there were many types of front-line aircraft engaged in the theater, and performance varied considerably. In terms of functional differences the main fighter types included Hurricane I, IIb, IIc and IId (anti-tank); Tomahawk / P-40B (used only by Commonwealth units), Kittyhawk I (used only by commonwealth units), Kittyhawk II and IIe (P-40 F/L) and Kittyhawk III (P-40K, though some may have been less powerful P-40M) and later P-38F and L, P-39, and Spit V and IX. The Luftwaffe used 109E4 through E7, 109F-2 an F-4, G-2, G-4 and G-6 in the Med, Bf 110, and toward the end also some Fw 190. The Italians had Mc 200 and Mc 202, with a small number of Re 2000 series and some MC 205 engaged toward the end.

All of the pilots interviewed in both volumes, DAF or German, including many who disliked the P-40, acknowledged that the P-40 was more maneuverable than the Me 109 (and the MC 202) and _could easily out-turn the Me 109._ The German solution was to hit and run from above. P-40's could also escape Me 109's, at least temporarily, in a dive, though the G series planes could catch them eventually. On the deck the fight was more equal.

The single most important advantage the Me 109 had (all types) was the performance ceiling. The biggest comparative advantage the Merlin engined P-40F / Kittyhawk II types over all the Allison engined types had was their performance ceiling was ~ 20k feet.
Higher performance P-40 variants, Kittyhawk II and III, were able to catch Me 109's trying hit and run tactics more often. 

On escort missions, where the 109's were forced to engage with the P-40's in a sustained manner, the P-40's more often came out on top. 

I think the problem with the Hurricanes was that they could not disengage by diving and had too poor of a roll rate. P-38's, due to problems with the earlier types, also seem to have been unable to disengage by diving and seemed to be eventually relegated to escorting high altitude / long range heavy bombers at least to some extent.
*Comparisons of losses by type*
It's not always 100% clear what constitutes a loss. Shores indicates what the records say: DAF reports "shot down", or crash land or force landing, or damage Cat I, II or III, Germans say "Shot down" or sometimes "blown up" and crash or forced landing, and damage by percentage, and both sides indicate if the pilot was WIA, MIA, KIA, or POW, (or sometimes temporarily POW and returned a day or two later as seemed to often happen). Italians used 'FTR' (Failed to Return) a lot. As a general rule I was saying provisionally that if an aircraft was damaged 50% or Cat 2 and was not able to make it to base, or if the pilot bailed out or was KIA, MIA / FTR or POW, then it's shot down. If it landed on a friendly base with less than 50% damage and the pilot was not wounded then it is not. This is of course debatable though. I plan to go through and put all the numbers into a spreadsheet or database but haven't had the time yet. Both sides also sometimes indicate what type of aircraft they think shot them down but not always accurately.

Based on losses reported, the Tomahawk and Kittyhawk I flown by a competent pilot could handle 109E, but suffered high losses against the 109F. I haven't analyzed the numbers but very generally speaking about even (1-1) for the former vs. about 1-4 against for the latter. This varied a great deal by squadron though, 112 squadron for example looks like it was about close to even against the 109F even with the Tomahawk or Kittyhawk I (maybe 1-1 or 1-2) whereas the SAAF squadrons were probably like 1-5 or 1-6. I haven't crunched the numbers yet though so this is just a guess.

Kittyhawk II (P-40 F/L) and Kittyhawk III did much better were close to even against the 109F and G series. But this also depends on the squadrons.

All pilots interviewed, German, Commonwealth or American, acknowledged that all variants of the P-40 were superior to the Hurricane.
Hurricanes had poor combat records after mid 1941 when German aircraft started arriving in numbers. They did poorly against the 109, sometimes they got kills but they suffered catastrophic losses.

Spit V (both US and Commonwealth) units did 'ok' against the 109, maybe about even or 1-2, but not as well as you would expect. 

Spit IX did very well, best in the Theater, probably 2-1 vs 109 or MC 202.
USAAF (and later Free French) P-39's did terribly. Very few if any victories.
USAAF P-38's did mediocre, probably 1-3 vs. Luftwaffe.
MC 202 seems to have done pretty well most of the time. Fairly low losses anyway.
Fw 190 didn't do as well as you would expect, probably not that many flying.

I'm not certain yet but I am 'pretty sure' so far that P-40's shot down more Me 109's over North Africa than any other type, but they also lost more than they shot down.
*Overclaiming and misidentification*

All sides overclaimed, though DAF seems to have been a little worse than Luftwaffe. JG 27 also overclaimed, one Rotte in particular was even investigated for it by the Luftwaffe.
Luftwaffe pilots including Marseilles often reported shooting down P-40's when they had in fact shot down Hurricanes.
Mariseilles seems to have done some overclaiming but probably unintentional.

Luftwaffe pilots also often reported that they were fighting non-existant P-46 or Spitfires when they were fighting later mark P-40's (II or III).
DAF fighters often reported shooting down Me 109's when they had in fact shot down MC 200 or MC 202.
*Sometimes the P-40's came out on top*

The most common thing was for the Luftwaffe to win but take some losses, particularly in 1941 through 1942. Things gradually began to shift in the DAF favor in 1943.
By late 1942 Spitfires and P-38's are on the scene so it can be hard to say for sure who shot down what plane.

However, having not read all of both books yet, so far I've run across 5 days where it's clear that P-40's decisively defeated Me 109's. All five days were on days where no Spitfires or P-38's were operational in the area where Me 109's were lost (or at least, they didn't make any claims) and P-40's engaged Me 109's in some numbers. Three of these were USAAF (IIRC 33rd FG, 57th and 79th FG) and on two of these days Commonwealth (260 RAF and 3 RAAF) vs. Me 109's from Jg 77 and on one occasion JG 27.
One of these days involved significant overclaiming by the Luftwaffe, with USAAF reporting 7 kills and actually shooting down 6, while Luftwaffe reported 8 and actually shot down 1. On another day - I have the book with me right now so I'm looking it up; *Wednesday Dec 30 1942*, 15 Me 109's attacked 7 Kittyhawk IIa from 3 RAAF and lost two (3 RAAF claimed 4). For the whole day DAF shot down 4 Me 109's (3 Me 109 G-2 Trop and 1 Me 109F-4) with 2 pilots Edgar Cerne and Erich Gassel KIA, and Gunter MIelenz POW. DAF suffered no losses that day. James "Stocky" Edwards also made two claims that day fighting with 260 RAF.

All 5 of these cases were with later mark P-40's (P-40 F/L or K)

I hope this is informative to anyone reading the thread. I plan to provide more data from the books including, if anyone is interested, some of the other specific anecdotes on specific days.

S.

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


----------



## Schweik (Mar 16, 2018)

So here is another incident.
*Monday, 29 March 1943* ("History of the Mediterranean Air War", Shores et al, Volume 3, pages 414-415 Vol III

P-40L's of the 33rd Fighter Group's 59th Squadron set off at 0733 to provide escort for [B-25] medium members in an attack on La Fauconnerie landing ground, and 24 more Warhawks from the 58th and 60th Squadrons [also 33 FG] flew a reconnaissance sweep over the same area. Bf 109's [from II. and III./JG 77] jumped the 58th, but with the help of the 60th seven German fighters were claimed by the Americans, One P-40 was shot down, and a second was reported to have been hit by groundfire. JG 77 recorded the loss of six Bf 109's, three shot down and three crash landed. JG 77 claimed 5 victories, so significant overclaiming.

German casualties from the incident were as follows:

BF 109G-6 trop WNR 16373 shot down by P40 1km S la Fauconnerie, Lt Gunter Schimmelpfennig KIA
BF 109G-6 trop WNR 16449 White 4 + combat P-40, crash landed Fw Siegfried Grimm safe
BF 109G-4 trop WNr crash landed La Fauconnerie, pilot safe
BF 109G-2 trop WNr 10707 Black 9 shot down 5km S La Fauconnerie, Uffz Rolf Fischer KIA
BF 109G-2 trop WNr 10765 crash landed after combat , 70% damage pilot safe
BF 109G-2 trop WNr 10490 Yellow 11 lost Uffz Ewald Blkeul KIA

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


----------



## Schweik (Mar 16, 2018)

Here is one more

*Wednesday 24 March 1943 - 33rd Fighter Group vs. JG 77*

This is a direct quote from Shores Vol III, page 405

"At 0940 I./JG 77 scrambled 13 BF 109s to intercept a raid by 18 B-25s of the 321st Bomb Group which were being escorted by the P-40's of the 58th and 59th squadrons of the 33rd Fighter Group to attack Tebaga North airfield north west of Gabes. The Messerschmitts jumped the formation before the target and followed the US aircraft all the way back to their base, keeping up a running fight, claiming two B-25's and six of the escorting warhawks all in the area north and west of Fatnassa.

During the fight it was reported by some German pilots that two of the US fighters were seen to be very well-flown, and were in combat with seven Bf 109s, the pilots of which were unable to shoot them down. Hptm Heniz Bar, Kommander of I.Gruppe, after watching with increasing  the efforts of his subordinates, roared over the radio "Las mich mal ran, du blode Sau!" (Let me do it, you bloody swine!), taking up the chase and reportedly shooting down both American fighters in flames from about 1,000 feet altitude. However, losses recorded by 33rd Figther Group do not appear to support this story on this date."

Understatement, in my opinion. If it hadn't been for Shores numbers from the German casualty logs at the end, this would have been a typical German anecdote of brushing aside valiant but ultimately doomed enemy opposition. Most readers would have assumed it was all true, even though it clearly wasn't.

German pilots from JG 77 claimed 7 P-40's on that day, Bar claiming two personally. Plus a Spitfire and two B-25's. A German pilot from 5/JG 51 also claimed a Spitfire.

P-40L pilots from 33 FG claimed 10 Bf 109's and 7 damaged and 1 probable

Actual US losses were two P-39L (one hit by friendly flak), one B-25, one B-26, and one Spitfire (the US 52nd FG was engaged on the same day in a different area -E Maknassy- and made 3 claims) and one P-40L "damaged by BF 109, belly landed and burned, 2/Lt Robertg P. Kanter returned).

Losses for the Germans were 7 Bf 109's, a Ju 88 and an Fi 156:

BF 109G-4 trop WNr 16244 shot down SW Mateur, pilot bailed out WiA
BF 109G-4 trop WNr 16198 Black 5 + lost for u/k reason NE porto Farina pilot bailed but MiA
BF 109G-6 trop WNr 16335 Yellow 5 = lost for u/k reason pilot MiA
BF 109G-4 trop WNr 16356 50% damaged in combat near Gabes, pilot safe
BF 109G-2 trop WNr 10750 Black 5 + destroyed in combat 30km SE Fatnassa; pilot WIA
BF 109G-2 WNr 14525 Black 7 + combat with Spitfire, force landed near Maknassy, destroyed pilot POW*
BF 109G-2 trop WNr 10800 Yellow 5 + shot down by P-40 WNW Bou Thadi, pilot KIA

Plus a Ju 88 which doesn't appear to be claimed and a Fiesler Storch shot down by P-39's
* this one was probably shot down by a Spitfire due to the area mentioned.

*The TL DR is P-40L pilots from 33 FG shot down 6 BF 109's (with 5 pilots either Missing or casualties) for the loss of 1 P-40 (crash landed, pilot safe)

Overclaiming: The US pilots claimed 10 and got 6, whereas the Germans claimed 7 and got 1.*

S

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


----------



## Schweik (Mar 16, 2018)

Here is another one. This one is from Shores volume II, Pp 469-470

*Tuesday 8 December 1942*

12 P-40K's of 64 sqn 57th FG (3 actually flown by pilots from 79th FG) took off for a fighter bomber attack vs, "Marble Arch" (Arco Philaenorum) airfield (Libya) escorted by 12 P-40F's (from 65 sqn / 57th) flying as high cover. They were attacked by Me 109's of JG 77, some of which took off from the field and ttacked the fighter bombers, and some which were flying CAP and attacked the top cover.

57th FG P-40's claimed 7 Me 109's shot down plus 4 damaged, 2 claims by the P-40F's of 65 squadron (both by Lt. Arnold Jaqua) and 5 by 64th Squadron's P-40K's.

JG 77 Me 109 pilots claimed 4 P-40's shot down.

Actual losses were 4 me 109's and 1 P-40 (P-40F Lt. William Taylor KIA) plus another P-40K crash-landing "badly damaged" at the base, it's pilot Lt George Moobs, who claimed 2 of the victories that day, reported a harrowing running fight with 5 me 109s during which he was wounded by a cannon shell in the leg.

German losses were:

BF 109G-2 Trop WNr 10520 blown up at Arco Philaenorum
BF 109G-2 Trop WNr 14251 Yellow 3 combat with P 40, crash landed at Arco Philaenorum 100% damage, pilot WIA died on the 9th
BF 109G-2 Trop Yellow 7 crash landed Arco Philaenorum pilot safe
BF 109G-2 Trop WNr 13823 combat, crashed into sea N. Arco Philaenorum, pilot KIA

*TL DR P-40F and K pilots (mostly K) claimed 7 / shot down 4, BF 109 pilots claimed 4 / shot down 1 +1 heavily damaged.*

S

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Stig1207 (Mar 19, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Monday, 29 March 1943



Correct, except 2 of the the c/l 109's are recorded damaged 20% in MAWIII



Schweik said:


> Wednesday 24 March 1943



This one is more difficult, as MAWIII mentions only I/Jg77 as engaged in this fight. WNr 10750 Wolfmeier of 2./Jg77 is the only 109 belonging to this Gruppe.
WNR. 16356,10750,10800 all belong to III/Jg77 , they are lost in the general area, and 10800 Jahn is attributed to a P-40, However, 52nd FG ia also claiming in this area where these aircraft are lost or damaged, though later in the afternoon. WNr. 14525 which loss is attributed to a Spitfire is also an III/ Jg77 aircraft. As no times are mentioned for these losses, and since the 52nd FG combat isn't mentioned in the main text, it's a bit difficult to say whether III/Jg77 was also involved in the fight with 33rd FG.

WNr. 16244 of 4./Jg53 and 16198 of 5./Jg53 were both lost *350-370* km to the north, again no times given and not mentioned in the text.

Wnr 16355 and 15112 of 6/Jg.27 are not mentioned either in the main text, but the unit was based at Trapani some *550* km from the scene of the engagement; so not knowing what their mission was, it's a bit doubtful including them among 33rd FG's victories.



Schweik said:


> *Tuesday 8 December 1942*



This one too is a little confusing, as MAWII in the main text has WNr. 14251 Häcker as shot down by Ft Lt Ingram of 601 Sqd, but in the summary attributes the loss to a P-40.
WNr. 10520 was 'blown up' and there is no pilot casualty, so it might indicate that it was destroyed on the ground?


----------



## Schweik (Mar 19, 2018)

Stig1207 said:


> Correct, except 2 of the the c/l 109's are recorded damaged 20% in MAWIII



Yes, I mentioned this in the post above - 3 shot down and 3 crash landed, per German records, only one of the latter probably a writeoff. They had the luxury of fighting directly over their own base in this particular case which is what I would attribute to the relatively light damage; i.e. you need considerably less luck to manage a reasonable dead-stick landing on an actual airfield with a blown engine vs. trying to land on the wild terrain.

Both entries from the German reports specifically used the word "crash landed" in this case which to me sounds like the planes were not able to continue the fight. As I said in my first post, it is difficult sometimes to determine what qualifies as a victory in every case. But regardless of whether you count 6 or 4, for the loss of 1 P-40 to fighters, it seems like a pretty bad day for the Germans.

Conversely the one P-40 flown by Charles King which also "crash-landed" in this engagement caught on fire, probably because he landed on rough terrain.



> This one is more difficult, as MAWIII mentions only I/Jg77 as engaged in this fight. WNr 10750 Wolfmeier of 2./Jg77 is the only 109 belonging to this Gruppe.
> WNR. 16356,10750,10800 all belong to III/Jg77 , they are lost in the general area, and 10800 Jahn is attributed to a P-40, However, 52nd FG ia also claiming in this area where these aircraft are lost or damaged, though later in the afternoon. WNr. 14525 which loss is attributed to a Spitfire is also an III/ Jg77 aircraft. As no times are mentioned for these losses, and since the 52nd FG combat isn't mentioned in the main text, it's a bit difficult to say whether III/Jg77 was also involved in the fight with 33rd FG.



I think you are reaching a little bit here. If you read the book, the typical pattern was for one squadron to initially get engaged (in this case I/JG 77) and then a second and sometimes a third or other Gruppe elements to join in if the fight goes on. For example in the *29 March 1943* incident II/JG 77 attacked and were later supported by III/JG 77. This is a pattern which repeats itself throughout the book, it seemed to be standard practice for the Germans. In this case Shores says the fight continued all the way back to the American base so it makes sense that other elements joined in. .



> WNr. 16244 of 4./Jg53 and 16198 of 5./Jg53 were both lost 150-200km to the north, again no times given and not mentioned in the text.
> 
> Wnr 16355 and 15112 of 6/Jg.27 are not mentioned either in the main text, but the unit was based at Trapani some 450-500 km from the scene of the engagement; so not knowing what their mission was, it's a bit doubtful including them among 33rd FG's victories.



Well if you read the text, Shores mentions that per both German and American sources, the engagement lasted a long time and was a 'running battle' starting in the vicinity of the German base and continuing all the way back to the American base. The Germans also indicated that they had trouble with the Americans (before Hptm Heniz Bar claimed to shoot down two P-40's that he clearly did not). According to the German source at one point in the battle 7 Bf 109's were engaged with just two of the 33 FG P-40's which sounds like just one part of a significant sized engagement.

All in all, it seems less likely to me that of the 7 Me 109's lost that day were shot down by the Spitfires of 52 FG than by 33 FG. The 52nd only claimed 3 BF 109 and 1 Fw 190, three in the Maknassy area and 1 in Gabes, while 33 FG claimed 10 +8 damaged. Only one of the German losses was reported in the Maknassy area- which is the one I attributed to the Spit from 52 FG, and the one WNW of Bou Thadi was reported by the Germans as being shot down by a P-40.

Per the text on Pg 407 (Vol 3) Shores mentions that the 33 FG was supporting a raid by the 321st Bomb Group "_to attack Tebaga North Airfield north-west of Gabes. The Messserschmitts jumped the formation before the target *and followed the US aircraft all the way up to their base, keeping up a running fight, *claiming two B-25's and about six of the escorting Warhawks, all in the area north and west of Fatnassa."_



> This one too is a little confusing, as MAWII in the main text has WNr. 14251 Häcker as shot down by Ft Lt Ingram of 601 Sqd, but in the summary attributes the loss to a P-40.



That summary is from the German sources. They were not always correct though, it's just what the pilot reported. They seem to have often thought they were fighting P-40's.



> WNr. 10520 was 'blown up' and there is no pilot casualty, so it might indicate that it was destroyed on the ground?



Again, I think you are reaching a little - it could mean that, but if you read the books the Germans typically specify "destroyed on the ground" or "destroyed by bombs / strafing" etc. when aircraft was destroyed on the ground. "Blown up" is frequently used outside of the context of any bombing raid, though in this case there also was one. They also don't always mention the pilot name.

All in all though, what you are really doing here is just contesting the_ magnitude_ of the German defeats I posted so far. The Luftwaffe clearly overclaimed and they clearly came out on the losing end of all of these engagements with P-40's in all four of the incidents I posted so far, or are you contesting that ?

S


----------



## Glider (Mar 19, 2018)

What I think is more interesting is how many engagements went in the Germans favour, against the four you have found in favour of the P40, the result is a lot more..

Example, I know of one air to air engagement in the six day war that the Jordanian air force won, but it doesn't alter that fact that the Jordanians were on the losing side overall.


----------



## Schweik (Mar 19, 2018)

Glider said:


> What I think is more interesting is how many engagements went in the Germans favour, against the four you have found in favour of the P40, the result is a lot more..
> 
> Example, I know of one air to air engagement in the six day war that the Jordanian air force won, but it doesn't alter that fact that the Jordanians were on the losing side overall.



Well, did you read the book? Because right now I'm not sure that the later model P-40 comes out behind, at least not in the American squadrons. And lets do try to remember, unlike the Jordanians,* the Allies won the war. *The DAF won the war in North Africa and the Med. Not the Germans. Some of you guys don't seem to grasp that.

The pattern i see is that the P-40 C / E was able to handle the Me 109E, but had problems against the Me 109F. The later model P40's however, when flown properly, seem to have been much more even against both the 109F and the 109G series fighters.

I.e. there are indeed a lot of engagements in 1941 and into the fall of 1942 where the Germans came out decisively on top fighting Me 109F or G against Tomahawk or Kitthyawk MK 1 (P-40 C or E), but against the later model P-40's (Kitthawk Mk II/III / P-40F/L or K) and especially against the US squadrons, they don't seem to have done as well.

Most of _those_ engagements involve some losses on both sides but no clear-cut winner. I think I ran across two or three so far where the American squadrons flying P-40F or K decisively lost, but no more than that - I think I've found more where it was the opposite. I'll have to go through, I've been marking decisive engagement either way with colored post-its. Most of the 33FG and 57th FG losses so far seem to have been to Flak or ground fire.

But contrary to your assumption, the reason I only posted 4 examples so far (like I said, I actually found 5, actually more like 7 now but I haven't had time to transcribe them all and go over them for the details) is because most of the others were just inconclusive. They involved multiple types of aircraft, with both Commonwealth and US units, and sometimes Hurricanes, P-38's, Spit V and / or Spit IX as well. And also sometimes Italian fighters - I have found one case where MC 202 were decisively defeated by DAF P-40's in Vol 2 but that belongs in another thread I guess.

Of course we will get more engagements between USAAF P-40 squadrons and Luftwaffe fighters in Volume IV which is due out soon, some time later this spring or summer I think. That is when we will see the big dogfights around Pantelleria, Sardania, Sicily etc. . I'm looking forward to that.

The gist though to me is, though the P-40 pilots usually were put in the unenviable position of being forced to counter-attack in order to get kills, whenever the Me 109's attacked them from above, they still got kills. That itself is quite telling. If the P-40 was as inferior as many in this thread claimed you would think that would never happen. If for example, they couldn't outmaneuver Me 109s (an incredible assertion to me when every single German, British and American pilot in the book says they could easily do so) how the hell did they ever shoot any down?

When later model P-40's caught German planes down low, or were able to attack from above or from equal altitude, they seem to have done very well. That is what I'm seeing - that is the common denominator in the cases mentioned so far, except for the Dec 30 1942 one which seems to have been a counter attack. This particular incident was fairly early in the days of the DAF were using the more powerful P-40K models and the Germans may have been expecting the slower P-40E's they had become accustomed to. The Germans often misidentified P-40K or F/L models as "P-46" or as Spitfires, obviously due to the enhanced maneuverability.

S


----------



## Stig1207 (Mar 20, 2018)

Schweik said:


> All in all though, what you are really doing here is just contesting the_ magnitude_ of the German defeats I posted so far. The Luftwaffe clearly overclaimed and they clearly came out on the losing end of all of these engagements with P-40's in all four of the incidents I posted so far, or are you contesting that ?



No, just pointing out that the source we both are using is not clear about what actually happened, what units were involved, what times the Lw losses occurred, etc. Well written and researched as the MAW series is, it's not without it's faults and you often are left guessing; not surprising, it is after all a difficult subject. Therefore I think some of your conclusions are not beyond challenge.


----------



## Schweik (Mar 21, 2018)

Stig1207 said:


> No, just pointing out that the source we both are using is not clear about what actually happened, what units were involved, what times the Lw losses occurred, etc. Well written and researched as the MAW series is, it's not without it's faults and you often are left guessing; not surprising, it is after all a difficult subject. Therefore I think some of your conclusions are not beyond challenge.



Of course, it's a complex subject, with many sources - nothing is beyond challenge. Some of these battles (I'll post a typical example later of a really wild one) may involve Air assets from 5 countries, with 10 different types of aircraft, with multiple accidents, aircraft destroyed by flak or ground fire, friendly fire all kinds of stuff.

So for any one day, you can pick it apart and question every detail, and try to impose whatever pattern you prefer.

However, while not perfect this series of books is an incredibly well researched and very rich data source, one in which you can clearly see patterns over time, over each days activities. If if you have this series of books yourself, which I assume you do since you are referring to it in detail, you can see many of the patterns I'm referring to. For example, it does not appear to me that the American P-40 squadron were getting slaughtered or even beat up by Me 109 squadrons.

To assume otherwise, we would have to invent a specific and unlikely scenario - 

1) That Christopher Shores or his colleagues are biased in favor of P-40's (I would say actually the opposite - I think he makes it abundantly clear he doesn't like them) 
2) That US P-40 squadrons overclaimed three or four times more than their colleagues in P-38 and Spitfire V squadrons...
3) ... AND simultaneously that in the same battles the Luftwaffe pilots themselves incorrectly attributed their losses to P-40's when in fact they were shot down by some other aircraft.

Of course the latter is certainly possible. All of them are possible, and in any one incident they could be in play. But it's unlikely when you consider dozens of incidents over time. I plan to enter every days' activities into a database and once that is done, more patterns should be clear, and to be honest at this point I haven't even read all of both books. 

But at this point it does appear to me that the theories about the extreme inferiority of later model P-40's to Me 109's are hyperbolic to say the least.

*A little bit of context*
Post World War II the P-40 had a really bad reputation, for a variety of reasons including scandals with Curtiss aircraft company (and the Truman Report) as well as the inherent performance limitations (esp. alt ceiling) of the aircraft which prevented it from being used in the most important Theaters. *The Trope* became that the P-40 was slow and ungainly, but 'rugged and a good fighter bomber'. The first and for decades, sole exception to this was the AVG record which was treated as an outlier. 

In the late 20th Century, some evidence of exceptions to this "rule" - in Burma, in Australian and New Zealand use in the Pacific etc., started to undermine the trope. These were explained away as more outliers plus whispers about overclaiming. In the 'oughts the Soviet data started to emerge, and the testimony of guys like Golodnikov, which again put into question the supposed extreme inferiority of the P-40. Data also emerged from some US P-40 units operating in the Med, like the 325th FG and 57 FG, further calling into question the trope of invincible Luftwaffe fighters and hapless P-40's (and every other allied type except for the Spitfire). Similarly, we learned that P-39's were not exclusively used for ground attack by the Soviets, we learned of the Finnish successes with various "bad" aircraft types and so on.

We have also seen a general revision of understanding of many aspects of the war - David Glantz's work on the Russian Front for example, which has called into question many aspects of German accounts that we had previously accepted as verbatim.

Specific to the subject of this thread, we now know that probably at least ~300 allied pilots in various air forces made "Ace" in P-40's, according to their "confirmed" victory claims. 

However, this led to a hue and cry from defenders of *The Trope*, that allegedly, the victories were not real. Soviet fighter pilots apparently never shot down_ any_ German aircraft and all their claims were lies. DAF pilots overclaimed massively (except when flying Spits). US squadrons fighting in the Med overclaimed beyond belief. US (and Aussie and NZ) squadrons in the Pacific and Burma overclaimed even more. The only air forces which _didn't _overclaim were the Japanese and -especially- the Luftwaffe. No experten ever claimed to shoot down an enemy aircraft incorrectly.

Well, one thing that Shores books do, and also to some extent the Black Cross / Red Star series, is start to test this new variation of *The Trope.* How much overclaiming was there, precisely, and by whom?

What the data is already starting to show us, or shows me so far anyway, is that the Luftwaffe did overclaim, sometimes quite a bit, and the Luftwaffe did take serious losses. We know that Me 109's shot down a lot of P-40's, but it's also true (if to a lesser extent), *P-40's shot down a lot of me 109's*. I think you can say that purely on the basis of the Germans own self-reported losses (what kind of aircraft the pilots reported that they or their comrades were shot down by). But if you extrapolate between the Allied claims and the German losses it looks more like later model P-40's in particular could hold their own.

The precise details of all this are still emerging, not only in terms of analyzing the remarkable research done so far but also in anticipating Vol IV of Shores massive Med endeavor. It's likely of course, that a new version of The Trope will emerge, but each incarnation strains credulity a bit more.

There are also some interesting patterns regarding Luftwaffe activity more generally which are apparent, that I think some people would be interested in.

S

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wlewisiii (Mar 21, 2018)

Regarding the P-40 & it's reputation, I'd like to point to a video I posted previously on flying the P-40E by the late Jeff Ethel:

(REVISED) Most Formidable Low-Med Altitude Fighter Aircraft

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


----------



## Stig1207 (Mar 22, 2018)

Schweik said:


> However, this led to a hue and cry from defenders of *The Trope*, that allegedly, the victories were not real. Soviet fighter pilots apparently never shot down_ any_ German aircraft and all their claims were lies. DAF pilots overclaimed massively (except when flying Spits). US squadrons fighting in the Med overclaimed beyond belief. US (and Aussie and NZ) squadrons in the Pacific and Burma overclaimed even more. The only air forces which _didn't _overclaim were the Japanese and -especially- the Luftwaffe. No experten ever claimed to shoot down an enemy aircraft incorrectly.



I don't know who these 'defenders' are, but you are exaggerating absurdly here. Just to be clear, I harbour no illusions as to how universal overclaiming was , and didn't depend on the the markings the aircraft carried.

Now if we stick with the examples you posted from MAW, and in particular the one for 24th March, as that is the most troubling one:
I cannot say that you are wrong in your analysis of the 33rd FG's performance in this action, simply because the _detail_s provided by the Shores et al, are lacking. I will however, submit that it is _possible _that the 2 Jg 53 and 2 Jg 27 losses had nothing to do with the engagement, as I pointed out in my earlier post. It is also _possible _that some or all of the III/ Jg77 were lost during the fight with the 33rd, but it is also _possible _that they were lost to the 52 FG Spitfires.
For my part, there is just not enough information in the main text or in the following summary to deduce how many 109's the P-40's shot down that day.

Obviously, you apply a different criteria to get the result you want to see.


----------



## Schweik (Mar 23, 2018)

Stig1207 said:


> I don't know who these 'defenders' are, but you are exaggerating absurdly here. Just to be clear, I harbour no illusions as to how universal overclaiming was , and didn't depend on the the markings the aircraft carried.



I am referring to many people who have posted in this very thread over the last several years, as well as a half-dozen or so similar ones around the web. Of course I was exaggerating, to make a point, as a kind of shorthand reference to the afore mentioned previous discussions. You perhaps do not appreciate the use of irony in this way so I'll spell it out, but I'm not even exaggerating that much. For example once the numbers on P-40 (and other) claims came out from the Soviet sources I have read many posts by people asserting that the Soviet claims were invented, even calling into question the entire wartime careers of several Soviet aces. Similar assertions were also made about British Commonwealth and American pilots.

Of course, at this point it's almost necessary to question the victory counts or basic legitimacy of Allied aces if you want to believe that the Me 109 was vastly superior to the P-40, since we now know something that we were not aware of in the 1960's or 1990's, namely that there were dozens of P-40 aces in the Med and Russian Front where they were facing the Luftwaffe.

It's also not entirely unprecedented since this is the pattern of many of the post-war commentaries by certain, though not all German veterans. Some like Gunther Rall seem to have been able to see things from a broader perspective in the postwar environment and clearly respected their adversaries. On the other hand fellows like Hans Ulrich Rudel for example retained a certain political point of view which can be difficult to separate from objective descriptions of the war.

I don't entirely discount these either, but I would not automatically take the word of Hans Ulrich Rudel over say, Nikolay Gerasimovich Golodnikov. Like all accounts by wartime participants they have to be considered with regard to the perspectives of the authors, and where possible, by contrasting with available empirical data. Especially where one side presents the other as subhuman or incapable of success, we should probably be very cautious, more cautious than we were in the past certainly. Especially since we do now have much more empirical data to consider.

Which is the point I was making.



> Now if we stick with the examples you posted from MAW, and in particular the one for 24th March, as that is the most troubling one:
> (snip)
> For my part, there is just not enough information in the main text or in the following summary to deduce how many 109's the P-40's shot down that day.



Fair enough, though as I mentioned, your (implied) theory requires that A) the Spitfire pilots who only claimed 3 me 109s shot down, did not overclaim but in fact _underclaimed_ by 200%. I.e. they claimed 3 and got 7 (this is not impossible, but seems unlikely). while B) simultaneously, the P-40 pilots overclaimed by 1000% or more and didn't get any, and C) the German's themselves were incorrect in reporting their planes shot down by P-40's. We also need to ignore the descriptive text of the running air battle with the 33 FG P-40's and the supposed shoot down of two 'difficult' P-40 pilots by their ex_perten _squadron leader after he called his fellow pilots 'Swine'. Again, all this put together is not impossible, some strange things happen in war and specifically in these air battles, but if Occam's razor comes into play I think we can safely assume the 33 FG shot down more Me 109's than they lost that day as on the others.

At the very least, perhaps we can agree that the Luftwaffe overclaimed quite a bit here, since they claimed 7 P-40's shot down but in fact only got 1?

Beyond that, I'm willing to let it go, I have seen many of these discussions get bogged down by minutae such as picking apart details in some endless segue, while the main point is lost. So lets move on with the other three incidents, because I think I have already found several more, maybe as many as ten so far. I'll try to transcribe and post at least one or two more some time today or tonight. Then over time perhaps we will see if a pattern emerges or not.

I'll ask you though the same question I asked you twice previously, but perhaps not directly enough. You apparently have access to MAW Vols II and III, as you are quoting from them, yes? Or at least from Vol III. If so, have you read the book? And if that is the case, can you answer this question: do you find that the American P-40 squadrons were suffering heavy losses in their numerous encounters with Luftwaffe Me 109's?

Because based on what the people I call "Defenders of the Trope" were claiming in numerous posts in this very thread, that would seem necessary. If the Me 109F or G is superior in every way, maneuverability, handling, speed, acceleration dive speed, and so on, to the P-40F, L, K and M, then one would assume they would have the same kind of success rate against them that they had against say, Hurricanes or LaGG-3. But that is not what I am seeing in the MAW books that I have so far (Vols II and III).



> Obviously, you apply a different criteria to get the result you want to see.



Needless to say, or we can allow the data to tell us it's own story, can't we? I think that is generally the best policy.

S

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Mar 23, 2018)

So here are two more examples. The first one is small and a little murky but I'm including it because it's from the day before the one we were arguing about. This is part of the same air campaign in support of a New Zealand ground offensive. From Shores Vol II P. 548

*March 23 1943*
P-40F's of the 79th FG escorted A-20 Boston bombers on raids over Mareth. They made claims for one Me 109 destroyed, one damaged and one probable. No losses.

Later Spit Mk V from 52nd FG engaged Me 109's in the same area but their only claim was one destroyed in a collision (the Spitfire was also lost) and then in another area, the 450 Sqdn RAF escorted 260 sqdrn Kittyhawk III's on a raid southwest of El Hamm. Losses were one Boston and one Kittyhawk III both to Flak, but apparently they did not engage fighters.

Germans claimed 5 spitfires and a B-25. only the B-25 appears to be accurate, possibly the A-20. Italian MC 202 pilots also claimed 2 spitfires near the Mareth line.

German losses were 4 Me 109's shot down by enemy planes, 1 force-landed, and 3 lost to Flak. Two of the losses were attributed by the Germans to P-40's, one to Spitfires (the collision). This is the summary of air to air losses, per German sources:

Bf 109G-6 WNr 1681 flew into debris of shot down Spitfire and crashed 45 km ESE Gafsa, Maj Muncheberg KiA
Bf 109G-2 Trop WNr 10743 White 8 combat with P-40 5km E Maknassy Uffz Johann penall KiA
Bf 109G-2 trop WNR 10638 White 9 shot down Maknassy; Fw Hildebrandt safe
Bf 109G-4 trop WNr 15064 White 6 shot up by Spifire while landing at Gabes, 20% damaged
Bf 109G-4 trop WNr 10900 Black 5 shot down by P-40's Djerba area,; Wffiz Willi Muller KiA

these are from JG 77 and JG 51

*TL : DR 79th FG P-40Fs engaged Me 109's and shot down 2, maybe 3, for no losses. 
*
Here is another small one but it's also interesting because it's earlier and involves Kittyhawk I's.

*Wednesday, 8 July 1942*

11 Kittyhawk Mk1s (P-40E) from 250 Sdn joined ten from 112 squadron and ten from 3 RAAF squadron for a FB attack on LGs 20 and 21. Me 109's from JG 27 and JG 51 were caught low with others flying CAP attacking from above.

RAF Kittyhawk pilots claimed 3 Bf 109's destroyed, plus 4 damaged and two probable. They also claimed two Ju 87's. Hurricane IIbs flying the same day also claimed 2 Bf 109's and defensive gunners on a Boston claimed an MC 202. MC 202's claimed two P-40's probable.

German pilots claimed 3 Hurricanes.

Actual losses were 4 Me 109's and a Ju 87 shot down, two damaged by strafing. DAF reported losing 2 Hurricanes (pilots KIA), plus 3 damaged aircraft - 1 Hurricane and two Kittyhawks were damaged but landed at their own base, with one kittyhawk pilot being WiA.

German losses:

3./JG 27 BF 109F-4 trop WNr 8486 Yellow 3 shot down by P-40 1 km W Turbiya; Lt Karl Kugelbauer bailed out KIA
3./JG 27 BF 109F-4 trop WNr 10277 shot down by P-40, crash landed El Daba 70% Lt Friedrich Hoffmann safe
8./JG 27 BF 109F-4 trop WNr 10007 force landing Qotaifya, after combat 100%; Fw Kurt Maraun WiA
10. (Jabo)/JG 53 Bf 109F-4 trop WNr 8624 70% damaged crash landing at Ootaifiya
7./StG 3 Ju 87 combat with P-40 Bir el Abd; Fw Gunther Ulrich KiA/Gefr Bruno Fischer WiA

Three of the German loss reports specifically mention P-40's, two don't mention what aircraft shot them down. They also mention two more Me 109's damaged by strafing. Hurricane pilots did claim two shot down but the unit which engaged the Hurricanes was 2./JG 27, and they did not report any losses.

Though these were Kittyhawk I's vs. 109F's, it's worth noting these were from 3 of the best Commonwealth P-40 squadrons, one led by the double P-40 ace (13 Victory) Billy Drake who made one of the claims. They also caught the Me 109's low which negates the altitude advantage.
*
TL : DR DAF P-40's shot down 3 or 4 Bf 109's and a Ju 87 for no losses (but had two damaged)*

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Mar 23, 2018)

Billy Drake (RAF Ace with 13 Kills on the P-40) on P-40 Kittyhawks

"Allison engine had plenty of power"

"If you got in trouble with the Kittyhawk you just dropped down the nose and got out of there."

Air Commodore Peter Brothers and Group Captain Billy Drake

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Stig1207 (Mar 24, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Fair enough, though as I mentioned, your (implied) theory requires that A) the Spitfire pilots who only claimed 3 me 109s shot down, did not overclaim but in fact _underclaimed_ by 200%. I.e. they claimed 3 and got 7 (this is not impossible, but seems unlikely). while B) simultaneously, the P-40 pilots overclaimed by 1000% or more and didn't get any, and C) the German's themselves were incorrect in reporting their planes shot down by P-40's. We also need to ignore the descriptive text of the running air battle with the 33 FG P-40's and the supposed shoot down of two 'difficult' P-40 pilots by their ex_perten _squadron leader after he called his fellow pilots 'Swine'. Again, all this put together is not impossible, some strange things happen in war and specifically in these air battles, but if Occam's razor comes into play I think we can safely assume the 33 FG shot down more Me 109's than they lost that day as on the others.
> 
> At the very least, perhaps we can agree that the Luftwaffe overclaimed quite a bit here, since they claimed 7 P-40's shot down but in fact only got 1?
> 
> ...



You are still assuming that all the 109 losses on 24th March were to due to combat with American fighters; that is probably not the case. Kracker Luftwaffe Archive has the 2 Jg27 aircraft lost over the sea, suspected cause being fuel exhaustion. The Jg53 losses are several hundred kilometers to the north and their is nothing in the MAWIII text that links them to the 33rd FG engagement. So that leaves the Jg77 losses as the most likely candidates, but with the paucity of information in the text (neither III/ Jg77 or 52ng FG are mentioned at all) it's hard to say who got what. In short, the only certain victory that can be attributed to 33rd is the 2./ Jg77 109 piloted by Wolfmeier , based on the information provided in MAWIII.

I have read MAWII and i am about halfway through MAWIII; my impression has been that the P-38 units have been bearing the brunt of the AAF losses so far. However if you want to see examples of American P-40 squadrons suffering heavy losses, look at 1. and 2. February..

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Mar 25, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Billy Drake (RAF Ace with 13 Kills on the P-40) on P-40 Kittyhawks
> 
> "Allison engine had plenty of power"
> 
> ...


And if you were already close to the deck common if not normal in GA missions?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wlewisiii (Mar 25, 2018)

Glider said:


> And if you were already close to the deck common if not normal in GA missions?



P-40E vs Bf-109E? Ram the throttle forward to about 60~70" and run away from him? That's good for 1780hp according to a letter from Allison on Dec 12, 1942.


----------



## Glider (Mar 25, 2018)

wlewisiii said:


> P-40E vs Bf-109E? Ram the throttle forward to about 60~70" and run away from him? That's good for 1780hp according to a letter from Allison on Dec 12, 1942.


In Dec 1942 you are up against the 109F4 or the early 109G, I take the 109 every time


----------



## pbehn (Mar 25, 2018)

Glider said:


> In Dec 1942 you are up against the 109F4 or the early 109G, I take the 109 every time


Perhaps in terms of the two aircraft types produced but how often did they meet and where? The North African conflict was completely finished in May 1943


----------



## Glider (Mar 26, 2018)

pbehn said:


> Perhaps in terms of the two aircraft types produced but how often did they meet and where? The North African conflict was completely finished in May 1943


The Luftwaffe in North Africa were equipped with the 109F4 as standard equipment for most of the conflict. I cannot give an exact date as I don't have access to my books but certainly from at least October 1941.
Hence the superiority of the individual aircraft in combat. The Hurricane II's and early/ late Kittyhawks vs 109F4 were at a severe disadvantage


----------



## Schweik (Mar 26, 2018)

Stig1207 said:


> You are still assuming that all the 109 losses on 24th March were to due to combat with American fighters; that is probably not the case. Kracker Luftwaffe Archive has the 2 Jg27 aircraft lost over the sea, suspected cause being fuel exhaustion. The Jg53 losses are several hundred kilometers to the north and their is nothing in the MAWIII text that links them to the 33rd FG engagement. So that leaves the Jg77 losses as the most likely candidates, but with the paucity of information in the text (neither III/ Jg77 or 52ng FG are mentioned at all) it's hard to say who got what. In short, the only certain victory that can be attributed to 33rd is the 2./ Jg77 109 piloted by Wolfmeier , based on the information provided in MAWIII.



Well, you are suggesting something which is extremely unlikely - given that Luftwaffe planes just running out of gas was pretty rare. The fighting on that day - the base they were raiding down south where 4 Bf 109's were shot down, nor (especially) the other location up near Tunis where 2 were shot down, were not far from the sea. So it's plausible that damaged aircraft may have crashed into the sea. But it seems to be a rare coincidence that on the day that US fighters just happened to claim ~ 14 Luftwaffe fighters shot down, an extremely unusual incident occurred in which 2 (according to your theory, undamaged) Bf 109's just happened to run out of gas over the sea and crash. I read through probably 80% of both books and I can't remember too many examples of that happening.

So you would still be assuming (unusually) wild overclaiming by the US pilots on the same day that a very rare (double!) accident occurred for the Luftwaffe.



> I have read MAWII and i am about halfway through MAWIII; my impression has been that the P-38 units have been bearing the brunt of the AAF losses so far. However if you want to see examples of American P-40 squadrons suffering heavy losses, look at 1. and 2. February..



Yes, I would agree the P-38 units took a lot of casualties and seemed to get relegated to flying high altitude escort to heavy bombers (B-17 or B-24). For example they weren't flying that many fighter sweeps / armed recon or fighter bomber attacks any more after the first couple of months. The P-39 units got slaughtered every time they came near the Luftwaffe even when escorted by Spitfires and were soon relegated to 'maritime patrol' activities. (I would really like to learn more about how the Soviets did so well with P-39's while the US and other allies did so poorly!). The US Spit V units flew fighter sweeps and escort missions, and also did a fair amount of fighter-bombing attacks (surprisingly) and took small but continuous losses, but also caused steady casualties and were probably roughly even against Luftwaffe Bf 109.s

The US P-40 (F/L/K) units flew similar (fighter sweep, bomber escort, FB escort, and FB) missions, usually unescorted (quite often P-40F/L flew high cover for P-40K fighter bombers or in Commonwealth units, P-40's flew escort for Hurricanes) and took fairly low losses while causing a small but continuous attrition in return, roughly equivalent to the Spit V's. More importantly to their commanders they seemed to be able to successfully escort bombers (keep them from getting shot down) and / or perform their strafing missions. Spit IX units tended to wreak havoc on the Bf 109s, delivering 2-1 or 3-1 or even better losses against the Germans.

The typical engagement between Bf 109's and late model P-40's (which could be as many as 30-40 aircraft on each side) resulted in 2-3 losses on each side, plus 3-4 damaged to various degrees. The P-40's were often able to land back at base with substantial damage, even the (theoretically less protected) P-40L's.

Per the P-38's though, it's worth noting that the American heavy (and medium) bombers did seem to be doing a substantial amount of damage against enemy airfields as a lot of Luftwaffe and _Regia Aeronautica_ aircraft were listed as destroyed on the ground by level bombing raids.

You let me know when you catch up to MAWIII and see if your impression is different.

S


----------



## Schweik (Mar 26, 2018)

Glider said:


> And if you were already close to the deck common if not normal in GA missions?



It would not be common to be at treetop level except briefly, precisely because it was dangerous. Swoop down to bomb or strafe and then zoom back to a comfortable altitude.

But if you did get caught low, and came under attack, the response would depend on the relative 'E' state. Based on what the Kittyhawk aces themselves said, one of the following options is likely:


If the enemy A/C was in a high E state and approaching fast, either a skid to avoid being hit prior to overshoot, followed by full throttle (possibly overboosting) and try to catch him with a burst.

Or a sharp turn especially to the left, since Me 109's had stiff control's at high speeds and suffered a lot of torque which made it hard to turn left when going fast*

Or a 180 degree turn followed by opening fire with all guns, which turns either into a gun-duel or the Bf 109 breaks off. If he breaks off turn into him and shoot him down. If he doesn't start shooting at long range, keep your guns hot and aim true - you'll probably get him as you are putting out a lot more lead, your guns have longer range and better penetration.

Basically if the P-40 pilot saw a Bf 109 coming, they could evade it. They were shot down when they didn't notice (especially in the earlier period when they didn't have a wingman) or when multiple Bf 109's were working together to do a series of attacks. Often the Lufwaffe would use one aircraft as bait, while others (the rest of the Rotte or the squadron) came to attack the pursuers. If they didn't fall for the bait or turned aggressively the Bf 109's would typically disengage if they had sufficient E. I'll post some interesting descriptions of individual actions later to give a better idea of how combat went down.

*From a British analysis of the Me 109E:

".._It is at high speeds that lack of a rudder trimmer most seriously inconveniences the pilot. At 215 mph (346 km/h) the a/c is trimmed directionally, no rudder being required. At higher speeds left rudder must be applied, and at 300mph (483 km/h) about 2 deg of left rudder are needed. The rudder is very heavy at high speeds, and a large force is required to apply even such a small amount; this becomes very tiring, and affects the pilot's ability to put on more left rudder to assist a turn to the left. Consequently at high speeds the Me 109 turns more readily to the right than to the left...._"

S


----------



## Schweik (Mar 26, 2018)

Glider said:


> The Luftwaffe in North Africa were equipped with the 109F4 as standard equipment for most of the conflict. I cannot give an exact date as I don't have access to my books but certainly from at least October 1941.
> Hence the superiority of the individual aircraft in combat. The Hurricane II's and early/ late Kittyhawks vs 109F4 were at a severe disadvantage



From mid 1941 through mid 1942, Bf 109F4 were the dominant Luftwaffe (and Axis) fighter, though they did still use 109E especially as "Jabo's" (and they had Bf 109E's all the way until the end of 1942), there were a substantial number of Me 110 though they seem to have been much less active by mid 1942, and there were still a lot of MC 200, MC 202, and some older Italian fighters around (even Cr 42).

The DAF was still using Hurricane I, IIb, IIc and some of the anti-tank (big gun) IId's, almost exclusively for fighter bomber or ground attack by 1942, as well as Tomahawk (P-40 B/C) and Kittyhawk I (P-40E) fighters which were their main front line fighters until around June 1942. Some South African units still had Tomahawks until 1943 and Kittyhawk Mk. I until middle 1943. Also the Beaufighter, particularly in naval and convoy defense action, was a surprisingly effective heavy fighter.

I would agree that *Tomahawk* and* Kittyhawk Mk. I *were at a disadvantage against *Bf 109F*, with two caveats - in large part this seems to be due to poor British tactics and training, particularly the lack of flying in pairs; and they still caused steady casualties against the Luftwaffe anyway. As in they might lose 3 but still shot down 1. Skilled pilots in Tomahawks and Kittyhawks reversed this ratio and shot down numerous Bf 109F's including those flown by Experten (note Caldwell and Nicky Barr for example).

From June 1942 some Kittyhawk Mk III (*P-40K*) began arriving in Theater, and a small but significant number of the Packard-Merlin engined Kittyhawk II and IIa (*P-40F/L*) version arrived. Among Commonwealth units only 260 RAF and 3 RAAF got these, but all of the US units had them initially (with some later units getting P-40K), as well as (American) P-38's and a small number of (American and British) Spit V's.

Kittyhawk MK II and MK III did pretty well against the Bf 109F and G series fighters. So, somewhat surprisingly did the P-40K.

P-40K was basically an improved P-40E. The main difference between a P-40K and E was that the former had a strengthened crankshaft enabling much more overboosting (57 " mercury which delivered ~1500 hp at medium altitude was the standard WEP setting and could be maintained ~15 minutes), better ammunition storage for less gun stoppages, either a fin or an extended tail for better stability, and automatic boost control for easier engine management.



One other thing to keep in mind about the Desert Air War, is that by mid-1942 onward, the Luftwaffe was numerically outnumbered. They did not spread themselves thin so as to be constantly outnumbered on a tactical level, because the Luftwaffe tended to do everything to maximize their results in air combat. Rather, they tended to concentrate in certain areas and try to win local air superiority there. So in a broad area of ground warfare you would only find Luftwaffe engaged in certain key sectors, with others largely left to fend for themselves. This contributed to a lot of bad blood between the Luftwaffe and army ground commanders like Rommel.

Conversely the Commonwealth behaved almost as if the Luftwaffe didn't exist much of the time. They put bombs on most of their fighters (including Spitfires somewhat amazingly) and sent them in to strafe and bomb enemy tanks, artillery and ground troops. When they did engage the Luftwaffe it was often with P-40's sent to strafe and bomb enemy airfields, while escorting medium bombers or just on their own. Though they sometimes got jumped doing this and took heavy casualties, they could often survive being attacked, usually caused casualties and sometimes turned the tables on the LW.

S


----------



## Glider (Mar 26, 2018)

Schweik said:


> It would not be common to be at treetop level except briefly, precisely because it was dangerous. Swoop down to bomb or strafe and then zoom back to a comfortable altitude.
> 
> It would depend on the relative 'E' state. Based on what the Kittyhawk aces themselves said, one of the following options is likely:
> 
> ...


But against the 109F4 which was the normal mount of the Luftwaffe fighters? The 109 has the speed advantage and with a 20mm mounted on the centerline is probably more accurate and has a longer effective range, controls are not as stiff at high speed, can more than match the P40 in a dive plus has a better climb. I am sorry but all the advantages are with the Me109


----------



## Schweik (Mar 26, 2018)

Glider said:


> But against the 109F4 which was the normal mount of the Luftwaffe fighters? The 109 has the speed advantage and with a 20mm mounted on the centerline is probably more accurate and has a longer effective range,



If it's P-40 C or E then the 109F4 has a significant speed advantage. If it's a P-40 F/L or K, not so much, though it would depend on the altitude.

Though the 15 or 20mm cannon was much more accurate and precise at close range, the .50 caliber mg's had a much longer effective range, and six machine guns put out vastly more volume of fire than a single cannon, however accurate. There are several incidents in the book, for example where Clive Caldwell shot down Stahlschmidt, the Germans reported surprise at the long range of the guns.



> controls are not as stiff at high speed, can more than match the P40 in a dive plus has a better climb. I am sorry but all the advantages are with the Me109



The Bf 109F, F4 in particular, was the best 'dogfighting' version of the Bf 109 without a doubt, but it still had stiff control and torque problems at high speeds. It certainly had much better climb than a P-40 and also better acceleration. I would say that it appears in MAW the F-4 and G-2 did best against allied fighters of all types, whereas the G-4 and G-6 seem to have had more trouble.

I know it's a popular Trope with a lot of people on the internet that Bf 109's were vastly superior in _every_ respect to a P-40 (and to the Yak, LaGG 5 etc.) but this is at variance with wartime testing and the testimony of the pilots on both sides. Both German and DAF pilots in MAW II and III are quoted extensively. Few particularly liked the P-40 but they all acknowledged that it could easily out-turn the Bf 109 and most also noted that it could out dive them.

Diving is complex because the Bf 109 accelerated better, but the P-40 was heavier which quickly came into play in a dive, and could reach a higher dive speed. Bf 109's were limited to 466 mph (and then only from 10,000 feet or higher), whereas P-40's were limited to ~480 per the manuals but routinely exceeded ~550 mph and some tests were done over 600 (you can find these on youtube). The bigger issue though is with the controls, both aircraft had control challenges at very high speeds but the P-40 could still turn in both directions (the pilot was just forced to adjust the trim as the speed changed) while the Bf 109 became very difficult to control. This is why diving very fast at low altitude was prohibited.

Whatever the mechanics, anecdotally throughout MAW you can find DAF pilots routinely evading Bf 109's through diving, and some of the Luftwaffe aces also acknowledged the dive speed of the "Curtiss" as they typically referred to it. It is worth noting however that this escape was temporary - if the Bf 109 pilots, particularly in the G models, wanted to keep chasing the P-40 they could catch up to it - but if they did so they would find themselves in a low altitude dogfight which was not an ideal situation for them. That is how a lot of them got shot down in fact. I'll quote a couple of anecdotes later when I have time to transcribe them.

This was, in my opinion, the main difference between the P-40 and the Hurricane and why the Hurricane was phased out of Air Superiority missions while the P-40 continued to be used that way in spite of it's big problem with performance ceiling; the P-40 could disengage from combat whereas the Hurricane could not. Split S and escape dive was not as easy to pull off successfully in the Med as it was in the Pacific (where the P-40 had a notable speed advantage not just in dive but in level flight as well), and took a better pilot frankly as a result, but it was still their best option in many cases and one which they clearly relied on. If the Bf 109 was in a high E state and too close to try to dive away from they would skid (via left rudder with right aileron) until it passed by, then overboost and try to catch them with a burst after they came into view.

S


----------



## Schweik (Mar 26, 2018)

Glider said:


> But against the 109F4 which was the normal mount of the Luftwaffe fighters? The 109 has the speed advantage and with a 20mm mounted on the centerline is probably more accurate and has a longer effective range, controls are not as stiff at high speed, can more than match the P40 in a dive plus has a better climb. I am sorry but all the advantages are with the Me109



Here is a shorter response and a question - if this were all true, how do you explain the substantial losses of Bf 109F's in combat against late model P-40's, according to the records of the Germans themselves? Based on your description here I would expect that Bf109F4 would almost always defeat P-40's by a wide margin. Against the American units in MAW III like 33, 57th, and 79th FG, it looks about even, maybe even a slight edge for the Americans. Maybe MAW IV will tell a different story as combat picks up in the Med in mid 1943.

S


----------



## Glider (Mar 26, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Here is a shorter response and a question - if this were all true, how do you explain the substantial losses of Bf 109F's in combat against late model P-40's, according to the records of the Germans themselves? Based on your description here I would expect that Bf109F4 would almost always defeat P-40's by a wide margin. Against the American units in MAW III like 33, 57th, and 79th FG, it looks about even, maybe even a slight edge for the Americans. Maybe MAW IV will tell a different story as combat picks up in the Med in mid 1943.
> 
> S


By the time the US forces were on the scene the back of the Luftwaffe had been broken, they were normally outnumbered, being chased from base to base and morale unsurprisingly was low. Page 416 of MAW III has a good example.

'_During the forenoon the Mitchell's are back, accompanied by fighters ad fighter bombers in great numbers. Kittyhawks fly over us at 500 meters showing just how little they have to fear_.' 

That day the allies claimed 10 Me109's (I am ignoring the damaged and probable claims) the Germans lost 1. Admittedly the allies only lost 1 to air combat but considering the numbers advantage the allies had that was probably as good as you could get.


----------



## Schweik (Mar 26, 2018)

Glider said:


> By the time the US forces were on the scene the back of the Luftwaffe had been broken, they were normally outnumbered, being chased from base to base and morale unsurprisingly was low. Page 416 of MAW III has a good example.
> 
> '_During the forenoon the Mitchell's are back, accompanied by fighters ad fighter bombers in great numbers. Kittyhawks fly over us at 500 meters showing just how little they have to fear_.'



Thanks for responding, and I'm glad to see yet another person seems to have MAW!

What you are proposing here is an interesting variation of The Trope. So if you will forgive me for summarizing, the variation here is that "while the Bf 109 is vastly superior to the P-40 in every respect, this does not apply when the German pilot morale is low and the allies have the numbers."

I do agree that morale had clearly declined. I also suspect that JG 77 just wasn't as elite of a squadron as JG 27 which was clearly an exceptional unit, so I'll throw you that bone as well. However I think JG 53 ("_Pik As_" _/ _Ace of Spades) _was _an elite unit, anyway I believe they did very well in Russia, and yet they didn't do very well against USAAF P-40 squadrons either.

Overall however I don't think this variation of The Trope stands up on it's own legs very well, for the following reasons.


Luftwaffe forces were also outnumbered from early 1942, in terms of raw numbers. They dealt with this (as I mentioned previously upthread) by concentrating in what they decided were the key strategic areas so they didn't suffer extreme local numerical inferiority.
Most of the incidents I cited so far were roughly even numbers (for example II and III JG 77 vs. two squadrons from the 33rd FG, or roughly 20-25 aircraft on both sides. The Dec. incident with the DAF squadrons (the first one I cited I don't remember the exact date) was 15 Bf 109's against 7 P-40's IIRC.
Bf 109's had the altitude ceiling advantage (unless up against Spit IX's which were still rare at that point in Theater) which largely enabled them to pick their fights. So once again they could avoid getting ganged up on most of the time.
And I'm sure morale was a factor, naturally, but this isn't really considered admissible for the Commonwealth pilots in 1941 or the first half of 1942 when they were suffering heavy losses. They had serious morale, training and tactical doctrine issues but this rarely comes into play when comparing the aircraft type capabilities. So I think it essentially evens out. Early 1943 is not the same as say the middle of 1944 when you have so many poorly trained Luftwaffe pilots going into action.



> That day the allies claimed 10 Me109's (I am ignoring the damaged and probable claims) the Germans lost 1.Admittedly the allies only lost 1 to air combat but considering the numbers advantage the allies had that was probably as good as you could get.



Here, respectfully I think you are cherry picking a bit. Yes that does look like USAAF overclaimed a lot on that particular day, but that was during a sustained air offensive and if you look at the 10 day period bracketing that date, which I believe I remember is close to some of the other incidents, you'll find LW units were actually overclaiming worse and taking heavier losses than just one fighter. I'll post a few more incidents from that same month when I have time.

S


----------



## Schweik (Mar 26, 2018)

One other thought, the Germans being outnumbered doesn't seem to detract from the glory of the P-51 or P-47 does it?

S


----------



## Glider (Mar 26, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Thanks for responding, and I'm glad to see yet another person seems to have MAW!
> 
> What you are proposing here is an interesting variation of The Trope. So if you will forgive me for summarizing, the variation here is that "while the Bf 109 is vastly superior to the P-40 in every respect, this does not apply when the German pilot morale is low and the allies have the numbers."



Nope, I am saying that if Morale is low and you are outnumbered its wrong to say because side A shot down more of side B it means that side A had the best aircraft. Morale is hugely important in any type of conflict. When Marseille died his unit was withdrawn for a while because of low morale.


> I do agree that morale had clearly declined. I also suspect that JG 77 just wasn't as elite of a squadron as JG 27 which was clearly an exceptional unit, so I'll throw you that bone as well. However I think JG 53 ("_Pik As_" _/ _Ace of Spades) _was _an elite unit, anyway I believe they did very well in Russia, and yet they didn't do very well against USAAF P-40 squadrons either.
> 
> Overall however I don't think this variation of The Trope stands up on it's own legs very well, for the following reasons.
> 
> ...


At the start of the book there is an interesting section made up of comments from actual pilots from all sides. The German pilots make note that thy were nearly always outnumbered


> Most of the incidents I cited so far were roughly even numbers (for example II and III JG 77 vs. two squadrons from the 33rd FG, or roughly 20-25 aircraft on both sides. The Dec. incident with the DAF squadrons (the first one I cited I don't remember the exact date) was 15 Bf 109's against 7 P-40's IIRC.


True, but there are always exceptions and some observations have been made on these actions. To sum up, I have yet to find any pilot from any airforce who at any time considered the P40 to be a match for the Luftwaffe


> Bf 109's had the altitude ceiling advantage (unless up against Spit IX's which were still rare at that point in Theater) which largely enabled them to pick their fights. So once again they could avoid getting ganged up on most of the time.


Which of course shows that Bf 109 had a significant tactical and strategic advantage


> Here, respectfully I think you are cherry picking a bit. Yes that does look like USAAF overclaimed a lot on that particular day, but that was during a sustained air offensive and if you look at the 10 day period bracketing that date, which I believe I remember is close to some of the other incidents, you'll find LW units were actually overclaiming worse and taking heavier losses than just one fighter. I'll post a few more incidents from that same month when I have time.



You do me a disservice. *I deliberately said allies* *not USAAF* *and if you look at the ten claims you will see that this includes RAF claims.* All sides over claimed as an honest mistake, the point was that the losses seem to be one each.


----------



## Schweik (Mar 26, 2018)

Glider said:


> Nope, I am saying that if Morale is low and you are outnumbered its wrong to say because side A shot down more of side B it means that side A had the best aircraft. Morale is hugely important in any type of conflict. When Marseille died his unit was withdrawn for a while because of low morale.
> 
> At the start of the book there is an interesting section made up of comments from actual pilots from all sides. The German pilots make note that thy were nearly always outnumbered



Right - which wasn't so much of a problem when the DAF was using very bad tactics, as I'm sure you read them describing if you read those commentaries, (including effectively flying without wingmen which is super dangerous in the kinds of planes all-sides were using then) and had low morale themselves in many cases. The Luftwaffe made a strategic decision to maximize their own combat odds (and, according to interviews with Luftwaffe pilots quoted in MAW - to maximize the scores of the experten) so they concentrated their forces in what they thought were important spots so as to not be outnumbered on the tactical level.

The numbers were a constant in other words, one which they dealt with for a while when facing older model aircraft using really bad tactics, but which they could no longer do when they had enemy pilots flying in pairs in later model P-40's, quite clearly.



> True, but there are always exceptions and some observations have been made on these actions. To sum up, I have yet to find any pilot from any airforce who at any time considered the P40 to be a match for the Luftwaffe



Well here - let he help you with that and thereby improve your life a little:

*"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.[89]"

N. G. Golodnikov,
2nd Guards Fighter Regiment (GIAP),
Northern Aviation Fleet (VVS SF)[90]*

Nor was Golodnikov the only one- I believe Caldwell and Drake and some others also said favorable things, as did some of the American pilots.* EDIT: *noticed this comment from Nicky Barr: *"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."*[74]  Interestingly, in MAW he goes into details about the problems he encountered with the P-40E and called the P-40K the best version.

I'll grant you it was not as popular as the Spitfire but that was largely due to the effective combat ceiling issue. And because the Spitfire was the best allied fighter in the Theater, I'm just arguing the P-40 was not the dog it has been made out to be. This is what the data shows us, IMO.



> Which of course shows that Bf 109 had a significant tactical and strategic advantage



Well, maybe tactical and operational, yes. Without a doubt the Bf 109 had an advantage. It had a much higher ceiling, better climb rate and better acceleration. A nice nose-mounted cannon. But it also had strategic limitatons, namely short range, and tactical limitations, such as not being that great at turning and rolling, having stiff controls especially at high speed, and so on.

Every aircraft in WW II had advantages and disadvantages.



> You do me a disservice. *I deliberately said allies* *not USAAF* *and if you look at the ten claims you will see that this includes RAF claims.* All sides over claimed as an honest mistake, the point was that the losses seem to be one each.



My apologies, I'm afraid you will have to forgive me as I was not at home and didn't have the book in front of me. My point still stands.

S


----------



## Stig1207 (Mar 27, 2018)

Schweik said:


> I'm glad to see yet another person seems to have MAW!



There are a number of P-40 threads in the aviation forum that get necroed every so often by someone coming by and telling everyone how the this fighter is underrated or unapprectiated; the MAW series is quite well known here, though what people take away from it, differs a fair bit.


----------



## Schweik (Mar 27, 2018)

Stig1207 said:


> There are a number of P-40 threads in the aviation forum that get necroed every so often by someone coming by and telling everyone how the this fighter is underrated or unapprectiated;



I apologize to any forum grognards disturbed by my impertinence in reviving a thread with several long posts - I know I'm a newby and long-winded to boot, but I have tried to keep the signal to noise ratio of my posts relatively high so that they are of some value. I'm well-aware these discussions have been hashed out in the past, however new information does become available, and with regard to WW2 in general, and WW2 aviation specifically, a great deal of new data has come into view in recent years, not all of which has yet been processed or assimilated. The best example being the revisions to Russian Front historiography ala David Glantz etc.

My account here is new, but I have "lurked" on this forum for many years, specifically I have followed this thread since it was created in 2009 and followed several others on this forum for a similar length of time (some related to P-40's as well as many others). Though a newby here, I am not new to forum discussions, to aviation history, or to historical research, both "for fun" and professionally.



> the MAW series is quite well known here, though what people take away from it, differs a fair bit.



That may be true, but MAW is an ongoing series, and *seeing as MAW III was published only in August of 2016*, it's unlikely that the data it makes available was factored into discussions on this subject in 2009 or 2012  and of course MAW IV which is likely to have the lions share of data on USAAF P-40 squadrons in the Med hasn't been published yet . MAW series are expensive books, quite long, and as you yourself have experienced, it can take a while to read them let alone absorb and contextualize all the data therein. I have only begun to do so myself. So it's a bit premature to say that the subject is settled.

As I mentioned upthread, I have seen a progression of new data emerge about the P-40 (among many other WW2 aviation subjects) over many years. When I was a kid I poured over military aviation books by guys like Bill Gunston, Martin Caiden and Ronald Spector, and the first hand accounts by guys like Adolf Galland, Willi Heilmann, Saburo Sakai, and Hans Ulrich Rudel. The Tropes then were that P-40's were "rugged but unmaneuverable". Soviet P-39's were used exclusively for tank busting, the F2A was useless, the Italians didn't make any good fighters, and so on. Now we know all those things are false. The testimony of allied pilots like Clive Caldwell, Nicky Barr and Robert DeHaven, several books published by Osprey from authors such as Carl Molesworth, the Soviet sources (especially the general research and excellent pilot interviews provided to us by the Soviet lend lease aircraft website) the data aggregators like wwiiaircraftperformance.org and so on have tended to rehabilitate the P-40. Each new data point seems to push in that direction, in fact.

We have seen the flying video by Jeffrey Ethell who noted his surprise at the extraordinary maneuverability of the P-40, which he noted was much more manueverable than a Mustang and compared to "a Pitts with an Allison Engine". Significantly, Ethell himself, who knew more about WW2 fighters than most people posting here including myself, noted that he had been one of the people who believed the Trope about the "unmaneuverable" P-40 until he actually flew one.

The most interesting "recent" (as in the last few decades) research development to me has been the ongoing publication of books like Black Cross / Red Star and the MAW series, as well as other works by Shores and some other authors (Russel Brown's excellent but hard to find "Desert Warriors" was one of the first to make a serious attempt as relates to the P-40), to compare _actual losses with victory claims_. Done on this scale, it's something new.

So while some here may believe all of these discussions were settled already back in the 1950's or 1960's, if we really already know all the answers, what is the point of even having a forum like this to discuss WW2 aviation? In my opinion new data is clearly emerging, some of which overturns cliches and tropes from the past, and other data gives us new insights and presents entirely new aspects of the war that many of us hadn't heard of. Exciting things like a heretofore unknown (or little known) tank battle larger than Kursk for example.

Some people are very uncomfortable that the accounts of German veterans are no longer accepted verbatim and unquestioned, but are now compared with the heretofore lesser known accounts by pilots from other nations, or that the general perception of the war and some of it's details are called into question. For me, the ongoing revelation of new data is part of what keeps all this fun, and I certainly do not believe that I know the last word on the P-40 in WW2. I do currently favor a revisionist interpretation of the Trope, as I call it, on the P-40, but MAW so far gives us an incomplete picture. I don't know what MAW IV will tell us, maybe the P-40 squadrons got slaughtered, I can't wait to find out!

*TL : DR *Most of what I've posted from MAW here so far was published only a year and a half ago. Contrary to the implication, the discussion is not settled.

S

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Stig1207 (Mar 28, 2018)

Schweik said:


> long-winded to boot


Agree 

I am not a grognard myself, but as you I have been reading this and similar forums for a decade at least. As far i see it, you are not bringing anything new to the P-40 debate, and while the MAW series is relatively new, you are not the first to plead the case for the P-40, on the basis of these books.

While i applaud your losses-to-losses comparisons, as the correct approach; your 'any 109 not lost to any other explicitly known cause, verifies it as a loss to P-40's' as you specifically do with the March 24 case, does not lend you credit. IMO that is shoddy interpretation of the data at hand. 

While at it, I will share my findings, having from another source, positively established the III/Jg 77 loss, pilot Jahn, as *Sbeitla *NW of Bou Thadi; which ties well with the 33rd FG claims in that area. OTOH, the 50% damaged III/ Jg77 loss at Gabes is more likely linked to claims for 1 destrroyed and 2 dam at El Hamma by 145 Sqd (MAW II). I can shed no further light on the 2 Jg53 losses, but I have now got through February in MAW III, and I noted what the author writes about II/ Jg27, as they return to the theatre, at Trapani, and the role they were allocated. I don't remeber the page number, but it's late in the month; and it substantiates the supposition that the 2 losses the unit suffered on this date in no way were linked to the actions in central Tunisia. At the same time, I do not share your confidence that 109's were unlikely to run out of fuel 

As to MAW IV, I have no reason to think that we will see P-40's getting 'slaugthered'; but neither do I expect a eureka moment, with the revelation that the P-40 really did that well that it was obviously wrong to replace them with P-47's, the most successful units as the first 

I have a more dispassionate view of the P-40, but I don't see it as underrated; rather as _overhyped._

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Mar 28, 2018)

Stig1207 said:


> Agree
> 
> I am not a grognard myself, but as you I have been reading this and similar forums for a decade at least. As far i see it, you are not bringing anything new to the P-40 debate, and while the MAW series is relatively new, you are not the first to plead the case for the P-40, on the basis of these books.



"Pleading" seems incaccurrate. I'm just pointing out facts. And when people not two posts back in this very thread make statements like _"I have yet to find any pilot from any airforce who at any time considered the P40 to be a match for the Luftwaffe."_ it's abundantly clear that the facts are not widely known here.



> While i applaud your losses-to-losses comparisons, as the correct approach; your 'any 109 not lost to any other explicitly known cause, verifies it as a loss to P-40's' as you specifically do with the March 24 case, does not lend you credit. IMO that is shoddy interpretation of the data at hand.



I posted new data (specific days of action, and not just March 24) and aggregated some of what has come out in recent years. I noted quite carefully (this is part of being long winded, covering these kinds of stipulations) that my "examination" was preliminary. You seem to have formed an obsession with this specific March 24 case, for which you have proposed a series of unlikely scenarios. But I believe I already posted 6 examples, and I can post at least 6 more, to back up my point, namely that the data shows that late model P-40's, especially those of the USAAF Fighter Groups, were holding their own quite well against Bf 109F and G fighters. It is clear that they also, incidentally, shot down a few Fw 190's.

And this is not in sync with the predictions and I daresay expectations of many people who posted previously in this thread about the overwhelming superiority of the Luftwaffe aircraft.



> As to MAW IV, I have no reason to think that we will see P-40's getting 'slaugthered'; but neither do I expect a eureka moment, with the revelation that the P-40 really did that well that it was obviously wrong to replace them with P-47's, the most successful units as the first
> 
> I have a more dispassionate view of the P-40, but I don't see it as underrated; rather as _overhyped._



Dispassionate doesn't seem to be particularly accurate, you just have a negative view of it or an overhyped view of the Bf 109.

What I'm actually suggesting (quite preliminarily at this point) is just a nuance on the tale of the Desert Air War. I see five phases.

Phase 1 - Hurricane squadrons dominate early Italian fighters (Cr 42 and Mc 200 and G. 50 etc.)
Phase 2 - Luftwaffe arrives and Hurricane units suffer losses from Me 109E
Phase 3 - RAF sends Tomahawks and Kittyhawk Mk 1 to counter Bf 109E
Phase 4 - Luftwaffe replaces 109E with Bf 109F, Italians deploy Mc 202, RAF (P-40 and Hurricane) losses mount again
Phase 5 - RAF P-40 F/L and K units arrive, USAAF units arrive. 109F and G suffer mounting losses.

of course by the middle of Phase 4 Spitfire, P-39 and P-38 units also arrive on scene, as do heavily armed US Medium and Heavy bombers, and Phase 5 sees the introduction of some Fw 190's and '5' series Italian fighters too, so it's complicated.

But I think it does appear that the late model P-40's could hold their own with Bf 109's, which matches what the DAF aces said and what the Soviet aces said.

The P-47 was a fantastic high-altitude fighter, but down low doing fighter-bomber attacks or low level fighter sweeps, you would be better off in a P-40.

S


----------



## Schweik (Mar 28, 2018)

I noticed another interesting pattern from reading MAW, which is that there were a few odd things about the Luftwaffe in general there and JG 27 in particular. I'd been aware for years that there was a bad relationship between JG 27 and the ground commanders including Rommel. The latter complained that their air force did not effectively damage enemy ground units and did not protect the Afrika Korps ground units from bomber and fighter-bomber attack.

In MAW you hear the voice of several of the surviving German pilots, who complained that their operations were oriented toward building up the scores of the top _experten_ like Marseille, Steinhausen, Stahlschmidt etc., to the exclusion of any other goal.

Per wikipedia: "The commander of JG 27, Eduard Neumann, commented after the war that 'most of the pilots in Marseille's Staffel acted in a secondary role as escort to the "master". Internal rivalry over star status took precedence over military effectiveness."

In other words, the whole Staffel would be supporting or watching out for the 'star', instead of engaging the enemy.
Looking at the stats for JG 27 also tells an interesting story of numbers. Again just picked this up from Wikipedia so maybe it's wrong, but it says JG 27 claimed 1166 enemy aircraft (588 1. Gruppe, 477 I. Gruppe, 100 III. Gruppe, plus one from the Stab flight) and lost 200 aircraft "in action".

First fun fact is, of those 1166 victory claims, 250 were from just 3 experten (Stenhausen, Stahlschmidt and Marseille) who were all KIA in 1942. If you add Otto Schulz (51 victories) and Kageneck (69 victories) who were also KIA in 1942, that is 370 victory claims out of 1166. About 1/3 of the claims for the whole JG from just 5 pilots who all died. Three of the five, incidentally, were probably shot down by P-40 pilots (Clive Caldwell and James Edwards).

One of the German pilots in MAW mentioned that few if any other JG. 27 pilots could match Marseille's famous trick of shooting down enemy planes out of a defensive circle.

From MAW it's quite clear that JG. 27 overclaimed quite a bit, at least half probably more like 2/3 of those claims were inflated. So realistically thy probably shot down ~400 enemy aircraft for the loss of 200. Good, but not quite as spectacular as had been advertised.

On an operational / strategic level, the emphasis on raising the victory tally's for the experten meant that allied bombers were not effectively being stopped. JG. 27 focused on doing hit and run attacks from above, but this didn't translate into decisively stopping enemy tactical strikes, which started to take a noticeable toll by El Alemain. RAF flew numerous missions in 1941 and 1942 during which the bombers weren't even engaged. One of the things that happened from middle 1942 onwards is that DAF squadrons, especially the Americans with their more heavily armed bombers, took the fight to the Luftwaffe units.

Luftwaffe pilots quoted in MAW noted that P-40's were particularly dangerous in escort missions, why? Because this means that the Bf 109's couldn't just hit and run from above, but had to remain engaged, in other words dogfight, which put them at a disadvantage.

S


----------



## Schweik (Mar 28, 2018)

In other words the Luftwaffe in North Africa anyway seem to have been more focused on their theology of the "ubermensch"* and building up their experten than on accomplishing their actual mission which was protecting and acting as flying artillery for the ground forces, in the manner they had done so successfully for example in France.

The RAF, by contrast, were almost on the opposite extreme. They stuck to their doctrine and did as they were told to a fault, in fact due to their poor tactics this cost them a lot of lives. One of the reasons I think there were so many high scoring Australian aces flying the P-40 in particular (Clive Caldwell, Bobby Gibbes, Nicky Barr, John Waddy, Wilfred Arthur etc.) is that they did not play so strictly by the RAF rules, but figured things out on their own.

It's funny that per MAW interviews, the Germans seem to have particularly disliked the Australians for some reason.

S

* I know Nietzsche was not in synch with Third Reich ideology by any means I'm just using that term as shorthand for the mentlity of the latter.


----------



## Schweik (Mar 28, 2018)

Anyway here is another promised anecdote. This is right around the same time as some of the others.

*March 31, 1943*

This was a busy day with a lot of maritime related activity surrounding German convoys. A lot of different things were going on but the P-40 actions were separate from the others. I'll try to break it down. I put the P-40 missions in Italic.


Spit V's from 225 and 243 sqn did a recon sortie, encountered no fighters but 1 shot down by flak.
A total of 7 MC 202's went off on convoy escort missions and 5 failed to return. Another took off to search for survivors but had engine trouble and went down, for a total of 6. These may have been lost to malfunctions or due to getting lost.
_Four P-40L's of 60th Sqn, 33 FG took off on a recon sweep over Faid, where they engaged 8 Bf 109's, claiming 1 destroyed for no losses._
_Twelve P-40L's of from the same 33 FG Sqn did a FB raid near El Guettar, were attacked by 3 Bf 109's, and claimed 3. (shores attributes 2 of these to JG 77) for no losses._
_Two P-40L's from 58 Sqn 33 FG went on a recon sortie, were attacked by Bf 109s and claimed 2 damaged for no losses._
Four Spitfires from 243 Sqn RAF took off on a training flight and were attacked from above by Bf 109's, losing 2
USAAF bomber strike against German convoy - 14 B-24's escorted by 25 P-38's, bombed ships and then were attacked by a mixed formation of 11 German fighters including Bf 109's, Me 210 and Fw 190's. B-24 bombers claimed 1, 7./JG 53 claimed 3 B-25's but none were lost.
USAAF bomber strike against German convoy - 15 B-25's, 25 P-38's (from 95 Sqn 82nd FG) attacked a convoy near Zembra Island. They were attacked by Ju 88's, ten Bf 109's and Italian fighters. Bombers claimed hits to the ships, (_Nauro_ was hit and set on fire by skip bombs from B-25's). P-38 pilots claimed 1 Ju 88 and 1 Bf 109, but lost 2 P-38's and 2 B-25's, bomber gunners claimed 3 Bf 109's and a Fw 190. German pilots claimed two B-25's and two P-38's (accurately) and lost 1 Bf 109 and 3 Ju 88's
Two more Bf 109's from III./JG 53 were reported shot down by B-26's near Zembra Island.
P-38's from 1st FG escorted a large force of B-17's to Sardanian airfields, where numerous Italian and German aircraft were destroyed on the ground. 12 Italian fighters scrambled claiming 3 bombers, but lost 1 MC 202 and 3 Reggiane's. B-17 gunners claimed 14 enemy fighters.
_Finally in the early evening 12 P-40L's from 33 FG went on a strafing / FB mission against El Guettar, when they ran into a formation of Bf 109's escorting Ju 87's. P-40' pilots claimed 5 Bf 109's and 4 Ju 87's, losing 1 P-40._

*Total claims / losses were:*
RAF / Commonwealth no claims, lost 2 Spitfires, 2 Hurricane IIc (possibly to engine / navigation trouble)
USAAF bomber crews claimed 14 Bf 109, MC 202, Fw 190 and Re 2001, lost 2 B-25's
USAAF P-38 squadrons claimed 1 Ju 88 and 1 Bf 109, lost 2
USAAF P-40L sqn's, (all 33 FG) claimed 9 Bf 109's and 4 Ju 87's, all in the El Guettar area. Lost 2 P-40L's, 1 pilot returned one POW
Luftwaffe claimed 1 P-40, 1 Spitfire, a Ventura, 2 P-38's and 3 B-25's. Lost 9 Bf 109's, 1 Ju 87, and 4 Ju 88
RA claimed 4 B-17s, lost 4 MC 202 plus 3 belly landed, and 1 Re 2001 plus 3 more heavily damaged while taking off.

LW losses were (according to their own records) 7 Bf 109's, 1 Ju 87 and 4 Ju 88's.
4./JG 27 Bf 109G-4 trop WNr 15039 White 8 shot down by fighters N. Zembra, Uffz Konstantin Benzein WiA
1./JG 77 Bf 109G-2 WNr 14526 White 10 combat with P-40 SE Gafsa; Uffz Gustav Krone KiA
1./JG 77 Bf 109G-2 WNr 13976 White 4 combat with P-40 SE Gafsa Uffz Bruno Glasow KiA
8./JG 53 Bf 109G-4 trop WNr 15129 shot down in combat by B-26 near Zembra Island, Lt Wilhelm Nack bailed out, WiA
2./JG 53 Bf 1096-6 WNr 16419 Black I shot down by AA 7km SE Cap Serrat; Oblt Dietrich Kasten baled, WiA
2./SchG 2** Bf 198F-4 WNr 7498 destroyed by own troops after crash landing due to enemy fire; Lt. Werner Zirus safe
2.(H)/14 Bf 109G-2 WNr 14266 50% damaged at Tunis
Ju 87D-3 trop crash landed due to AA, 20% crew safe
Ju 87D-3 WNr 2991 S7+BT combat with P-40 El Guettar; crew WiA / KiA
Ju 88A-4 crashed 5 km N Bizerta 3 crew KiA
Ju 88A-4 lost to fighters on convoy patrol 3 crew MiA
Ju 88A-4 lost in El Guettar area, 1 KiA 2 PoW

I didn't count a Bf 109 and a Storch which collided.

** this was a Jabo or FB unit which was stationed in North Africa for a short time from November 1942 - Spring 1943 after which it was re-equipped with Fw 190's in Germany.

This looks like 2 Bf 109's a Ju 87, and a Ju88 were shot down by P-40's, plus another 3 Bf 109's unknown, (one of which probably was the P-40's) in exchange for 2 P-40's lost (one apparently to AA). So while it was only a slight edge for the P-40's, and a busy / complex day, I posted this because it's fairly typical of the entries for Spring 1943.

S

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Mar 28, 2018)

*Have we got different books?*
Wednesday 31st March 1943 page 561
1) 18 B25's escorted by 23 P40's attacked Safax El Muro
Regia Aeronautica did not launch any missions but 2 MC 202 scrambled as the bombs fell

US losses 2 x P40's lost to flak, 2 x B25 ditched in the sea, 2 x B25 crash landed 11 x B25 lightly damaged
Italian Losses 5 x Mc202 destroyed on the ground and 11 damaged on the ground. The two that scrambled seem to have got away with it

Problem solved I was looking at Vol 2 North Africa not Vol 3 Tunisia apologies to one and all


----------



## Schweik (Mar 28, 2018)

Glider said:


> *Have we got different books?*
> Wednesday 31st March 1943 page 561
> 1) 18 B25's escorted by 23 P40's attacked Safax El Muro
> Regia Aeronautica did not launch any missions but 2 MC 202 scrambled as the bombs fell
> ...



Yes and no! I'm referring to *MAW III page 417-420*. I think you are referring to *MAW II*. I probably should have specified. Shores covers activity by different units sometimes on the same day in the two books, though he usually makes note of it if there is any overlap in terms of action.

The day I mentioned by the way is the day after another one you or somebody else in the thread brought up previously

S


----------



## Glider (Mar 28, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Yes and no! I'm referring to *MAW III page 417-420*. I think you are referring to *MAW II*. I probably should have specified. Shores covers activity by different units sometimes on the same day in the two books, though he usually makes note of it if there is any overlap in terms of action.
> 
> The day I mentioned by the way is the day after another one you or somebody else in the thread brought up previously
> 
> S


You were to quick for me, I trid to edit the post but you replied first


----------



## Stig1207 (Mar 28, 2018)

Schweik said:


> I posted new data (specific days of action, and not just March 24) and aggregated some of what has come out in recent years. I noted quite carefully (this is part of being long winded, covering these kinds of stipulations) that my "examination" was preliminary. You seem to have formed an obsession with this specific March 24 case, for which you have proposed a series of unlikely scenarios. But I believe I already posted 6 examples, and I can post at least 6 more, to back up my point, namely that the data shows that late model P-40's, especially those of the USAAF Fighter Groups, were holding their own quite well against Bf 109F and G fighters. It is clear that they also, incidentally, shot down a few Fw 190's.



I have commented on the first three dates that you posted; I have focused mainly on March 24, as that is where I saw major discrepancies between your interpretation of the data and what I see; if you regard that as an obsession on my part, so be it. I haven't bothered to look at any of the other dates that you've posted, and what would be the point? You have already decided the outcome, even before you find the data that may back it up. 

MAW III doesn't really tell us a lot about what happened on March 24; not in the slightly less than a page of text nor the summary that follows it. Yet you have determined that 6 of the 109 losses that day were due to P-40's of the 33rd FG, despite this one source only mentioning one of the Luftwaffe (I/ Jg77) units involved; not describing the combat in any detail nor making any assertions as to who shot down what, which the author(s) otherwise do in many other cases. In the summary, the reported locations of the LW losses are given (if you look at a map of Tunisia you will see that these are spread over a very large part of the country, some of them hundreds of km from where 33rd FG makes it 's claims); however, no times for when these losses occurred are shown, even less that these losses necessarily had anything to do with actions the 33rd FG were involved in. 52nd FG were also claiming 109's during the day in areas where the Lw reported losses, as were 145 Sqd (according to MAW II). I have mentioned these issues before in my posts, and backed it up with other sources I have found. You have not acknowleged this and call these 'unlikely scenarios' but you have not provided any other information that attributes these 109 losses to the 33rd FG. You rely too heavily on MAW III for this particular date, for however much I appreciate this series of books, there is no doubt that there are mistakes in them.

I'll give just one example that I noted today:
March 3 (p. 371)
'...near the target 81 squadron was attacked and Sgt. Bellerby's aircraft was shot down- the first Mk IX to be brought down over Africa by an Axis fighter. It seems that the honour of achieving this notable success was gained by one of the Fw 190 pilots, Obfw. Goltzsch of 4./ Jg2.'

Jump to the summary:
British casualties:
81 Sqn Spitfire IX EN289 left *1020 *, shot down; Sgt A.L. Bellerby MIA

German claims:
4./ Jg2 Obfw. Kurt Goltzsch Spitfire 5km SE Mateur *0743.*

Even with a one hour time difference between British and German, there is something off there. Btw. the Spitfire Site, gives for serial EN289: 81 Sqn, FTR* 4*.3.1943.

It's not easy,

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Mar 28, 2018)

Here is another one from two days earlier.

*March 29, 1943* (MAW III Pp 414-415)

RAF Spit VBs and Beaufighters claimed a Ju 88 and an He 111, lost 2 Spitfires and a Hudson.

P-40L's from 33 FG saw action against JG 77 in the morning, Spit Vs from 31 FG got into a fight in the afternoon.

P-40L's from the 33 FG claimed 7 Bf 109s, (2 by 58 FS 30m E of Faid Pass, 5 by 60 FS in the La Fauconnerie area), plus 5 damaged
Spitfires from the 31 FG claimed 4 Fw 190's in the El Guettar area

JG 77 claimed 5 P-40's

Actual losses were:

1 P-38 and 2 P-40's, one of which was lost to AA
4 Bf 109's (plus 2 crash-landed damaged), plus 3 He 111's and 1 Ju 88

Bf 109 losses:
4./JG 77 Bf 109G-6 trop WNr 16373 shot down by P-40 1 km S La Fauconnerie; Lt Gunter Schmmelpfennig KiA
4./JG 77 Bf 109G-6 trop WNr 16449 White 4 + - combat P-40, crash landed 20% damaged, pilot safe
4./JG 77 Bf 109G-4 trop WNr 15100 crash landed La Fauconnerie 20% damaged afrer combat, pilot safe
8./JG 77 Bf 109G-2 trop WNr 10707 Black 9 shot down 5 km S. La Fauconnerie; Wffz Rolf Fischer KiA
8./JG 77 Bf 109G-2 trop WNr 10765 crash-landed after combat, 70% damaged; pilot safe
9./JG 77 Bf 109 G-2 trop WNr 10490 Yellow 11 Lost Sidi Bou Zid E Tebessa; Uffz Ewald Bleul KiA

La Fauconnerie is pretty far from El Guettar so I think these are attributable to the P-40's. The P-38 claimed by the Germans was probably the Hudson.

However on the same day in *MAW II *(pp 559-560) Shores shows 3 more additional Bf 109's shot down by P-40's near Gabes (and US 79th FG also losing 3 P-40's to flak), and 1 FW 190 shot down with another damaged near El Hamma - I suspect these would be the ones claimed by 31 FG. 

RAF Spitfires made claims (per MAW II) to 6 Bf 109's that same day in the Gabes area so the 3 Bf 109's the Germans thought lost to P-40's near Gabes were probably shot down by Spits. 79th FG was also active near Gabes though they made no claims (at least in the summary, i didn't read all the text).


----------



## Schweik (Mar 28, 2018)

Glider said:


> You were to quick for me, I trid to edit the post but you replied first



No worries, it's complicated. I admit between the two books I find it pretty confusing myself. I should have posted which book I was referring to.

S


----------



## Schweik (Mar 28, 2018)

Stig1207 said:


> I have commented on the first three dates that you posted; I have focused mainly on March 24, as that is where I saw major discrepancies between your interpretation of the data and what I see; if you regard that as an obsession on my part, so be it. I haven't bothered to look at any of the other dates that you've posted, and what would be the point? You have already decided the outcome, even before you find the data that may back it up.



Per your own remarks, you decided the outcome to all of this long before I even posted anything .



> MAW III doesn't really tell us a lot about what happened on March 24; not in the slightly less than a page of text nor the summary that follows it. (snip) You rely too heavily on MAW III for this particular date,



I must admit, I am not really seeing your point right now. You challenged the entry I found for March 24 and took a really deep dive into it, invoking maps etc. Ok I disagree with your interpretation, but admit some ambiguity so fair enough, lets put an asterix by that one for further investigation, but lets consider the others. The overall pattern. Here is a summary of what I posted so far (being conservative here and omitting possible overlaps etc.):

*July 8 1942* (112 RAF and 3 RAAF Kittyhawk I's vs. LW Bf 109Fs)* 4 Bf 109F *and 1 Ju 87 lost */ 0 P-40's 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-40's lost
23 March 1943* (USAAF 79 FG vs. JG 77 & JG 51)* 2 Bf 109s lost to P-40's / 0 P40's lost*
24 March 1943 *
*29 March 1943* (USAAF 33 FG vs. JG 77) *4 Bf 109 lost +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) *3 Bf 109 lost* *+ 3 crash-landed / 1 P-40 lost*



> however much I appreciate this series of books, there is no doubt that there are mistakes in them.(snip) Its not easy,



MAW isn't a time machine. It's just another data point. No it's not perfect. But we have had many data points on this specific issue (P-40 vs. Me 109) which start to reveal a pattern, I reviewed some of them upthread - the Russian records and aces commentary, the USAAF claims records for 57 FG, 325, 79, 33rd etc., the Australian unit records (and research by guys like Russel Brown), the commentaries by Australian and RAF aces and so on. Even the video by the modern stunt pilot Jeff Ethell remarking about how he had been wrong in his preconceptions about the P-40 and noting how maneuverable it was.

When the DAF and Soviet victory claims and unit records were posted, the challenge was that LW didn't have that many losses on the given day ,or any. I was initially just looking for cases where they clearly did suffer losses on the same day. You are taking it to another level which is fine, but even by this (stricter) standard, much stricter incidentally than we have been holding the LW claims generally speaking, of essentially assuming that any incident not specyou can see the pattern I was referring to. You think March 24 looks off? Ok but even by the most 'conservative' estimate, per MAW, combat on March 24, 29 and 31 add up to 9 Bf 109's lost vs. 3 P-40's. I call that a pattern.

S


----------



## Glider (Mar 28, 2018)

You can always cherry pick dates.
*1 Feb 1943*
US Casualties
5 x P40 (2 crash landed)
2 x B17

Luftwaffe Casualties
1 x 109 shot down in combat with B17, 1 x 109 collided with a B17
3 x Ju87 shot down by P40 2 x JU87 Damaged
4 x Ju88 on naval mission

*2 Feb 1943*
US Casualties
9 x P40 shot down by 109, 1 x P40 crash landed at base, 
1 x P38 shot down by a Me110
1 x P39 shot down by Fw190
Luftwaffe Casualties )
1 x Me 110 shot down 1 Damaged
1 x Fw190 40% damaged in combat, 1 x Fw190 belly landed with engine trouble
1 x Ju87 damaged
1 x Ju88 shot down

It was noted that by this time the 33 FG had lost nearly all its original compliment of 71 aircraft since the start of the campaign

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Mar 28, 2018)

Glider said:


> You can always cherry pick dates.
> *1 Feb 1943*
> US Casualties
> 5 x P40 (2 crash landed)
> ...



Yes - interesting find! But you do need to look carefully. 1 Feb counts as 3 lost, 2 crash landed (this is how I've been counting the P-40 claims against the Germans, otherwise we can revise the #'s in the list I posted above upwards). Altogether, when 13 fighters attack 37 enemy aircraft flying above them and shoot down 3 Ju 87's (actually *five* Ju 87 shot down or damaged with WiA crew were attributed to the P-40's in the German records) I call that a fairly good trade. I didn't see any mention of what happened to the Ju 88's so I can't say if any of those were shot down by P-40's though they might have. Only two Bf 109's made claims for P-40's that day, the rest were probably damaged by defensive fire from the bombers.

The FW 190 claimed by the P-40 pilots may correspond to the MC 202 which was shot down.

2 Feb does indeed look like a very bad day for the 33 FG but based on what Shores says in the descriptive text, *7 of those 9 kills were by Fw 190A's,* and that is a different discussion altogether (and could be an interesting one). Right now we are debating Bf 109 vs. P-40.

More generally, while 33 FG may have lost all their original fighters by that point, I think most of those were lost to Flak and ground fire. Attrition is always high for WW2 combat units in 'high friction' areas like that, even successful ones, especially when operating as fighter bombers.

I also dislike the accusation that I'm cherry picking - I have not been doing that. I've been looking for clear examples. The majority of days of action are just mixed up - lots of aircraft types on both sides so it's hard to tell who got what - but usually the P-40 units were making claims and not suffering heavy losses. But I don't see a lot of Feb 2 type days in there with the USAAF units, do you? 

Most of the really "bad days" for P-40 units seem to be due to Flak which was clearly devastatingly effective.

S


----------



## Schweik (Mar 28, 2018)

Maybe we should just tally up all the days (at least the ones where you can untangle who did what) - you guys look for the days where the P-40's got wacked and I'll do the ones where the Bf 109's got the worst of it.

However no reason to bother with the earlier era with the Kittyhawk Mk. I's as i concede they had a lot of "bad days" then. My argument is regarding the late model P-40's.

S


----------



## Stig1207 (Mar 29, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Per your own remarks, you decided the outcome to all of this long before I even posted anything



No, I haven't concluded anything. I have pointed out that you can't take data at face value, when it's so lacking in detail as it particularly is on March 24. This goes for all such accounts of air combat, whether it is the Allies or the Axis your looking at.
With the cited case, you originally and steadfastly matched 6 33rd FG claims with 6 109 losses. Only 2 of those losses were in areas where the 33rd claimed. If you can connect the dots, and show that the 4 other losses were probably victims of the 33rd; rather than losses to the other Allied units making claims or disappearing somewhere over the Mediterranean sea, then I'll happily give you credit for you conclusion.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Mar 29, 2018)

Stig1207 said:


> No, I haven't concluded anything. I have pointed out that you can't take data at face value, when it's so lacking in detail as it particularly is on March 24. This goes for all such accounts of air combat, whether it is the Allies or the Axis your looking at.
> With the cited case, you originally and steadfastly matched 6 33rd FG claims with 6 109 losses. Only 2 of those losses were in areas where the 33rd claimed. If you can connect the dots, and show that the 4 other losses were probably victims of the 33rd; rather than losses to the other Allied units making claims or disappearing somewhere over the Mediterranean sea, then I'll happily give you credit for you conclusion.



You know Stig, I was trying to just move past this particular issue. I hate the way forum discussions like this so often get bogged down in minutae and lose the big picture, it's not good for "signal to noise" but since you keep insisting on circling back to this yet again, fine, lets dive into it.. What you describe as my "steadfastedly" matching 6 claims to 6 losses, is totally wrong. For one thing, I said "fine put an asterix by that one and lets discuss the other ones." For another - actually bruh, you lost count. From my original post on this - *P-40L pilots from 33 FG claimed 10 Bf 109's confirmed destroyed, 7 damaged and 1 probable* - all during about a 2 hour period in the morning. The Spitfire unit (52nd FG) claimed 3 Bf 109 and 1 Fw 190 later in the evening of the same day.

P-40's made claims in two locations (Djebel Tebaga and Sebeitla / Subaytilah) across a distance of more than 260 km, which is consistent with Shores text description of a "running battle" taking place over a wide area. Plus one "over own aerodrome" which I'm not even certain where that is, but presumably it widens the zone quite a bit more. The Germans themselves reported 1 lost to a P-40, 1 lost to a Spitfire, and the rest they didn't say what shot them down, two were "unknown". This is common in air battles of course where the pilot seldom saw more than tiny dots to indicate an enemy aircraft and sometimes died without seeing anything at all. It's also clear there was some confusion in the German ranks, with the whole anecdote about the squadron commander Bar shooting down two "difficult" P-40's that his men were having trouble with, apparently being spurious (at least the part where he shot two down).

So yes, you are correct, we can't take data at face value - there is always fog of war. The best we can really do is say that the number of claims is or isn't consistent with the number of actual losses. You can try to match the areas where the planes went down, if it's known, but this isn't always accurate. None of it is. And with overclaiming, you can routinely assume that an average of 50% of the claims are wrong, usually because two or more pilots contributed to shooting down the same e/a, or thought they did.

On this day, I can point out that on March 24, 1943 US P-40 pilots claimed 10 Bf 109's shot down +7 damaged, Spitfires claimed 3, and actual losses were 7. Those are facts. As far as I know there is no actual evidence that any Bf 109's ran out of gas, and there is no reason to assume that the P-40 pilots wildly overclaimed while the Spitfires underclaimed. So the likelihood is that most of the losses were from the P-40's. I think that is the best you can do with 75 year old records, unless something else comes up. We do always get new data, but at best we can make an educated guess.

So here is mine. Provisionally, 1 lost to a Spitfire probably (based on German reports), and who knows about the JG 27 planes, maybe the Spitfires got them, maybe they did run out of gas, but the others were lost within or near the 260 km zone where the P-40 claims were made, so you could revise the total to 4 if you wanted to be very conservative. Actually if we had the times that would make it clearer.

But right now it fits a pattern:

*23 March 1943* (USAAF 79 FG vs. JG 77 & JG 51)* 2 Bf 109s lost to P-40's / 0 P40's lost*
*24 March 1943* (USAAF 79 FG vs. JG 77 & JG 53) *4 Bf 109s lost to P-40's *(+1 to to Spit and 2 to unknown causes)/ *1 P40 lost*
*29 March 1943* (USAAF 33 FG vs. JG 77) *4 Bf 109 lost +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) *3 Bf 109 lost* *+ 3 crash-landed / 1 P-40 lost
*
S


----------



## Schweik (Mar 30, 2018)

Ok here is some more data from MAW, hopefully people will find this interesting.

This is all from MAW II pages 372-407. First I look at one early example of USAAF P-40's in action and then I go through daily summaries of an 8 day period ending with another detailed example. The first is a relatively simple one:
*
Tuesday 13 October 1942*

Twelve 4 Sqn SAAF Kittyhawk Mk 1's attacked a large formation of Ju -87's escorted by 28 Bf 109's from II. and III.//JG 27 and III./JG 53, claiming 2 plus several probable or damaged. 3 Kittyhawks were damaged but all made it back to base
A Recon Spit IV was intercepted and shot down by German fighters
Two Hurricanes from 274 Sqn collided with each other and crashed
12 P-40F's from 64,65, and 66 Sqn / 57 FG joined the SAAF Kittyhawks and attacked the German fighter escorts over the Stuka formation, claiming 4 Bf 109 for 1 lost. The fight took place at 20,000 and lasted 20 minutes.
Later in the afternoon ten Bf 109's from III./ JG 27 and ten from III./JG 53 carried out a fighter sweep and were intercepted by ten Kittyhawks from 3 RAAF and ten P-40F's from the 57 FG, the Germans claiming 2.
All of the allied claims that day were by P-40's so that simplifies things, and all of the Bf 109 claims were by 57 FG. Altogether 4 SAAF claimed 2 Ju 87 and 57 FG claimed 2 Bf 109 plus 2 damaged. Luftwaffe claimed 5 P-40's, 2 Spitfires and a P-39.

Actual losses were 1 Spit IV Recon plane, which seems to have accidentally blundered into the fight, 1 P-40L (pilot MiA) and 3 Bf 109's, one allegedly to Flak, plus 1 Ju 87. Three SAAF Kittyhawks were damaged but made it back to base.

8./JG 53 Bf 109F-4 trop WNr 13061 crash landed from combat with P-40, 100% Uffz Hannes Augst safe
9./JG 53 Bf 109F-4 trop WNr 10175 Yellow 7+1 shot down AA; Obfw Werner Stumpf KiA*
7./JG 27 Bf 109F-4 trop WNr 8697 White 4 combat 10 km S El Alamein; Lt Erich Schofboch MiA
1./StG 3 Ju 87D-3 Wnr 2668 shot down by P-40, force-landed at El Daba, crew safe

* Stumpf was assigned victories for 2 Spitfires and a P-40, and it's likely he was shot down by the fighters not AA.

So for the day, 2-3 Bf 109's + 1 Ju-87 / for 1 Recon Spitfire & 1 P-40.

*Next are a series of air battles leading up to The 2nd Battle of El Alamein. 
*
These 7 out of 8 days in a row with action involving significant numbers of P-40's. Most of these are too complicated (for me at least) to tell who shot down whom, but I'll give the loss totals for each day.

_19 Oct 1942 _Hurricanes, Spits and Kittyhawk III's in action. Losses: 2 Bf 109 F4 (both said shot down by P-40) / 1 Kittyhawk I, 1 Spit V
_20 Oct 1942 _Huge fighting day involving dozens of RAF vs. dozens of Germans and Italians. Losses: 4 Bf 109, 2 Mc 202 / 9 Kittyhawks (5 of these Kittyhawk Mk. I)
_21 Oct 1942_ Hurricanes and Kittyhawk IIa and Spits vs. Luftwaffe and Italians. Losses: 2 Bf 109, 2 Mc 202 / 2 Kittyhhawk III, 1 Hurricane IIc and 1 Spit V
_22 Oct 1942 _Spits and Kittyhawks vs.Luftwaffe and Italians. Losses 4 Bf 109, 1 MC 202 / 4 Kittyhawk (2 Kittyhawk I 2 Kittyhawk III) and 1 Spit V
_23 Oct 1942 _More of the same. Losses 2 Bf 109, 1 MC 202 / 5 Kittyhawk + 1 Crash land.
(24 Oct didn't have significant P40 victories or losses)
_25 Oct 1942 _RAF Spits, Kittyhawks and Hurricanes make claims, as well as USAAF P-40F's from the 57th FG. Losses were 4 Bf 109 and 1 Ju 87 / for 1 Kittyhawk Mk 1
_26 Oct 1942_ another big battle day but here the USAAF 57 FG got involved. 5 Bf 109, 2 MC 202 and 4 Ju 87 lost / vs, 7 Kittyhawks and 2 Hurricanes (USAAF took no losses)
Finally *27 Oct 1942 *yet another intense day, with RAF supported by USAAF 57 FG. Loses were 6 Bf 109's, 2 MC 202, 2 CR 42* / *for 2 Kittyhawks and 3 Hurricanes. (USAAF took no losses)
*
For the whole eight day period, losses break down as follows:*
(hopefully I counted these right but bear with me if i made a mistake)
*
29 Bf 109, 10 MC 202, 2 CR 42 + 5 Ju 87 *for* 31 P-40's, 3 Spit V's *and *6 Hurricanes*
Almost all the P-40's lost were RAF / Commonwealth, and about half of them were the older Kittyhawk I. If you consider just Bf 109 vs. P-40, the 109 comes out slightly ahead (29-31), but if you consider the MC 202's equivalent to the 109s, the P-40's are slightly ahead (31 P-40 + 3 Spits =34 front line fighters v.s 39). Either way it's pretty close. In this same period, if you take late model P-40's in isolation it's about 2-1 in their favor, if you take the USAAF P-40's in isolation they are _way_ ahead of the Bf 109s they faced in terms of victory to loss ratio in this small sample of days (like 10-1), though that wasn't always the case obviously.

Of course, due to the complexity of the fighting and the various types of planes involved, nothing definitive can be said about the above numbers. I'm just trying to convey a pattern.

Ok so back to the detailed deep-dive. Here is the breakdown on *Wednesday 27 Oct 1942*, another big fight day where the Germans seem to have came out on the losing side. it's a bit complex but there were 5 main actions:

RAF Spit Vs from 92, 145 Sqns went out early (~08:00) again and claimed 3 Bf 109s near Daba for no losses

KIttyhawk IIIs from 250 Sqn and 112 Sqn RAF went out a little after (~09:00) and claimed 3 MC 202 near Fuka and lost 2 + 1 badly damaged

Hurricane IIc from 33, 213 and 73 Sqns RAF went out in the afternoon (~16:00) and claimed 1 CR 42 and 2 Ju 87 plus multiple damaged, losing 3 + 4 badly damaged
USAAF P-40F's from 64 and 65 Sqns / 57 FG went out multiple times in the afternoon between ~12:00 and ~17:00 and claimed 3 Bf 109s and 3 Cr 42, + 6 CR 42 damaged or probable and 1 MC 202 probable, for no losses.
4 Spit Vcs from 601 Squadron joined 3 RAAF Kittyhawks on a FB raid about the same time.
The first American action consisted of 8 bomb-laden P-40F's from 65 squadron / 57 FG escorted by 8 more P-40F's from 64 squadron 57 FG, who went up against a large group of 43 bomb-carrying CR 42s escorted by 10 Bf 109s from II./JG 27 and 8 from III./JG 27 as well as 7 MC 202's. 4 Spitfires from 601 squadron and 12 Hurricanes also joined the fight.

Later in the day, a second combat occurred when 66 Sqn / 57 FG P-40's encountered a flight of two Bf 109s from JG 77 - the commander said he saw enemy aircraft strafing, engaged them and shot down two, but was then himself shot down. This would appear to be overclaiming on his part because the planes in question were 33 FG P-40's who took no losses. This was the first combat by JG 77 in North Africa. Obfw Kaiser, the JG 77 commander, was apparently shot down by US Ace Lt Lyman Middleditch who claimed 3 Bf 109's during the day.

Total "confirmed" claims by RAF Spit Vs for 3 Bf 109s, Kittyhawk II's for 3 MC 202s for 2 lost, Hurricanes 2 Ju 87 + 1 CR 42 for 3 lost
Total "confirmed" claims by USAAF P-40Fs for 3 Bf 109s and 3 Cr 42s for no losses (1 badly damaged but returned to base).

*DAF Losses: 2 RAF Kittyhawks and 3 Hurricanes *(+4 Hurricanes and 1 Kittyhawk damaged), plus 1 A-20 lost to Flak.

Germans from JG 27 and JG 77 claimed 3 Spitfires, a Hurricane, a P-39, and 7 P-40's for 6 losses
Italians MC 202 pilots from 96, 74, 70, an d75 sqns claimed 1 Spitfire, 5 P-46s and 4 P-40's for 2 MC lost and 4 CR 42

*Axis losses were: 6 Bf 109's, 2 MC 202, 2 CR 42* (+2 Crash landed) and 1 Ju 87 lost to fighters and 2 more lost to Flak

Axis losses were:

4./JG 27 Bf 109F-4 WNr 7345 combat, force-landed 50% Fw Bernhard Schneider safe
4./JG 27 Bf 109F-4 trop WNr 8345 combat; crash-landed Qotafiya 60%; Fw Alfred Heidel safe
5./JG 27 Bf 109G-2 trop WNr 10336 combat, crash-landed 40%; Fw Josef Vavra safe
6./JG 27 Bf 109F-4 WNr 7151 Yellow 10, combat, crashed in sea 15 km NE El daba Obfw Fritz Luer MiA
8./JG 27 Bf 109F-4 WNr 7489 combat, force landed El Daba, 80% pilot safe
8./JG 77 Bf 109G-2 WNr 10640 combat with P-40 95% damaged crash-landed in Qasaba area; Obfw Herbert Kaiser MiA, returned
96 Sq MC.202 MM 9046 failed to return, S Ten Ettore Caregnato MiA
96 Sq MC.202 MM 7829 failed to return, Ten Anselmo Maggini MiA
238 Sq CR 42 MM 8936 shot down into the sea, Serg Magg Urbano Suzzi MiA
387 Sq CR 42 MM 8491 caught fire after force landing, pilot Cap Giordano Bruno Rossoni WiA rescured the next day by Fi 156 Stoch

2 other CR 42's force landed but were later recovered.

Based on a close reading of the text and comparison of the claims made, I would attribute 3 Bf 109's to the RAF Spits, 3 Bf 109's to the US 57 FG P-40's, the 2 MC 202's to the RAF Kittyhawks, the Ju 87 to the Hurricanes. The 4 CR 42's shot down or force landed probably split between the Hurricanes and the 57 FG.

It's worth making note of how much the Luftwaffe and Italians overclaimed here as well - together they claimed 22 aircraft shot down but actually got 5.

S

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Stig1207 (Mar 30, 2018)

Schweik said:


> P-40's made claims in two locations (Djebel Tebaga and Sebeitla / Subaytilah)



25 March
59 FS/ 33FG 42-10599 ran into B-26 landing at Sbeitla 12:35 (MAWIII, p, 409)

So it seems Sbeitla was the 33rd FG base, so that seems to fit well with a running fight. As a curiously, it seems it was not the 321st BG that they were escorting:

'The sixth mission took off at 1435 on March 24, 1943 with
15 planes to bomb Djebel Tebaga (N).
http://57thbombwing.com/321stHistory/321_BG_1943-03.pdf

So the 33rd FG claims are at Djebil Tebaga and Sbeitla, and correspond to 2 Jg 77 losses. However, I am having a hard time seeing how you are verifying the Jg 53 losses against these claims. Mateur is NW of Tunis and Porto Farina (Ghar al Milh) is north of Tunis, 200+ km from Sbeitla; Wendt was lost *NE* of Porto Farina?


----------



## Schweik (Mar 30, 2018)

Stig1207 said:


> 25 March
> 59 FS/ 33FG 42-10599 ran into B-26 landing at Sbeitla 12:35 (MAWIII, p, 409)
> 
> So it seems Sbeitla was the 33rd FG base, so that seems to fit well with a running fight. As a curiously, it seems it was not the 321st BG that they were escorting:
> ...



Well, it's a bit of a mystery. I was curious about it too so I looked it up yesterday, and according to this, the 33 FG base at that time was a place called *Berteaux, Algeria*

33rd Fighter Group

Apparently the airfield was a substantial hardened complex and is still there, overgrown with weeds.

Berteaux Airfield - Wikipedia

The wiki says it's roughly between Telerghma and Constantine Algeria, which is in the North East of that country, roughly parallel with Tunis. So a running fight which started all the way down near Gabes could cover quite a bit of northern Tunisia -it's a 500 km diagonal line but we don't know what the actual route was that they flew. They may have been avoiding flak concentrations or other Axis airfields.

MAW 2 shows 4 Bf 109G lost all from JG 77

2./JG 77 30 km SE Fatnassa Nord - (that is down south near the "Chott el Jerid" lake, near the target area)
8./JG 77 shot down by Spit near Maknassy (also in the target area)
9./JG 77 shot down by P-40 90 KM West of Bou Thadi (that is right in the target area)
6./JG 77 shot up near Gabes (near the target area)

MAW 3 shows the losses from JG 53 and JG 27
4./JG 53 shot down near Mateur, that is north Tunisia
5./JG 53 shot down NE Porto Farina also north east Tunisia
6./JG 27 lost (no location)
6./JG 27 lost (no location)
...and then the same 4 JG. 77 losses from MAW 3

I see your point that the JG 53 losses are from pretty far north, but that doesn't match any other claims for the day since the 52nd FG (Spitfire) claims are all down near the same area as the P-40 claims. All the (mostly spurious) German claims (from JG 77 and JG 51) were in the same area as well.

There were no claims for the far NE of Tunisia that I can find.The most likely explanation to me is that they (and the JG 27 losses) were part of the big running fight. I'm open to new evidence though.

It just seems unlikely to me that the LW lost 4 Bf 109's to random mishaps on the same day that Allied fighters claimed 14 shot down.

S


----------



## Schweik (Mar 30, 2018)

I guess my gist is this - at 300 mph you can go 50 miles in ten minutes. 25 miles in 5 minutes. During a chase, they will easily reach those speeds and considerably higher. The fights which start out organized in large formations typically broke up into small 2-4 plane groups and individuals spread out a long way.

So it doesn't seem impossible that in a 'running fight' across ~ 300 miles distance, you could see individual combats breaking out to end up 30-40 miles away from the main group.

S


----------



## Stig1207 (Mar 31, 2018)

Schweik said:


> So it doesn't seem impossible that in a 'running fight' across ~ 300 miles distance, you could see individual combats breaking out to end up 30-40 miles away from the main group.



The technical performance of WWII fighters is not my strong point, but I do seriously doubt that Bf 109's had the combat radius that allowed for a *300 mile running fight!* That's without considering the need for them get back to base. I had seen the info placing the 33rd in the Constantine area, though my source said *main* base, so I assume they sometimes deployed to forward airfields. 
There are no claims for the Mateur loss but I note that 81 Sqn fly sweeps of this area the following days, making claims for 109's, destroyed / damaged. It is not unlikely that their is a mix up in dates , missing records, etc. The second Jg53 aircraft is not listed as shot down, but to unknown causes, and NE Porto Farina probably places the loss over the sea.
II/ Jg27 were tasked wtih convoy patrols, escorts for transport aircraft flying to Tunesia and armed reconnaissance patrols over Malta. That should give ample possibility for 2 of their 109's FTR, presumed lost over the sea due lack of fuel; even though not knowing what there specific mission was. 
As their are numerous accounts of Allied aircraft FTR for unknown reasons, or lost due to engine failure, running out of fuel, etc; I am fairly confident that the same fate could also befall Axis aircraft. 

There are *no *33rd FG claims further N, NW, or NE of Sbeitla and no 109 losses in the Constantine area.


----------



## Schweik (Mar 31, 2018)

Stig1207 said:


> The technical performance of WWII fighters is not my strong point, but I do seriously doubt that Bf 109's had the combat radius that allowed for a *300 mile running fight!* That's without considering the need for them get back to base.



Probably not if it was the same squadron involved in the fight from beginning to end. If, on the other hand, JG 77 got involved in action with enemy planes and then one or more other squadrons from other gruppe (i.e. JG 27 and JG 53 on this particular day) joined in to help them, as had happened on so many other occasions, for example IIRC with JG 51 on the previous day (March 23).



> I had seen the info placing the 33rd in the Constantine area, though my source said *main* base, so I assume they sometimes deployed to forward airfields.



Hmmm. Why didn't you mention that earlier then? Well, we don't actually know they were in a forward base, seems reasonable, but it is another guess. The only data i have is that they were in Northern Algeria on that date. you are making a series of assumptions to explain away LW losses on a day when allied pilots made 14 claims.



> As their are numerous accounts of Allied aircraft FTR for unknown reasons, or lost due to engine failure, running out of fuel, etc; I am fairly confident that the same fate could also befall Axis aircraft.



Well, if there was a FTR on an allied aircraft on a day when Luftwaffe fighter pilots made claims that were not otherwise accounted for, then I assume they were shot down by the LW.

If we take your proposal seriously and extend it to it's logical extreme we could assume that half of the validated claims on both sides were actually coincidental accidents - planes ran out of gas, had mechanical failures, got lost or ditched in the sea for no reason without encountering the enemy. The truth is of course we don't actually know, they didn't have GPS transponders on them, I just think you go with the most likely scenario given the data available.

S


----------



## Stig1207 (Apr 1, 2018)

Schweik said:


> The truth is of course we don't actually know, they didn't have GPS transponders on them, I just think you go with the most likely scenario given the data available.

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Apr 2, 2018)

Stig1207 said:


>



As you noted yourself, your opinion on this whole discussion was already made up before I ever posted, so I certainly don't expect to change your mind. Further debate of this specific segue about 24 March just serves to distract others reading the thread so I'll opt out of that.
*
Here is an updated summary of what I've posted to date from MAW II and III, so far 9 days:*

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.
*
A few more fun facts about the P-40*

Its worth pointing out there were 46 Commonwealth P-40 Aces in WW2, including 7 double aces specifically in the Med Theater, and another 16 USAAF aces in the Med including 3 or 4 double aces.
At least 3 of the top LW Experten were shot down by P-40 pilots, I think it's more like 5 or 6 but I'd have to spend some time to prove that.
By comparison there was only 1 USAAF P-39 ace, in the Pacific Theater.
The Soviets also had multiple P-40 Aces inlcuding 3 HSU recipients.
The P-40 could out-dive and out-turn the Bf 109, though the 109 had a much higher ceiling, better climb rate and better acceleration.
Contrary to what many sources will tell you, unlike the Hurricane or the P-39, P-40s in the Med were not relegated to fighter bomber attacks in mid-1942, they were still being used (with success) in fighter-sweeps, bomber escorts and interceptions as late as Mid 1943.

S


----------



## Stig1207 (Apr 3, 2018)

Schweik said:


> As you noted yourself, your opinion on this whole discussion was already made up before I ever posted, so I certainly don't expect to change your mind. Further debate of this specific segue about 24 March just serves to distract others reading the thread so I'll opt out of that.



Nope, I'm not the one out to prove or disprove anything. I pointed out that the information given in MAWIII for 24 March, did not confirm your conclusions; their were other plausible possibilities. Had you written as you do now 2 + 4 unknown losses, I wouldn't have raised an eyebrow.
Agree that there is no need to debate the issue further.


----------



## Schweik (Apr 3, 2018)

Stig1207 said:


> Nope, I'm not the one out to prove or disprove anything. I pointed out that the information given in MAWIII for 24 March, did not confirm your conclusions; their were other plausible possibilities. Had you written as you do now 2 + 4 unknown losses, I wouldn't have raised an eyebrow.
> Agree that there is no need to debate the issue further.



Actually, I think the "unknown causes" is ridiculous - it's obvious that a 2 hour running fight would involve multiple units and it's also obvious the fight start south and moved north during that two hours. I just wrote the 2+4 so as to be able to move on in the discussion. 

Next post on this will be some numbers crunching.

S


----------



## Dan Fahey (Apr 11, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Actually, I think the "unknown causes" is ridiculous - it's obvious that a 2 hour running fight would involve multiple units and it's also obvious the fight start south and moved north during that two hours. I just wrote the 2+4 so as to be able to move on in the discussion.
> 
> Next post on this will be some numbers crunching.
> 
> S


Just to chime in...the P40 was far more versatile weapon than the Me109. Carried a fair sized bomb load and wrecked havoc on German Forces.
After a bombing raid had the performance to fight and get back home. Not so much for the Stuka despite being escorted by MEs and FWs.

The FW190 was also present. They gave the P40 a hard time. Not too many were deployed. The FW190 was medium altitude fighter that was fast down low too and had a good roll rate. Though the P40 decidedly could turn inside in a turn fight! Could not pull off as easily what they could against the ME. The FW190 did not have the dive problems the ME did. However if the P40 ever had height advantage on the FW it would have been a different story. A key reason the FW was so effective because of 4-20mm cannon and 2-30 caliber or 13 mm machine guns in the nose. Which means they had less target fixation and firing time on the target.

Many of the LW shoot downs were against loaded P40 FB. It was a war of attrition. Like Russia the terrain was fairly flat. Most of the fighting below 15000 ft.
The P40 was more tractible and cost effective than the P38 and P47. P51A would have done well too. The C/D models would have been excellent too. 

Believe the P40 Win Loss ratio was about even. However not measured or discussed was their effectiveness as FB supporting the ground and naval operations.
But in every theater the P40 gave back what it got. 

Peace


----------



## Schweik (Apr 11, 2018)

Dan Fahey said:


> Just to chime in...the P40 was far more versatile weapon than the Me109. Carried a fair sized bomb load and wrecked havoc on German Forces.
> After a bombing raid had the performance to fight and get back home. Not so much for the Stuka despite being escorted by MEs and FWs.
> 
> The FW190 was also present. They gave the P40 a hard time. Not too many were deployed. The FW190 was medium altitude fighter that was fast down low too and had a good roll rate. Though the P40 decidedly could turn inside in a turn fight! Could not pull off as easily what they could against the ME. The FW190 did not have the dive problems the ME did. However if the P40 ever had height advantage on the FW it would have been a different story. A key reason the FW was so effective because of 4-20mm cannon and 2-30 caliber or 13 mm machine guns in the nose. Which means they had less target fixation and firing time on the target.
> ...



Hey welcome to the thread Dan

I'm still not done compiling (about halfway finished with my current attempt, tracking claims and losses by aircraft type and unit from Summer 1942 - Spring 1943) but you do see some combats between Fw 190 and the P-40, including one in February where 7 P-40's were shot down by Fw 190's for no losses, and a few others where the P-40's seem to have shot down 1 or 2 Fw 190's. As you said not many Fw 190's were in the region so though their arrival was anticipated with fear by the Allies, they didn't have as much impact as anticipated.

The Italian planes, mainly MC 200, MC 202, MC 205 and various Regianne models also played a substantial role.

How the P-40 fared depended on the tactics used and the subtype. The Commonwealth P-40C or E units (Tomahawk or Kittyhawk Mk I) seemed to do pretty poorly against Bf 109F or better, whereas the later model P-40's did much better, particularly the USAAF units. They seem to have done better than the P-38's and about the same as the Spit V. The most effective fighter on either side in the Med was clearly the Spit IX.

S


----------



## Schweik (Apr 11, 2018)

I think they did have some P-51A and A-36 in the region, the former mainly for Recon (which was really important - lots of planes got shot down trying to support or escort Tac-R missions). I agree more P-51A's would have been helpful. I think the main issue with P-38's and later on, P-47's was that they weren't so great performance / maneuverability wise down low, and they were also big so slightly easier targets for AAA.

AAA was the main problem for allied fighters by 1943. Particularly in Italy, German AAA was pretty hard core.

S


----------



## Dan Fahey (Apr 11, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Hey welcome to the thread Dan
> 
> I'm still not done compiling (about halfway finished with my current attempt, tracking claims and losses by aircraft type and unit from Summer 1942 - Spring 1943) but you do see some combats between Fw 190 and the P-40, including one in February where 7 P-40's were shot down by Fw 190's for no losses, and a few others where the P-40's seem to have shot down 1 or 2 Fw 190's. As you said not many Fw 190's were in the region so though their arrival was anticipated with fear by the Allies, they didn't have as much impact as anticipated.
> 
> ...


The Allison with the bigger Superchargers and Merlin 1 allowed the P40 to have more potential energy. Able to fight at higher and lower altitudes. As the war progressed. The ability to roll, turn at high speed and not get bent became more important! Where the plane stays within spec for the next sortie. Unlike the Corsair which after too many landing or high speed combat lost performance because the plane was bent and less aerodynamic. P38 had issues with its wide elevator getting damaged, poor roll and limited dive speed! The J and L fixed some of that and were great dog fighters but still cost twice as much to make and maintain than a P51 or P40. They were so much more versatile than any other US aircraft except for the Hellcat and FM2 wildcat.

The Germans got wise and dumped the Stuka for the FW190 for ground attack. Like the P40 had a better chance of getting home from a fight! The British used their fuel in the P51A and upped the boost so the plane would have 1700hp WEP available an do that for 20 minutes!

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Apr 12, 2018)

Dan Fahey said:


> The Allison with the bigger Superchargers and Merlin 1 allowed the P40 to have more potential energy. Able to fight at higher and lower altitudes. As the war progressed. The ability to roll, turn at high speed and not get bent became more important!



I'll get back to the bent thing in a moment. The big advantages for the P-40 in the Med seemed to be roll and turn, at low or high speed. Some pilots like the Canadian Ace James "Stocky" Edwards mentioned that while the P-40F/L was better for escort or fighter sweeps due to it's superior altitude performance (raising the effective ceiling to 20K feet) they preferred the P-40K to the F for dive bombing raids, because it apparently performed better down low.

I've seen different ratings for the max performance of each engine, with some estimates for the Allison on the P-40K as high as ~1,550 hp at optimum altitude @ around 8 - 10,000 feet at WEP (57" boost), though I don't know if that is accurate. I've also seen figures quoted by American pilots for as high as 60" boost on the P-40F / V-1650.

I think aircraft stats need to be reformed and one clear distinction which needs to be made is engine HP rated for military rated power, for WEP and even a 'next level' WEP if there is one (like methanol or NO2, or just overboosting past the redline if that was a common practice as it appeared to be on the P-40.)

They also really need to differentiate between subtypes more. A Spit I and a Spit XIV are really completely different aircraft, as is a P-40B and a P-40L or N.

From the kill / loss records in Mediterranean Air War it looks like the P-40L was the best model for the Med. it had a power to mass ratio of .17 which is better than a P-38 or a Hurricane (though still a lot worse than a Bf 109F or a Spit V)



> Where the plane stays within spec for the next sortie. Unlike the Corsair which after too many landing or high speed combat lost performance because the plane was bent and less aerodynamic.



I was not aware of this issue of wings / airframes getting permanently damaged or set by high G maneuvers. It's interesting and makes sense. Gives more nuance to the phrase "worn out airframe". Combat aircraft normally had pretty short lifespans anyway (and by Mid-war, American planes were being 'retired' to be used for training back in the States or wherever after a few months) but in some cases they didn't have the luxury.



> P38 had issues with its wide elevator getting damaged, poor roll and limited dive speed! The J and L fixed some of that and were great dog fighters but still cost twice as much to make and maintain than a P51 or P40.



The P-38 was clearly in trouble in the Med. A lot of issues to work out. The fact that it couldn't dive away from combat was a major problem, taking away it's best trait as a heavy fighter.In the Pacific they used to do "Boom and Zoom" attacks but not by diving, instead climbing away in a shallow high-speed climb. Simple trick but the A6M pilots had no answer for it. So long as they estimated the E states correctly it was effective.

P-40's could dive away from a fight but the superior acceleration of the Bf 109 and M.C. 202 meant that had to be done very carefully because they could be easily caught in the beginning of a dive. If they survived the first 30 seconds they had a pretty good chance of getting away. Based on the way the pilots talked about it on both sides it seemed to be pretty routine.



> They were so much more versatile than any other US aircraft except for the Hellcat and FM2 wildcat.
> 
> The Germans got wise and dumped the Stuka for the FW190 for ground attack. Like the P40 had a better chance of getting home from a fight! !



I think people tend to underestimate the value of the Stuka. It was certainly slow and vulnerable to fighters but they were still able to use them a lot in Russia and in the Med in 1943. For one thing, the Stuka could turn sharply, just like a P-40 could, and experienced pilots cuold take advantage of that to save their lives. But more importantly I think the main advantage of the Stuka was it's incredible accuracy. WWII bombers of any type had pretty abysmal accuracy, especially any kind of level bombers, and even more so on the tactical level where there was a need to actually hit tanks, artillery pieces and bunkers, not just set a city on fire or scatter a few bombs around a factory.

Fighter bombers were more accurate, at the expense of vulnerability, but dive-bombers were incredibly accurate. I just read an anecdote in Black Cross / Red Star where Stukas knocked out 40 Russian tanks in a single day in 1942. That has real impact on a battle, and it's better than what could be done with rockets usually.

The other solution was the "heavy strafer" - cannon armed aircraft with extra armor protection and defensive guns to help with survival in ground attack missions (always limited help in reality). The Hurri IID, the Ju-87 G, the Il2 and the HS 129 and the B-25 with the 75mm gun and so on. Even aircraft armed with "just" 20mm cannon could slaughter more lightly armored vehicles and disable tanks. Beaufighters, the Fw 190F and so on could also wreak havoc even without their bombs.

But I think the reason the Ju 87 stuck in that niche so long is that the Germans weren't able to come up with another 'true' dive bomber with similiar capabilities. They had "semi" dive bombing capability (i.e. a 45 degree dive) with the Ju 88 and the fighter-bombers, but that just didn't net the same kind of results.

S


----------



## Glider (Apr 12, 2018)

For what its wi=orth I took three different months for different reasons and compared losses. Note I concentrated on combat loses in the air, flak losses removed, engine failures (unless after combat) removed

*October 1941* chosen as the Luftwaffe arrived in numbers and the Allied forces only had the Hurricane and the Tomahawk
*Allied losses*
13 Tomahawks
11 Hurricanes
2 Marylands
3 Blenheim's

*Axis Losses*
1 Me109F (shot down by return gunfire from a Maryland)
1 x 109E
1 x Ju87

No doubt that the 109F was totally dominant

*January 1942* chosen as the Kittyhawk was in widespread service
*Allied Losses*
20 x Hurricanes
9 x Tomahawk
18 x Kittyhawk
1 x Blenheim

*Axis Losses*
Italian
3 x Ju87
4 x MC 200
2 x CR42 

German Losses
4 x Me109F
3 x Me110
4 x Ju88
1 x Ju52
3 x Ju87

I believe that this shows that the 109F was still totally dominant over the P40 of all types

*October 1942* chose as this is when the Spitfires are available in numbers to support the P40's and Hurricanes
*Allied Losses*
39 x Kittyhawks
8 x Spitfires (1 a PR version)
17 x Hurricanes
3 x Tomahawks
1 x B25

*Axis Losses*
18 x MC 202
33 x Me109 F/G
2 x Me109E
9 x Ju87

This shows I believe that the arrival of the Spitfire made a big difference to the losses forcing the Germans to less aggressive tactics giving the P40's a better chance. Note that the USAAF involvement in this month was very small

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


----------



## Schweik (Apr 12, 2018)

Glider said:


> I believe that this shows that the *109F* was still totally dominant over the P40 of all types



Over the Tomahawk and Kittyhawk *Mk 1*, perhaps - though most of those shot down were doing dive-bombing missions, most of the losses were from the SAAF units and there were a variety of other issues (the formations they were using and so on). You shouldn't be so hasty to "ASSUME". But lets put that aside for a moment and look at October..



> *October 1942* chose as this is when the Spitfires are available in numbers to support the P40's and Hurricanes
> *Allied Losses*
> 39 x Kittyhawks
> 8 x Spitfires (1 a PR version)
> ...



Your comment that the "USAAF involvement in this month was very small" is interesting, because I already posted two incidents involving USAAF fighters - 57 FG P-40Fs- in that very same month, which on those two days accounted for 1/3 of the actual Bf 109 casualties for the month; ,i.e. six of them, per MAW.

*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.**

So I wouldn't discount them entirely. Furthermore, by October 1942 in contrast with January of that same year, later model P-40s were also available to the DAF, specifically starting in June 1942, 260 RAF and 3 RAAF received P-40F (Kittyhawk II), and 112 and 250 RAF, and 450 RAAF received Kittyhawk III (P-40K/M). These had a better loss rate against the Bf 109s.

Maybe we should take a deeper dive into October and maybe a couple of other months.

S

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Apr 13, 2018)

Ok I crunched some more numbers, not finished and I was adding this stuff up late at night (it's 10 till midnight here) so forgive me if I made any arithmetic errors.

but I pulled the data I had on October from MAW II. Went through each day. My numbers are similar to Glider but slightly different.

I made a chart for each day which I will upload here when I figure out a relatively simple way to do it. These were my "rules" in compiling data.

Aircraft which were FTR, MIA, "Shot down", "Bailed Out", or crash / force landed with 60% or more damage counted as shot down. Less than 60% were counted as 'crash landed'.

Aircraft which were able to return to base and land without crashing were counted as 'damaged', and were not included in the totals on victory / losses.

Did not count aircraft lost by collision with friendly aircraft, accident or Flak
Ignored claims for ‘probable’ or ‘damaged’ unless there is a corresponding loss otherwise unaccounted for (i.e. He 111 shot down Oct 14 when Ju 88 claimed damaged by Hurricanes with no other Allied claims on that day, was attributed to the Hurricanes)
Did not count losses with no corresponding claims (i.e. a MC 202 on Oct 13 ‘failed to return’ but no DAF claims were made that day, so it was ignored)
*It's worth pointing out that the last couple of weeks of October 1942 saw the beginning of the Battle of El Alamein, which is why the fighting was getting so intense. 

CASUALTIES
Bf 109* - 34 shot down, 7 crash landed (I counted 3 Bf 109E, about 10 G, and the rest F)
*MC 202* - 10 shot down, 8 crash landed
Cr 42 - 6 shot down, 4 crash landed

He 111 - 1
Ju 87 - 13
Ju 88 - 1
Ju 52 -3

Total fighters lost - 44 shot down, 19 crash landed
Total aircraft lost - 62 shot down, 19 crash landed

*Spit V * - 10 shot down, 1 crash landed
*Spit IV* (Recon) -1 shot down
*US P-40F* -3 shot down, 3 crash landed
*Kittyhawk II** -7 shot down, 1 crash landed
*Kittyhawk III*** -13 shot down, 2 crash landed
*Kittyhawk I * -13 shot down, 5 crash landed
*Tomahawk* -3 shot down, 1 crash landed
*Hurricane**** -17 shot down, 2 crash landed

A-20 / Boston -4 Shot down
B-25 -1 Shot down
Bisley - 1 Shot down

(Total P-40) - 39 shot down, 14 crash landed
Total fighters lost - 67 shot down, 17 crash landed
Total aircraft lost - 73 shot down, 17 crash landed

* RAF version of P-40F or P-40L
** RAF version of P-40K or M (I think mostly K)
*** these seemed to be all Hurricane IIc

Neither side seems to have lost a lot of bombers at this point (aside from Stukas), and I think that is because the most effective bombers in this Theater (aside from Stukas) in Oct 1942 were fighter bombers, at least for the allies. Basically the allies were using older model Kittyhakws and Hurricanes to do their bombing and the Luftwaffe were using mostly Stukas plus Ju 88's, Bf 109E, Cr 42 and MC 200.

The Germans / Italians came out slightly ahead on air-to-air combat during this month but they lost a lot more aircraft on the ground to bombing and strafing. A lot of the fights were taking place over their airfields.

*CLAIMS
Total Claims by Spitfires* - 31.5 Bf 109, 3 MC 202,1 1 Ju 52
*Total Claims by RAF P-40's *- 35.5 Bf 109, 11 MC 202, 9 Ju 87, 1 Ju 88, 1 Ju 52
*Total Claims by US P-40's *- 18 Bf 109, 7 MC 202, 4 Cr 42
*Total Claims by Hurricanes *- 3 Bf 109, 1 Cr 42, 7 Ju 87, 1 Ju 88

Total claims by P-40's 53.5
Total claims by allied fighters 85 (maybe somebody can figure out the overclaiming ratio I'm too tired)
Most of the RAF P-40 claims against bombers were by the Kittyhawk I's and Tomahawks.

I didn't count all the Luftwaffe and Regia claims yet but they are very high, I think overclaiming more than the DAF was. I'll try to add those up tomorrow.

But from these numbers, I think we can conclude that the Spitfires did not shoot down most of the German & Italian fighters, also it's clear that the US fighters did play an important role that month, if not as much as they would later on.

Further breaking down the RAF P-40's,:

Total claims by Kittyhawk II - 9
Total claims by Kittyhawk III -15.5
Total claims by Kittyhawk I -8
Total claims by Tomahawk- 3
Total claims by late model P-40's (including US P-40F) 32.5
Total claims by early model P-40's (P-40E and C) 11

I'm pointing this out because I believe the earlier model P-40s were by this point a step behind the Bf 109F or G, or the MC 202. Bu the later model P-40s were basically equal, at least in terms of outcomes.

It's worth noting that I believe by this point all of the early model P-40s were SAAF. (I'd have to double check that to be certain.) They seemed to have the short end of the stick when it came to planes.

My interpretation of the charts is that the Hurricanes and early model P-40's were doing the dirty work and suffering badly as a result, strafing and attacking the enemy bombers, while the later model P-40's, especially the US 57 FG P-40Fand Kittyhawk II took on the enemy fighters, (along with the Spitfires - but Spitfires weren't in action every day of the month, or at least, they only made claims on half of the days). Kittyhawk III / P-40K were used for fighter bomber missions more but were also taking on the Bf 109s at every opportunity, covering for the Hurricanes and Kittyhawk I's, and doing damage to the Bf 109s. They also seemed to get into fights with the MC202 more often than the other types.

Finally (for now), on each day's action, the Germans reported what aircraft type shot down their lost planes, if they could. So I went through and counted these for October 1942.

*Number of times German records reported their aircraft as "Shot down by P-40" or "After combat with P-40" etc., 11
Number of times German records mention being shot down by Spitfires 2
Number of times German records mention being shot down by Hurricanes 1
*
Number of days US P-40 pilots (all from 57th Fighter Group) made claims in October 1942: 9
Number of days Spitfire pilots made claims in October 1942 : 15
Number of days RAF / Commonwealth P-40 pilots made claims: 16
Number of days Hurricane pilots made claims : 4
Number of days P-40's altogether made claims: 25

All in all, I would say that this data refutes the notion suggested by Glider that the Spits were bearing the brunt of the Luftwaffe / Axis fighters during Oct 1942. The Spits took fewer losses, but they were only "in the action" (making claims) half the time.

When I get a chance I'll upload my charts and I think you'll see that the late model P-40s were holding their own pretty well. I also think it's clear that the Axis side actually overclaimed a lot more.

More to come....

S


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 13, 2018)

Here's a couple of curious Curtiss related factoids..

When the FW 190 1st made its combat debut against intruding Spitfires, the impressed RAF chaps
mis-reported them as 'Curtiss Hawks', & were frankly amazed that the 'beastly Hun' had got them going so hard!

&, a bit later on, when intruding FW 190 pilots were hounded & harried - back to France by the new Typhoon,
they duly mis-reported them as 'Curtiss Tomahawks' & expressed incredulity that the 'Englander schwein'
had got them going so hard!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 13, 2018)

J.A.W. said:


> Here's a couple of curious Curtiss related factoids..
> 
> When the FW 190 1st made its combat debut against intruding Spitfires, the impressed RAF chaps
> mis-reported them as 'Curtiss Hawks', & were frankly amazed that the 'beastly Hun' had got them going so hard!
> ...


While the Typhoon first had stripes put on it because in the air it looks like an FW 190.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Apr 13, 2018)

pbehn said:


> While the Typhoon first had stripes put on it because in the air it looks like an FW 190.



And with the chin-radiator it looks a bit like a P-40


----------



## swampyankee (Apr 13, 2018)

pbehn said:


> While the Typhoon first had stripes put on it because in the air it looks like an FW 190.


Aircraft mis-identification was chronic; even the P-38, probably the most distinctive aircraft, especially from above or below, was fired on by same-side gunners. Of course, there is much less difference from the front, which is when AAA gunners are going to start shooting.


----------



## Schweik (Apr 13, 2018)

Relevant to the other discussion, Allied pilots routinely misidentified Bf 109 as MC 202 and vice versa.

When the later model P-40s came out starting in mid-1942, German and Italian pilots noting their different shape (they were about 3 feet longer and the Merlin engined ones lacked a supercharger scoop on the top of the nose) typically misidentified them as either P-46 or P-39. Shores points this out over and over, and it's one of the ways you can separate out where the Germans were fighting the later model P-40s vs the earlier. In 1942 they almost always identified the American P-40Fs in particular as P-46. The Americans were also the first to consistently fly with the finger-four / two pairs formations which also probably made them seem different.

Actual P-39s were so unusual for allied AAA gunners that they almost always took "friendly fire" casualties when operating over land. They mostly did coastal / maritime patrol over the Med though and rarely took part in the regular tactical / land war fighting.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Apr 13, 2018)

Schweik said:


> All in all, I would say that this data refutes the notion suggested by Glider that the Spits were bearing the brunt of the Luftwaffe / Axis fighters during Oct 1942. The Spits took fewer losses, but they were only "in the action" (making claims) half the time.
> 
> When I get a chance I'll upload my charts and I think you'll see that the late model P-40s were holding their own pretty well. I also think it's clear that the Axis side actually overclaimed a lot more.
> 
> ...


What I said was the Spitfire forced the Germans to be less aggressive not that they bore the brunt of the fighting. They couldn't assume that they had the height advantage which they clearly did before the arrival of the Spitfire. This in turn reduced the aircraft able to attack the other aircraft. The Spitfire couldn't bear the brunt of the fighting as initially there were too few of them. 
My stats are wrong, as for some reason I stopped at the 27th, please don't ask me why, no idea


----------



## Schweik (Apr 13, 2018)

Glider said:


> What I said was the Spitfire forced the Germans to be less aggressive not that they bore the brunt of the fighting. They couldn't assume that they had the height advantage which they clearly did before the arrival of the Spitfire. This in turn reduced the aircraft able to attack the other aircraft. The Spitfire could bear the brunt of the fighting as initially there were too few of them.
> My stats are wrong, as for some reason I stopped at the 27th, please don't ask me why, no idea



I forgive you for the stats- I'm sure I made mistakes too.

But i disagree with your premise. The Spits were only even flying on 15 days during that month, vs 25 days for the P-40s, and were not in the same actions. They did not prevent the Bf 109s from attacking from above, and they were not (usually) protecting P-40s. When they did, they were flying cover for the older models. On many days they did fly, they didn't file claims for fighters shot down and were flying in different areas. It's a myth - one of the long lasting Tropes in fact, that Spits had to fly top cover for P-40's in the Med to protect them from Bf 109s. What actually happened was that late model P-40s flew escorts for Hurricanes and older model P-40s.

Spits actually couldn't escort P-40s on a lot of missions because of their range limitation. At least so far in MAW there are no Spit VIII that I noticed and the other types just didn't have the range to reach the more distant targets. So while I think the Spits did help, for example, in intercepting German attempts to bomb Allied airfields, and as shorter range escorts, I believe it's inaccurate to suggest they were decisive in the Luftwaffe defeat. The P-40s were in fact still bearing the brunt of the fighting well into 1943.

By contrast, the Hurricanes couldn't fly raids unescorted and the P-39s couldn't conduct ground attack missions even with a heavy escort without suffering catastrophic losses. 

I do think what you did though is a good idea, posting stats for a specific time period. I'm going to try to find another couple of good months, maybe March 1943. It's tricky to separate out what happened (trickier than Oct 42) because so many other aircraft types are involved. But worth taking a stab at.

The more you look at MAW I think you'll realize what I'm saying is correct - the later model P-40s were able to operate on their own, without fear of massive casualties, and often flew cover for the other fighters. P-40F/L even flew cover for P-40Ks pretty routinely, because the P-40F/L had the higher ceiling. The 20,000' ceiling of the Merlin-engined P-40s was apparently sufficient in the Theater because even the Luftwaffe fighters weren't usually flying higher than that, except when dealing with the B-24s, and in those raids the escorts were P-38s.

S.


----------



## Dan Fahey (Apr 18, 2018)

Schweik said:


> I forgive you for the stats- I'm sure I made mistakes too.
> 
> But i disagree with your premise. The Spits were only even flying on 15 days during that month, vs 25 days for the P-40s, and were not in the same actions. They did not prevent the Bf 109s from attacking from above, and they were not (usually) protecting P-40s. When they did, they were flying cover for the older models. On many days they did fly, they didn't file claims for fighters shot down and were flying in different areas. It's a myth - one of the long lasting Tropes in fact, that Spits had to fly top cover for P-40's in the Med to protect them from Bf 109s. What actually happened was that late model P-40s flew escorts for Hurricanes and older model P-40s.
> 
> ...





Schweik said:


> I forgive you for the stats- I'm sure I made mistakes too.
> 
> But i disagree with your premise. The Spits were only even flying on 15 days during that month, vs 25 days for the P-40s, and were not in the same actions. They did not prevent the Bf 109s from attacking from above, and they were not (usually) protecting P-40s. When they did, they were flying cover for the older models. On many days they did fly, they didn't file claims for fighters shot down and were flying in different areas. It's a myth - one of the long lasting Tropes in fact, that Spits had to fly top cover for P-40's in the Med to protect them from Bf 109s. What actually happened was that late model P-40s flew escorts for Hurricanes and older model P-40s.
> 
> ...


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 18, 2018)

This is what RAF BoB veteran, Spitfire ace & hugely experienced ( 550+ op sorties) combat fighter pilot
Bob Spurdle had to say about the P-40...

"The Kittyhawks were something else. They had Allison engines which ran very smoothly.
They were sturdy, well-made machines with the formidable fire power of six 0.5in M-G's.
They had electric trim tabs & a natty little lock-up compartment to carry personal gear around in.

They had the flying characteristics of a brick."

Ol' Bob was a straight-shooting Kiwi, & used his P-40 well, to destroy a couple of Zeros over the Soloman Is,
but he was annoyed by being 'carpeted by the boss' - after being accused by leader of a USAAF B-24
outfit - of the 'crime of abandoning his close escort duties', on a bombing mission..

He angrily retorted to his C.O. - when told he'd 'left the bombers';

"Left them? Left them? The bastards left us!"

& Bob duly explained the situation:

"At over 20,000ft, a B-24, having dropped its bombs, could climb away from a Kittyhawk...
& this is exactly what happened."

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dan Fahey (Apr 19, 2018)

One of the key attributes of a good fighter was Range and useful flight time! Here is where I think the Spitfire was over rated. Great performance but could not stay in the fight. That attribute was characteristic of every US plane other than the P39. All had decent to great range which made them successful because could fight in the enemy’s neighborhood. All of the US planes were multifunctional as they were used as Recon, Fighter, bomber, fighter and liaison. Spitfire and Me109 carried limited fuel and ordinance to fight. The P40 was an attack plane. What is not written is that when it got toward the enemy base they had burned off more than half of their fuel. The Germans planes were fueled to the limit. As the Me109 and Italian planes had a 90 minute fuel supply, same for the Spitfire and P39. Meaning the P40 was quite a bit lighter for dogfighting! The P40 as a FB could drop ordinance and able to fight its way back home. Examining what Allied losses were many P40 were shot down laden with bombs. However this made the P40 twice a dangerous as the German and Italian Fighters. Where they beat them on the ground and air using the same plane. Where the Germans needed two or more types of planes to perform the same functions. 

Here is my point, if the P40 burned off 150 gallons of fuel. It was 1000lbs lighter improving its nimbleness. This same thing played out for the next generation fighter the P51. Here no other aircraft caught up to the Mustangs muiltirole versatility and able to do them as well to far better than any other AC during WW2. That includes the new Jets. A mear 5 years later it would be a different story. Then again in Korea no other USAF plane was available for CAS. 

Despite all the clamor the P47 would have done better. No...it was to way too heavy and slow on takeoff to be used on the short Japanese built airfields in South Korea. Plus would have taken twice the fuel load the Mustang would use for missions! It’s large oil tank when hit would flame up like Corsairs. Especially the first year. But that is another story away from discussing the P40. 

Another reason the P40 was useful because its flight mechanisms were well sorted out from its beginnings as a P36. The P38 was a nightmare in comparison. Tuning the Turbo Supercharged engines lacked well trained mechanics. Taking 3 years to sort out the flight problems, bugs and nuances to make it a consistent effective fighting machine. Still after all the sorting the Mustang was still the dominant US fighter.

In the Pacific the Late model P40 had much better altitude performance against the Zero. Late model Zeros were heavier and less nimble though more capable with better guns and armor with a decent diving speed. Making them a fair match. Interesting watching YouTube where former Japanese aces described the Zero as an acrobatic plane and not a proper fighter. They very aware of its weaknesses and very brave pilots to fly those timber boxes. They further commented that the N1K2 as the first Japanese Navy to be on equal or better terms than the Americans.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ptraney (Apr 19, 2018)

No facts here...I just must say the Bf-109E is one of my favorite airplanes. The majority of my collection had one example of every plane or jet that I like. Exception...Bf-109E and P-51.


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 19, 2018)

My take on how well the 4 major pre-war fighters fared in wartime development - goes..
from least to most effective:

4, Hurricane, sturdy workhorse & shouldered the burden of British RAF overseas fighter duties for most
of the 1st 1/2 of the war, received the benefit of R-R's splendid Merlin development (before the Spitfire)
so it could tote 4 X 20mm Hispanos.. but it was well past its best-by-date in `43, & being kept in mass
production through 1/2 of `44 was an indictment on British politico-industrial management..

3, P-40, I have little to add to what the well considered posts here already show, but to the credit of US
procurement policies, it was duly cut from the mix even - if C-W had no replacement of their own, when
the masses of Merlin Mustangs coming on stream in late `43 - made the venerable Curtiss look old.

2, Bf 109, although also somewhat limited by its mid-30s origins, by ~10 years later, & not having had
as many 'do overs' as the Spitfire, - in its interceptor niche, & when properly flown, the latest G/K types
could still offer a performance margin ( in the vertical) over Merlin Spits, & go head-to-head with
P-51s & the (fairly rare) Griffon Spits, as well as the latest Soviet jobs, which is something the P-40
could not do by `44/45.


1, Spitfire, the very epitome of a 'grandads axe', the Spitfire is a marvel of the British fetish for
'development' & even if most of the effective combat Spits were 'interim lash-ups' while few
of the dedicated upgrade Mks showed up for service in wartime, I'll have to - just - give the Spit
No1 spot here, based on both the 'hot-rod' performance of the Mk XIV, the finesse of the final
well-sorted Mk VIII, & the - although really too late for the war - Mk 22/24 - due to the fact that they were still more useful than their intended, 'height of tech' successor, the Spiteful...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Apr 19, 2018)

J.A.W. said:


> This is what RAF BoB veteran, Spitfire ace & hugely experienced ( 550+ op sorties) combat fighter pilot
> Bob Spurdle had to say about the P-40...
> 
> They had the flying characteristics of a brick."
> ...



Yeah that is fine, but multiple other aces and hugely experienced, no-nonsense fighter pilots- Aussies Clive Caldwell (28 victories, 22 flying P-40s) and Nicky Barr (12 victories, all on the P-40), Brit Billy Drake (24 victories, 13 in the P-40), American Robert DeHaven (14 victories), a bunch of Soviet aces and pretty much the entire AVG and 23rd Fighter Group, all praised the P-40 and pointed out that it could easily outmaneuver the Bf 109 within it's altitude ceiling.

As for the New Zealanders - they generally loved the P-40 and had one of the best records with it -99 claimed victories for 20 losses.



> "At over 20,000ft, a B-24, having dropped its bombs, could climb away from a Kittyhawk...
> & this is exactly what happened."



The P-40 had an altitude ceiling of about ~16k' (Allison engined versions) or 20k' (Merlin engined versions) - it certainly performed poorly above that altitude.

S


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 19, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Yeah that is fine, but multiple other aces and hugely experienced, no-nonsense fighter pilots- Aussies Clive Caldwell (28 victories, 22 flying P-40s)...
> The P-40 had an altitude ceiling of about ~16k' (Allison engined versions) or 20k' (Merlin engined versions) - it certainly performed poorly above that altitude.


I guess that after experiencing the climbing capabilty of a Spit IX, ol' Bob naturally found the 
P-40 a tad pedestrian,
& he laughed at his fellow countrymen who enthused at what a 'hot-ship' it was, so I'm 
guessing those other guys
hadn't..

Albeit, Bob commanded 80 Sqd RAF when they transitioned from Spits to Tempests,
& regarded the Spit IX as 'dainty', & 'feminine' - thereafter, what with the Tempest being much more - 'warlike' - n'all..

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Apr 19, 2018)

J.A.W. said:


> I guess that after experiencing the climbing capabilty of a Spit IX, ol' Bob naturally found the
> P-40 a tad pedestrian,
> & he laughed at his fellow countrymen who enthused at what a 'hot-ship' it was, so I'm
> guessing those other guys
> hadn't..



Yeah I certainly can understand why coming from a Spit IX to a P-40 of any model would be a let down. If i had a choice for combat I'd go with a Spit IX for sure. Spit V would be more of a toss up, would depend on the subtypes.



> Albeit, Bob commanded 80 Sqd RAF when they transitioned from Spits to Tempests,
> & regarded the Spit IX as 'dainty', & 'feminine' - thereafter, what with the Tempest being much more - 'warlike' - n'all..



This seems to have been one of the criticisms the Russians had for the Spit, a rep (deserved or otherwise) for fragility. That may have had more to do with the narrow gauge landing gear than anything else though.

S


----------



## Schweik (Apr 19, 2018)

Dan Fahey said:


> Here is my point, if the P40 burned off 150 gallons of fuel. It was 1000lbs lighter improving its nimbleness. This same thing played out for the next generation fighter the P51. Here no other aircraft caught up to the Mustangs muiltirole versatility and able to do them as well to far better than any other AC during WW2. That includes the new Jets. A mear 5 years later it would be a different story. Then again in Korea no other USAF plane was available for CAS.



This is a very good point. When P-40s are compared to axis fighters it's almost always on the basis of fully loaded weight, i.e. sufficient fuel for a 700 mile trip not counting the drop tank, whereas on an escort or strafing mission - after takeoff, climbing to altitude, forming up with the bombers and flying to the target (often an enemy airfield) they routinely meet the enemy with two thirds or half fuel.

So lets look at the wing loading of a P-40F for example goes from 35.2 -not bad, much better than a Bf 109G2 38-41 llbs / sq ft), better than a Bf 109F4 (36.76 lbs / sq ft) slightly better than a fully loaded MC 202 (at 35.7) and _way_ better than a Fw 190 at 45 lbs/sq'.

But if they used up half the fuel, the P-40Fs wing loading drops down to 31.8 - a _big_ difference. If you add to that removal of a couple of wing guns and their ammo (standard on the P-40L), that's 29.6 a substantial advantage. Still not quite as good as a Spit V at 25, but comparable to a Spit IX LF at 31.(Source for wing loadings, the wiki only gives wing loading for the G-6 so I went for what i could find). Of course the German planes would get lighter after a long flight too but it's less effect since they carried less fuel.

At half fuel horsepower to weight ratio on a P-40F similarly jumps from ~15 hp/lb to 18.5 hp/lb 

When they were used for interceptions / scrambles, P-40s were often only loaded with half fuel or even less. This is documented going all the way back to Java.



> Despite all the clamor the P47 would have done better. No...it was to way too heavy and slow on takeoff to be used on the short Japanese built airfields in South Korea. Plus would have taken twice the fuel load the Mustang would use for missions! It’s large oil tank when hit would flame up like Corsairs. Especially the first year. But that is another story away from discussing the P40.



P47s were fantastic high altitude fighters with fire breathing beasts for engines and brutal firepower, but I kind of wonder how great their maneuverability was down low. The irony that they ended up being used so much for ground attack is that they may have been fairly ill-suited for it in some respects (size as a target, low speed agility and low altitude maneuverability)



> Another reason the P40 was useful because its flight mechanisms were well sorted out from its beginnings as a P36. The P38 was a nightmare in comparison. Taking 3 years to sort out the flight problems, bugs and nuances to make it a consistent effective fighting machine. Still after all the sorting the Mustang was still the dominant US fighter.



Agreed but the Mustang- the Merlin engined one, wasn't around until arguably _after_ the tipping point of the war. The Allison engined one seemed to be mainly used for dive bombing and recon. The P-38s were a factor in the Med in 1943 but they were taking a lot of losses, more than the US P-40 units were. On the Allied side, I would argue that the only truly great fighter which made it into the breach in time (in its truly great form) on the Allied side in the key years of 1942 and 1943 were the Spitfire, specifically the Mk IX, and arguably the Corsair. The Spit V, the Yak-9 and La 5, the P-47 and P-38, the Wildcat and Hellcat and yes the P-40 were all able to do some damage to the enemy. The Corsair still had some bugs to work out in 1943 but it was clearly already a fantastic plane. The P-38 didn't really mature until 1944 and even then, not ideal for ETO / MTO. The Mustang and the Yak-3 and La-7 would become the other three great allied prop fighters of the war IMO.



> In the Pacific the Late model P40 had much better altitude performance against the Zero. Late model Zeros were heavier and less nimble though more capable with better guns and armor with a decent diving speed. Making them a fair match. Interesting watching YouTube where former Japanese aces described the Zero as an acrobatic plane and not a proper fighter. They very aware of its weaknesses and very brave pilots to fly those timber boxes. They further commented that the N1K2 as the first Japanese Navy to be on equal or better terms than the Americans.



That's very interesting, links? i always wondered how much of a performance hit the addition of armor and self-sealing tanks had on the A6M.

S


----------



## Dan Fahey (Apr 20, 2018)

Regarding the Zero...read Complete Book of WW2 Combat Aircraft - Military Press - Enzo Angelico and Paola Matricardi.
The Zero got more Armor, stronger wings, more fuel capacity, second stage blower.
They copied the Browning 50 cal and built a better 20mm upscaling the machine gun.
Late models got 13mm machine guns in the nose.
Weighing more it needed the 1500 hp engine the Ki100 got.

The late model P40 got the -81 to -117. The last 220 P40 built had a 1350 hp Allison.
Basically standardizing on the field mods to make more power and late model P40s got a bit lighter.
Wonder if mechanics used the PEP 44-1 150 octane fuel in the field?
Properly tuned 1800 HP. The Turbocharged P38 was tested to 2000hp.

One other thing.
The Allison Engine was a much better more rugged, powerful and reliable engine than the Merlin.
The Merlin had twice the number of parts to assemble it. Called the Watchmakers Engine.
Packhard fixed a bunch of issues, such as adding far better bearings.

The Merlin’s success came from a very well designed 2 stage 2 speed supercharger.
The Allison was limited not having a compact 2 Stage 2 speed supercharger.
Their singe stage were much better than the Merlin’s.

Had Allison collaborated with British engineers it would have been a premier high altitude engine.
The F82 with the Allison had constant back fire issues.
Allison turned down British (Merlin Enginners) help to solve it.
Allison did some work arounds but the F82 engines were cranky.
When they ran good they were right there but still down on power compared to the Merlin’s.
Like other Allison they performed brilliantly 20k and under.

It is interesting how the Americans built good planes but limited HP.
The British desperate to survive hotrodded the P51A Allison engine.
US flew them for 100 octane. The British their 130 octane fuel.
This was that same fuel that drove P38 pilots and mechanics nuts.
All because of incorrect tuning and ignorance by Lockheed and Allison to make them more combat read.

Wonder if there was an test data recorded on the P51A using the British 130 fuel.
Certainly none with the US150 octane in the Allison.

Again here is another area overlooked regarding the P40.
It could fly combat missions in any kind of weather.


----------



## Schweik (Apr 20, 2018)

Dan Fahey said:


> Regarding the Zero...read Complete Book of WW2 Combat Aircraft - Military Press - Enzo Angelico and Paola Matricardi.



I was referring specifically to the interviews with Japanese pilots you were talking about as well as any data on degraded performance of the later model A6Ms. I have 40 or 50 books on fighters and 2 or 3 specifically on the Zero though most of them repeat the same stuff.



> The late model P40 got the -81 to -117. The last 220 P40 built had a 1350 hp Allison.



Actually all of the 1300 P-40K fighters some (I think ~200) of the later run P-40E had *V-1710-73* rated officially at 1325 hp. The only real innovations on the V-1710-73 was automatic boost control and a stronger crankshaft which could handle the overboosting they were doing with the earlier models. 57" of boost became the standard WEP setting. From what I gather that could actually mean ~1500 hp at certain altitudes. 

~ 300 of the P-40Ns (some of the early models as well as some of the later ones) had the 1350 or 1360 hp -*1710-99* and *-117*

I think the -81 was a lower rated 1200 hp version used on the export / fighter-bomber variants of the P-40N and M

Allison had a lot of problems, similar to though not as bad as Curtiss. they had been purchased by GM in the early 30's and were kind of bogged down in corporate bureaucracy and spent more efforts on influence and what we today call lobbying than on innovation.

Some of the pilots interviewed in Christopher Shores Mediterranean Air War mentioned they liked the P-40K better at lower altitude, but the Merlin XX / V-1650 engined P-40F and L performed better at altitude and had an effective performance ceiling of 20,000 feet. As a result they flew the escorts missions for bombers and fighter bombers (including other P-40s) most of the time.

S


----------



## Stig1207 (Apr 20, 2018)

P-47's began replacing P-40's in the autumn of '43 in the MTO; by August '44, there was not a single P-40 with white stars in the theatre.
P-38's escorted 15th AAF bombers over Germany right up to the end of the war.


----------



## Juha2 (Apr 20, 2018)

Dan Fahey said:


> One of the key attributes of a good fighter was Range and useful flight time! Here is where I think the Spitfire was over rated. Great performance but could not stay in the fight. That attribute was characteristic of every US plane other than the P39. All had decent to great range which made them successful because could fight in the enemy’s neighborhood. All of the US planes were multifunctional as they were used as Recon, Fighter, bomber, fighter and liaison. Spitfire and Me109 carried limited fuel and ordinance to fight...



Generally true, but there were many different versions. Without touching the Spits with rear fuselage fuel tanks, Mk VIIs and VIIIs carried 121½ - 124 ImpGal fuel and had reasonable range but only the 140 high altitude Mk VIIs stayed in ETO, all Mk VIIIs were sent to MTO, CBI and Australia. And LR PR Spits could reach beyond Berlin from UK, even USAAF 8th AF used some PR Mk XIs. And Mk IX could carry 1000 lb of bombs as a FB, so they had some ordanance carrying capacity, even if not like e.g. Typhoon.


----------



## Juha2 (Apr 20, 2018)

Hello a small note to Schweik's message, #609, already La-5FN was very capable plane, it had the same engine than La-7 but because the engine had better cooling in La-5FN, the engine in -5FN was clearly more reliable than in -7, even if it was somewhat draggier and so slower.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greg Boeser (Apr 20, 2018)

Just like the late model P-40s escorting the earlier models, US FGs equipped with Spitfires would fly top cover for Mk Vs with Mk IXs.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Apr 20, 2018)

Juha2 said:


> Hello a small note to Schweik's message, #609, already La-5FN was very capable plane, it had the same engine than La-7 but because the engine had better cooling in La-5FN, the engine in -5FN was clearly more reliable than in -7, even if it was somewhat draggier and so slower.



Yeah I didn't include La 5FN in the "greats" list because I just thought La 7 was kind of the definitive version of it. when did La 5FN become widely operational and relatively 'bug free"? I know some kind of La 5 were available in late 1942 or early 1943 right?

S


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 20, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Actually all of the 1300 P-40K fighters some (I think ~200) of the later run P-40E had *V-1710-73* rated officially at 1325 hp. The only real innovations on the V-1710-73 was automatic boost control and a stronger crankshaft which could handle the overboosting they were doing with the earlier models. 57" of boost became the standard WEP setting. From what I gather that could actually mean ~1500 hp at certain altitudes.
> 
> ~ 300 of the P-40Ns (some of the early models as well as some of the later ones) had the 1350 or 1360 hp -*1710-99* and *-117*
> 
> I think the -81 was a lower rated 1200 hp version used on the export / fighter-bomber variants of the P-40N and M



The -81 was outfitted 9.60:1 drive for supercharger. Result of that was improvement of altitude performance by some 10% above 14000 ft, the trade off being a loss of low-altitude performance by about same percentage. 1200 and 1325 HP power figures are for take off, that is a nice-to-have thing for a fighter, however the altitude power is more important, hence the engines similar to the -81 being better for the P-40s/39s/51s.
The real innovation for the -73 was strenghtening of some parts (crankshaft, or was it the crankcase?), allowing for greater boost and thus the power under 5000 ft (including take off power that was 1150 HP in previous types, like the -39). Both -39, -73 and similar engines were outfitted with 8.80:1 drive for supercharger.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Apr 20, 2018)

Stig1207 said:


> P-47's began replacing P-40's in the autumn of '43 in the MTO; by August '44, there was not a single P-40 with white stars in the theatre.
> P-38's escorted 15th AAF bombers over Germany right up to the end of the war.




All true - and I would also add that the USAAF planned to replace P-40s as far back as 1941. P-40s, as an adaptation of the competent but basically obsolescent P-36 was seen as a kind of stop-gap fighter. The original hope was that the more "futuristic" P-39 would replace it. This is why P-39s were for example put into service in Guadalcanal. But combat experience quickly showed that the P-40 was a lot better, and had a chance against the A6M whereas the P-39 was basically dead meat (or an "iron dog" as the pilots there called it).

Then the plan was to replace the P-40 with the P-38 ASAP.

In the Pacific, this was done, but much more gradually than planned, the main reason being the various development problems with the P-38 and a relatively slow rate of production. In spite of all the issues with the plane though, some pilots figured out how to do a boom and zoom attack vs. Japanese planes utilizing a high-speed climb.

In the CBI, it was found the 23rd Fighter Group was able to continue using AVG tactics and build upon them, and P-40s remained in use until the end of the war, though gradually replaced by P-51s. Some pilots in the CBI noted that they actually preferred the P-40.

In the Med and Italy, it was hoped to replace P-40s with P-38s as early as 1942, but early P-38s proved to be of questionable merit against Bf 109s and while I'm still not certain of this, from Shores it appears that the P-38 units took heavier losses than the P-40 units. Anyway there were definitely more P-40 Aces in the Med.

In Italy they did start replacing P-40s with P-47s, and I think the main reason is the high altitude performance, for interception and especially for escorting B-24s and so forth, even though they were more often used for fighter bomber missions for which they were not ideally suited. Not all pilots (for example in the 79th FG) preferred the P-47 incidentally and P-47s were in turn replaced in many of those same units (325 FG etc.) by P-51s as soon as they were available. The RAF still used P-40s right to the end of the war in Italy, also mostly for fighter-bomber missions. 

In Russia they used P-40s on the front line through 1943, after which they were relegated mainly to PVO (combat air patrol) units where they remained in use until 1945 (but then again so was the Spit IX). Their main problems with the P-40 had to do with maintenance issues.

The US War Department had plenty of reasons to dislike the P-40, the altitude performance issue being the main one, but also numerous chronic problems with Curtiss Aircraft and Allison being another. But they kept using them anyway.

The *TL : DR* is that while P-40s were supposed to be gone or phased out by mid-1942, they were still being heavily used in combat well into 1944, and were phased out only in 1945. The reason? P-40s were still able to shoot down enemy fighters and survive fighter-bombing missions as well or better than other available types - Hurricane and P-39 for example had comparatively dismal records in the Med and Pacific / CBI. The replacements came as soon as they were available.

Frankly based on performance I think the P-40 should have been phased out by the end of 1943 unless they could put a Merlin 60-series engine in it. But they had the P-51 by then.

S


----------



## Schweik (Apr 20, 2018)

Juha2 said:


> Generally true, but there were many different versions. Without touching the Spits with rear fuselage fuel tanks, Mk VIIs and VIIIs carried 121½ - 124 ImpGal fuel and had reasonable range but only the 140 high altitude Mk VIIs stayed in ETO, all Mk VIIIs were sent to MTO, CBI and Australia. And LR PR Spits could reach beyond Berlin from UK, even USAAF 8th AF used some PR Mk XIs. And Mk IX could carry 1000 lb of bombs as a FB, so they had some ordanance carrying capacity, even if not like e.g. Typhoon.



Maybe you can answer a question for me on this - I had read that the Spit VIII etc. was a "long range" version of the Spit, but in googling it recently i saw range figures of ~650 miles which sounds like 'medium' range at best. A little less than most US fighters except the Wildcat. Is that the right number? What is the actual range of the Spit VIII?

S


----------



## Schweik (Apr 20, 2018)

tomo pauk said:


> The -81 was outfitted 9.60:1 drive for supercharger. Result of that was improvement of altitude performance by some 10% above 14000 ft, the trade off being a loss of low-altitude performance by about same percentage. 1200 and 1325 HP power figures are for take off, that is a nice-to-have thing for a fighter, however the altitude power is more important, hence the engines similar to the -81 being better for the P-40s/39s/51s.
> The real innovation for the -73 was strenghtening of some parts (crankshaft, or was it the crankcase?), allowing for greater boost and thus the power under 5000 ft (including take off power that was 1150 HP in previous types, like the -39). Both -39, -73 and similar engines were outfitted with 8.80:1 drive for supercharger.



It was the crank shaft, they first improved it using 'peened' metal in early 1942 then used heat treated metal. I think some other components were strengthened a bit. 57" mercury became the standard WEP setting on the P-40K and apparently they could use it for a long time. Prior to that the official WEP rating was 45, though 57" was common and there were Overboosting claims of up to 70" by pilots (and a rather famous or infamous letter from Allison advising against it)

Why does this only confer extra HP up to 5,000 feet?

Interestingly they also overboosted the Packard Merlin 1650s to 60" apparently.

I never quite understood the 8:80:1 vs. 9.60:1 gearing issue. Can you elaborate on that a bit?

S


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 20, 2018)

Schweik said:


> I never quite understood the 8:80:1 vs. 9.60:1 gearing issue. Can you elaborate on that a bit?


at 3000rpm the supercharge impeller was spinning at 26,400rpm with 8.80 gears and with 9.60 gears you get 28,800.
Power needed to drive the supercharger goes up with the square of the speed of the impeller which is where the early failure of the 9.60 gears comes from.
about a 17% increase in power needed.


----------



## Schweik (Apr 20, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> at 3000rpm the supercharge impeller was spinning at 26,400rpm with 8.80 gears and with 9.60 gears you get 28,800.
> Power needed to drive the supercharger goes up with the square of the speed of the impeller which is where the early failure of the 9.60 gears comes from.
> about a 17% increase in power needed.



So how does that translate into HP at different altitudes?

I wonder if we should update the wikipedia page on the various V-1710 variants could be helpful to a lot of people.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 20, 2018)

The faster you spin the impeller the more air you get per unit of time which equals more power. 
However you are also heating up the air more and there is a definite upper limit. Once the impeller tips exceed the speed of sound _in the conditions that exist inside the supercharger_ shock waves are set up that disrupt the airflow.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 20, 2018)

Schweik said:


> It was the crank shaft, they first improved it using 'peened' metal in early 1942 then used heat treated metal. I think some other components were strengthened a bit. 57" mercury became the standard WEP setting on the P-40K and apparently they could use it for a long time. Prior to that the WEP was 45"
> 
> Why does this only confer extra HP up to 5,000 feet?
> 
> ...



Why just under 5000 ft? The lower you get, the S/C can provide more of compressed air. More of that air = greater boost = more power, but all of therse 'more' are good if the engine can stand it. So if we have the V-1710 that will be safely using 56 in Hg at ~4500 ft (like the V-1710-39), and then improve it (streghtnen it) so it can make 60 in Hg, but it will do it at ~2500 ft (like the V-1710-73).
8.80:1 means that for each rotation of crakshaft, the impeller will rotate 8.80 times. 9.90:1 obvously means that impeller will rotate 9.60 times. The 'faster' impeller will be better at high altitudes, shortcoming being that it will also be using more power to be driven, and that it will be compressing and thus heating the air at lower altitudes more than the 'slower' impeller, thus more throttling ust be used. The 8.80:1 gears means that drive toothed wheel used 55 tooth vs. 15 used on the driven wheel; on the 9.60:1 it was 56 vs. 14. So on the V-1710, the impeller was turning to almost 30000 rpm (3000 crankshaft rpm x 9.60).

The dedicated low-level engine ont the A-36 used 53:17, or 7.48:1. The altitude power suffered accordingly, but low level power was improved (15 min power was 1325 HP vs 1150 HP on prevoius engines). The engines with 7.48:1 S/C drive were also used on P-38s, helped out by turbo of course - so there were two stages of supercharging present giving a fine hi-alt power.

Having just one set of gears means that engine has 1-speed S/C. Plenty of superchargers on engines both from USA and abroad used 2 sets of gears, those were called 2-speed S/C. However, there was no in-production V-1710s with 2-speed S/Cs.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Apr 20, 2018)

tomo pauk said:


> Why just under 5000 ft? The lower you get, the S/C can provide more of compressed air. More of that air = greater boost = more power, but all of therse 'more' are good if the engine can stand it. So if we have the V-1710 that will be safely using 56 in Hg at ~4500 ft (like the V-1710-39), and then improve it (streghtnen it) so it can make 60 in Hg, but it will do it at ~2500 ft (like the V-1710-73).
> 8.80:1 means that for each rotation of crakshaft, the impeller will rotate 8.80 times. 9.90:1 obvously means that impeller will rotate 9.60 times. The 'faster' impeller will be better at high altitudes, shortcoming being that it will also be using more power to be driven, and that it will be compressing and thus heating the air at lower altitudes more than the 'slower' impeller, thus more throttling ust be used. The 8.80:1 gears means that drive toothed wheel used 55 tooth vs. 15 used on the driven wheel; on the 9.60:1 it was 56 vs. 14. So on the V-1710, the impeller was turning to almost 30000 rpm (3000 crankshaft rpm x 9.60).
> 
> The dedicated low-level engine ont the A-36 used 53:17, or 7.48:1. The altitude power suffered accordingly, but low level power was improved (15 min power was 1325 HP vs 1150 HP on prevoius engines). The engines with 7.48:1 S/C drive were also used on P-38s, helped out by turbo of course - so there were two stages of supercharging present giving a fine hi-alt power.
> ...




So you get no benefit from high boost with these engines above 5,000 feet? It doesn't seem to fit the anecotal evidence though fighter pilots do sometimes seem to get confused on the details.

I find it confusing since i thought the whole (original) point of the supercharger was to compress the thinner air at high altitude so that the engine could operate normally.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 20, 2018)

Schweik said:


> So you get no benefit from high boost with these engines above 5,000 feet? It doesn't seem to fit the anecotal evidence though fighter pilots do sometimes seem to get confused on the details.
> 
> I find it confusing since i thought the whole (original) point of the supercharger was to compress the thinner air at high altitude so that the engine could operate normally.


As I understand it a single stage supercharger could supply enough boost to be more than the engine could stand at sea level. As altitude increased and the air gets thinner more compression is needed until the limit of a single stage supercharger were reached. Above this altitude, supercharger with a two stage compressor or a turbo feeding a single stage supercharger were needed.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 20, 2018)

All engine charts are going to be somewhat similar. 
The engine doesn't drop suddenly to 1150hp at 5001 ft, it gradually declines to the 1150hp rate the higher it goes above the 5000ft mark. 
Please note that the engine are _usually _ given without any RAM air ( increase in pressure to the carb due to the forward speed of the aircraft which can add several thousand ft to the altitude the engine makes a given power at. However alos note that there can be a several thousand ft difference in climb vrs all out level speed. 

Please note that 30 in sea level pressure (rounded off) and please note the different altitudes the same pressure can be achieved using different rpm of the engine ( and the different supercharger speeds resulting from those changes in engine speed. for example 2000rpm will give us 30in (sea level) at just under 12,000ft (but only enough air for about 675hp) while increasing engine rpm to 3000 will increase the supercharger rpm to give sea level pressure at 21,000ft and give 800hp.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 20, 2018)

Schweik said:


> So you get no benefit from high boost with these engines above 5,000 feet? It doesn't seem to fit the anecotal evidence though fighter pilots do sometimes seem to get confused on the details.
> 
> I find it confusing since i thought the whole (original) point of the supercharger was to compress the thinner air at high altitude so that the engine could operate normally.



There was no high boost above 5000 ft to begin with, unless one improves the supercharger system - bigger and/or faster spinning impeller, another stage added, intercooler added. See the chart featuring the Merlin III (over-boost part used boosts between +6.25 psi and +12 psi, note that overboost is a thing of lower altitudes), and effect of two-stage supercharger on Merlin 60 (LX) where altitude power skyrockets.

Point of supercharger is/was indeed to compress the thin air and supply it to the engine. Overboosting was a side effect - taking advantage of supercharger's extra capacity between the sea level and rated altitude, provided that engine gets hi-oct fuel or uses ADI or both (so the knocking is delayed), that engine is strong enough to withstand the mechanical and thermal stress, and that engine is not operated too long in overboost regime.



pbehn said:


> As I understand it a single stage supercharger could supply enough boost to be more than the engine could stand at sea level. As altitude increased and the air gets thinner more compression is needed until the limit of a single stage supercharger were reached. Above this altitude, supercharger with a two stage compressor or a turbo feeding a single stage supercharger were needed.



The 2-stage superchargers were even more capable to supply too much of compressed air at low level.
Indeed, more than 1 stage of supercharging is a good thing once above 15000-20000 ft.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 20, 2018)

tomo pauk said:


> The 2-stage superchargers were even more capable to supply too much of compressed air at low level.
> Indeed, more than 1 stage of supercharging is a good thing once above 15000-20000 ft.



That is why I found and still find some things "counter-intuitive" some improvements in the supercharger or turbo coincided with other engine improvements allowing more boost at all levels.


----------



## Schweik (Apr 20, 2018)

pbehn said:


> That is why I found and still find some things "counter-intuitive" some improvements in the supercharger or turbo coincided with other engine improvements allowing more boost at all levels.



So is the 1325 or 1360 hp rating for those versions of the V-1710 accurate and at what altitude is the max HP at 57", Sea Level? 5,000 feet?

Is it as simple as a max power at Sea Level and then it goes down from there, or does is the boost limited at lower altitude?

S


----------



## pbehn (Apr 20, 2018)

Schweik said:


> So is the 1325 or 1360 hp rating for those versions of the V-1710 accurate and at what altitude is the max HP at 57", Sea Level? 5,000 feet?
> 
> Is it as simple as a max power at Sea Level and then it goes down from there, or does is the boost limited at lower altitude?
> 
> S


I see you are suffering the same confusion that I had years ago when I first came here, in all things "supercharger" or "turbocharger" related I would trust Shortround and timo. This is how I understand it, but would be happy to be corrected.
1, The engine block, whatever it is, has a maximum of boost that it can withstand above sea level atmospheric pressure. This is not a constant because for various reasons like heat build up and lubrication it has limits both short and long term. 
2. At sea level, it is simply a question of how much boost over atmospheric pressure an engine can withstand and for how long, so you have "take of power" and "war emergency power", "maximum continuous power" etc.
3. As the altitude increases it becomes harder to keep the boost you want because the air is thinner to start with, since compressing air heats it up, if you put hot air and fuel in a combustion chamber it explodes before you want it to. To make a huge increase in the compression it must be done in two (or more) stages with cooling in between. On the Merlin they had a two stage supercharger with an intercooler between, on the P-47 and P-38 there was an exhaust driven first stage turbocharger with intercooling before the normal single stage supercharger driven by the engine. As with everything all these set ups have advantages and disadvantages.
4. in all this, along with advances in turbos and superchargers there were also advances in fuels that allowed more total compression in the cylinder without detonation (octane rating), and advances in materials, bearings and lubricants that allowed running engines with higher pressures for longer.

In short, its a bit complicated

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Apr 20, 2018)

pbehn said:


> I see you are suffering the same confusion that I had years ago when I first came here, in all things "supercharger" or "turbocharger" related I would trust Shortround and timo. This is how I understand it, but would be happy to be corrected.
> 1, The engine block, whatever it is, has a maximum of boost that it can withstand above sea level atmospheric pressure. This is not a constant because for various reasons like heat build up and lubrication it has limits both short and long term.
> 2. At sea level, it is simply a question of how much boost over atmospheric pressure an engine can withstand and for how long, so you have "take of power" and "war emergency power", "maximum continuous power" etc.
> 3. As the altitude increases it becomes harder to keep the boost you want because the air is thinner to start with, since compressing air heats it up, if you put hot air and fuel in a combustion chamber it explodes before you want it to. To make a huge increase in the compression it must be done in two (or more) stages with cooling in between. On the Merlin they had a two stage supercharger with an intercooler between, on the P-47 and P-38 there was an exhaust driven first stage turbocharger with intercooling before the normal single stage supercharger driven by the engine. As with everything all these set ups have advantages and disadvantages.
> ...



Thanks I do understand the basics- what i don't grasp is how to translate that into different max HP at different boost ratings / RPM at different altitudes.

Somebody a few times in this and other threads claimed that at 57" or some other boost number a V-1710 could reach ~1,500 hp, I'd like to know if that is even possible and if so, how much risk of detonation and other issues would there be, how long could you get away with that for, and etc. Or is the max really what they indicate as the official max takeoff rating.

Like you say though other factors come into play like the fuel and the type of oil and so on so it is probably hard to pin down.

S


----------



## pbehn (Apr 20, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Thanks I do understand the basics- what i don't grasp is how to translate that into different max HP at different boost ratings / RPM at different altitudes.
> 
> Somebody a few times in this and other threads claimed that at 57" or some other boost number a V-1710 could reach ~1,500 hp, I'd like to know if that is even possible and if so, how much risk of detonation and other issues would there be, how long could you get away with that for, and etc. Or is the max really what they indicate as the official max takeoff rating.
> 
> ...


As I said I am no expert on this, but it is certainly possible because the Merlin did it and more, and the Allison V-1710 was in some ways a stronger engine with a bigger swept volume. The Allison and Merlin engines as conventionally aspirated engines were not much different, it was the various superchargers and superchargers with turbos that makes the difference.

In the "turbo era" of Formula 1, cars were restricted to 1.5 litres swept volume but produced a maximum power of circa 1000 BHP. That is how far advanced materials and fuels can take things. They were made to last at that output for a maximum of 2 minutes on absolute maximum and 2 hours at "max continuous" interesting in a way but no use for an aircraft.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 20, 2018)

Confusing things is the 
1.max the engine would actually make 
2. and what they allowed to make to leave a safety margin 
3. and what they allowed it make and still achieve a certain "engine life/time before overhaul".

On an Allison with 8.80 gears (and this pretty well covers the long nose -33 engines used by the Flying Tigers) 
You _might _be able to get 70 in of manifold pressure at sea level on a stationary engine. It might depend on the day
This is around 1700hp ( I am not looking at the books). How long the engine lasts depends on the particular engine, how many hours on on it already (wear), how hit it gets and maybe the phase of the moon. 
WEP power was tested by running a test engine at the desired power rating for 5 minutes at a time ( or longer if the engine maker was really confident.) with cooling off periods in between ( run at max continuous or "normal" power) until the engine had accumulated 7 1/2 hours at the WEP rating without breaking. 
Once one engine on a test stand had done that then all engines of that type/model could be rated at that power. 

go back to the chart posted in # 625
or





engine gets to 66in at sea level (?). Getting to 70in in flight is _possible, _due to forward airspeed increasing pressure in the inlet before the supercharger (the supercharger multiplies the pressure coming into it. In the case of the Allison here the supercharger is operating at about 2.2 to 1 so if you can get the pressure in the duct before the carb up to 31.8 inches instead of 30 inches then you got it. however as soon as you climb it gets harder and harder. 
You can also get to 70 inches by overspeeding the engine, running 3100-3200rpm instead of 3000rpm. Perhaps easy to do in the heat of combat? 
You also have the pilot, in the heat of combat, trying to look at his pressure gauge anad judge if the needle was really on 70 or just on 69?
This assumes that the P-40 in question even had a pressure gauge that went over 50lbs. 

The 1150hp rating was the max they figured the engine could run at for 5 minutes at a time (later 15) without seriously degrading the life of the engine. 
This is on the -35/39 engines and later, the -33 was limited to 1090hp (?). ANY use of WEP called for notations in the aircraft log books and discussions with the squadron engineering officer on what extra maintenance procedures might be needed or not needed. 1942 and up engines would take a lot more abuse than the early ones but it also took time to accumulate the knowledge of how much abuse they could really take and not break down on the next flight or the one after. 

Now please note that ALL Allison engines with 8.80 gears ( or 8.77) are going to follow pretty much the chart above as far as ability to make power. It is just a question of how strong the different models were that affected the limits that were placed on using that power.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dan Fahey (Apr 20, 2018)

Regarding comments by Japanese Pilots!
Type in Japanese Aces on YouTube. You will see several interviews.
One conversation was about a ace being taught to fly the F80 and had a asshole teacher.


----------



## Dan Fahey (Apr 20, 2018)

If you want some interesting history on Allison Engines.
Look up Yancey Allison Engines....
The Russians ran the Allison as high as 3500rpm to get more power out of it.
Engines did not last long but much longer than the Merlin and Russian redesigned Hispano Suiza engines.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 21, 2018)

Schweik said:


> So is the 1325 or 1360 hp rating for those versions of the V-1710 accurate and at what altitude is the max HP at 57", Sea Level? 5,000 feet?
> 
> Is it as simple as a max power at Sea Level and then it goes down from there, or does is the boost limited at lower altitude?
> 
> S



If we're talking about 1-stage 1-speed S/Ced engines like many V-1710s or Merlins in service, then an ideal version of those engines woud've have the power 'curve' turned into a line, as it can be noted at graphs kindly provided by Shortround6. But, indeed the power is indeed limited at lower altitude, with S/C providing too much of boost. The boost lines can be seen as curved lines, where the same boost equals to ever slightly higher power until some altitude is reached (due to ever cooler intake air benefiting it) and then slowly going down. So we will have engine doing 1300 HP at 57 in HG at sea level, and same engine doing 1410 HP at 9800 ft (all of that is war emergency power, with ram effect, ie. aircraft in full power horizontal flight) - link
That engine was still rated to 1200 HP for take off - there is no incoming ram air to help the impeller, so the engine designers need to be on the safe side here.
I've managed to find two tables, that can show the difference between the two V-1710s, -33 and -73, note the take-off and WER are different, but military power is still the same. Also note that rated altitude is typed in the wrong column, it should've been typed under 'no ram' column:





What is not noted on those tables is that -33 wil be making 1500+ HP at 56 in at 4500 ft, and the -73 will emulate that, while also doing some 1590 HP at 60 in at 2500 ft, no ram.



Schweik said:


> Thanks I do understand the basics- what i don't grasp is how to translate that into different max HP at different boost ratings / RPM at different altitudes.
> 
> Somebody a few times in this and other threads claimed that at 57" or some other boost number a V-1710 could reach ~1,500 hp, I'd like to know if that is even possible and if so, how much risk of detonation and other issues would there be, how long could you get away with that for, and etc. Or is the max really what they indicate as the official max takeoff rating.
> 
> ...



It was possible to beat 1500 HP mark on the V-1710s, unofficially it was done before 1942, officially it was done some time in second half of 1942. link

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Apr 21, 2018)

tomo pauk said:


> If we're talking about 1-stage 1-speed S/Ced engines like many V-1710s or Merlins in service, then an ideal version of those engines woud've have the power 'curve' turned into a line, as it can be noted at graphs kindly provided by Shortround6. But, indeed the power is indeed limited at lower altitude, with S/C providing too much of boost. The boost lines can be seen as curved lines, where the same boost equals to ever slightly higher power until some altitude is reached (due to ever cooler intake air benefiting it) and then slowly going down. So we will have engine doing 1300 HP at 57 in HG at sea level, and same engine doing 1410 HP at 9800 ft (all of that is war emergency power, with ram effect, ie. aircraft in full power horizontal flight) - link
> That engine was still rated to 1200 HP for take off - there is no incoming ram air to help the impeller, so the engine designers need to be on the safe side here.
> I've managed to find two tables, that can show the difference between the two V-1710s, -33 and -73, note the take-off and WER are different, but military power is still the same. Also note that rated altitude is typed in the wrong column, it should've been typed under 'no ram' column:
> 
> ...



Fascinating, thank you. So were DB 601, Sakae, Merlin XX etc. also achieving ~300 hp over "rated for takeoff" rating?


EDIT: I thought I'd seen that memo before but it must have been a shorter one specifically about the 70" setting. It is news to me that they were routinely doing 66" and that Allison had already approved 60" by Dec of 1942. The highest i had heard was 57. All very interesting. Also the difference between the (I gather slightly higher altitude rated) 9.6 ratio vs. the 8.8 ratio blowers etc.

Next question is, why was this such a secret if it was so widespread?

And how fast does a P-40 go at ~1,700 hp!!!?


S


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 21, 2018)

Here things get a bit more complicated. The later aircraft with the 9.60 gears heated up the intake mixture hotter than the 8.80 gear engines did and started getting detonation in the cylinders at lower pressure. This restricted them from using the higher pressures that had been being used _unofficially_ in some service squadrons. There is no free lunch. Allison was rather emphatic about the 9.60 gear engines sticking to the guide lines as they knew that if the pilots tried to use the same pressures over 57in that they had been being using there were going to be a lot more wrecked engines and pilots not making it back from missions due to engine failure. 

Engines ability to make the extra power depends on surplus supercharger capacity and the ability of the fuel to resist detonation at high boost levels.
The Japanese and German fuel was, _on average_, well below the Allied fuel in this regard. 
The British certainly made use of this. A Merlin running 12lbs of boost was running 54in of manifold pressure.

So the old Merlin III which could make 1030 hp at 16,250ft (6lbs boost=42in) was rated at 1310hp at 9000ft (12lbs boost=54in) and in Sea Hurricanes 1440hp at 5500ft (16lbs boost=62in). The Sea Hurricane use was well after the BoB, required newer fuel and since they didn't really expect long life out of Sea Hurricane in any case shorting up the engine life a bit probably wasn't a problem.


----------



## Juha2 (Apr 21, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Yeah I didn't include La 5FN in the "greats" list because I just thought La 7 was kind of the definitive version of it. when did La 5FN become widely operational and relatively 'bug free"? I know some kind of La 5 were available in late 1942 or early 1943 right?
> 
> S


Summer 1943 and from autumn 1943 onwards more or less in the final form with appr. 620 km/h max speed.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 21, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Fascinating, thank you. So were DB 601, Sakae, Merlin XX etc. also achieving ~300 hp over "rated for takeoff" rating?
> EDIT: I thought I'd seen that memo before but it must have been a shorter one specifically about the 70" setting. It is news to me that they were routinely doing 66" and that Allison had already approved 60" by Dec of 1942. The highest i had heard was 57. All very interesting. Also the difference between the (I gather slightly higher altitude rated) 9.6 ratio vs. the 8.8 ratio blowers etc.
> 
> Next question is, why was this such a secret if it was so widespread?
> ...



Not that fast, the P-40 with 1700 HP, since that power was availabe at low level where the air is thick = plenty of air resistance. Though the climb would've been excellent.
Any military matter, no matter how well spread, will be deemed as secret in official docs in a time of war.
As for the over-boosting their respective engines, one needs hi-oct fuel to help out. Allies were in better position there, Axis forces not so much. So we can see many late-war German and Japanese engines outfitted with ADI systems instead, so over-boost can be achieved, and with it the engine power. The BMW 801D and S, as well as Jumo 213 were taking advantage of ever-higher rich rating of the German hi-octane C3 fuel in later part of the war.
Granted, people can use the hi-oct fuel and ADI in the same time for the best result.


----------



## Juha2 (Apr 21, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Maybe you can answer a question for me on this - I had read that the Spit VIII etc. was a "long range" version of the Spit, but in googling it recently i saw range figures of ~650 miles which sounds like 'medium' range at best. A little less than most US fighters except the Wildcat. Is that the right number? What is the actual range of the Spit VIII?
> 
> S


 Yes, Mk VIII was a long range Spit and has a reasonable range for an European air superiority single-engine fighter, according to RAF its range with max internal fuel was 660 mls, according to RAAF 740 mls. US and Japanese fighters tended to be longer ranged than their European counterparts.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 21, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Maybe you can answer a question for me on this - I had read that the Spit VIII etc. was a "long range" version of the Spit, but in googling it recently i saw range figures of ~650 miles which sounds like 'medium' range at best. A little less than most US fighters except the Wildcat. Is that the right number? What is the actual range of the Spit VIII?
> 
> S



1265 miles with a 90 imp gal drop tank: link
I didn not see any range figures for the 170 gal drop tank.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 21, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Maybe you can answer a question for me on this - I had read that the Spit VIII etc. was a "long range" version of the Spit, but in googling it recently i saw range figures of ~650 miles which sounds like 'medium' range at best. A little less than most US fighters except the Wildcat. Is that the right number? What is the actual range of the Spit VIII?



The Spit VIII was certainly longer ranged than a normal Spit. But all things are relative. The Spit VIII was longer ranged on internal fuel than a Typhoon.


----------



## Schweik (Apr 21, 2018)

tomo pauk said:


> Not that fast, the P-40 with 1700 HP, since that power was availabe at low level where the air is thick = plenty of air resistance. Though the climb would've been excellent.



Yeah this is why P-40s never broke the 400 mph 'barrier' - performance peaked at way too low alt. The climb thing made me think of something I've read in pilot accounts, apparently a standard procedure when attacked in later model P-40s (K and F/L) in North Africa was (after skidding to avoid being shot) slam the throttle forward & engage in a violent climbing turn in pursuit of the Bf 109 that was trying to climb away, and shoot them. Apparently this worked because it was the method of some of the confirmed (by which I mean, LW records show a lost aircraft) kills in Shores MAW. It also jibes with how Clive Caldwell got some of his kills 'standing on his tail' in a climb and shooting right before a stall -though of course not necessarily. He might have done that at normal power.

Speed increase would be limited but not negligible, probably at least ~20 mph or so. Climb rate would almost double temporarily and acceleration would jump up too. With takeoff rated settings a fully loaded p-40K has a hp/lb ratio of a fairly sedate 0.16. But at say, 1,600 hp its a more respectable 0.19 and at 1,700 hp it's at 0.20. If you assume they used ~500 lbs of fuel by the time they got engaged, change that to .20 for 1,600 and .21. Roughly equivalent to a Spit VB. This would make a P-40 much more dangerous at low altitudes for the LW.

EDIT: For further comparison Bf 109F-4 power to weight is .18 at military power and .21 at WEP based on a combat weight of 2890 kg / 6371 lbs.

If they were using 60" at a standard power setting then presumably that means for 15 minutes.

I think this should be mentioned on the P-40 Wikipedia page.



> Any military matter, no matter how well spread, will be deemed as secret in official docs in a time of war.
> As for the over-boosting their respective engines, one needs hi-oct fuel to help out. Allies were in better position there, Axis forces not so much. So we can see many late-war German and Japanese engines outfitted with ADI systems instead, so over-boost can be achieved, and with it the engine power. The BMW 801D and S, as well as Jumo 213 were taking advantage of ever-higher rich rating of the German hi-octane C3 fuel in later part of the war.
> Granted, people can use the hi-oct fuel and ADI in the same time for the best result.



Very interesting. So Allied engines could really boost way over the takeoff power rating (assuming the good fuel is available) but German fighters not necessarily so.

S


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 21, 2018)

Schweik said:


> ...
> Speed increase would be limited but not negligible, probably at least ~20 mph or so. Climb rate would almost double temporarily and acceleration would jump up too. With takeoff rated settings a fully loaded p-40K has a hp/lb ratio of a fairly sedate 0.16. But at say, 1,600 hp its a more respectable 0.19 and at 1,700 hp it's at 0.20. If you assume they used ~500 lbs of fuel by the time they got engaged, change that to .20 for 1,600 and .21. Roughly equivalent to a Spit VB. This would make a P-40 much more dangerous at low altitudes for the LW.
> 
> If they were using 60" at a standard power setting then presumably that means for 15 minutes.
> ...



The 'standard' boost on those V-1710s was still up to 44.2 in Hg - meaning, at 3000 rpm, that was allowed for 15 minutes, it was called 'military power' and it meant 1150 HP at 11800 ft. Any boost above 44.2 in Hg, be it 50, 56, 60 or 70 in Hg was war emergency power, Allison (company) clearing up to 56 or 60 in Hg, depending on how strong engine was.
The later V-1710s, with 9.60:1 S/C drive, were rated for lower max boost, but were better at high-ish altitudes (above ~10000 ft).
Wikipedia is a thing of it's own, and many times it gets figures annoyingly wrong.



> Very interesting. So Allied engines could really boost way over the takeoff power rating (assuming the good fuel is available) but German fighters not necessarily so.
> S



Not all the engines were conceived the same. We'd have liquid-cooled engines (Merlins, V-1710s, Griffons) taking advantaage of better fuel readily and reliably. Of course, newer versions were even better. The Soviet engines were not that well suited, even though the AM engines went to close to 60 in Hg by 1945, but then Soviet fuel was not that hi-oct as WAllied. Radial engines were also not that good in taking advantages of hi-oct fuel, the ASh-82, Hercules and BMW 801D, plus a good deal of US radials were decent, other not so much.
Plenty of it depended on engine internal strength and compression ratio used (the lower the better for a supercharged aero engine of ww2).

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


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 21, 2018)

To add to Tomo a lot of engines were limited by cooling. The air cooled engines especially were often operating closer to the temperature limits. Trying to run higher boost could push them over the limit sooner and once detonation started very bad things could happen real quick. AIr cooled engines were known to blow complete cylinders off the engine on occasion when subject to detonation. Air cooled engines were called severe duty engines in fuel development circles while liquid cooled engines were moderate duty. Just because you can use fuel "A" at 60in in a liquid cooled engine doesn't mean you can use at 60in in an aircooled engine and going further, just because air cooled engine A allows 52 in to be used with fuel "A" doesn't mean that aircooled Engine B can.

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


----------



## Schweik (Apr 21, 2018)

All fascinating stuff guys, thanks a lot. This helps explain both how certain squadrons did so well with the P-40 and also why they used certain specific tactics.

A split-S / power dive "escape maneuver" is much more likely to be successful (almost a cinch) if you can boost to ~1500 hp for example. Same for the climbing turn I mentioned. I'm sure the turning circle advantage would be even greater as well.

On the WEP, my understanding is that originally it was rated for 5 minutes, but after mid 1942 it was rated for 15 minutes. Anyway from what i have read the P-40K with the V-1710-73 was rated for 15 minutes at 57". Now we know that they could actually go up from there quite a bit so maybe 57" had effectively become "military power" and 66" was WEP i don't know...

S


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 21, 2018)

No, anything over 42-45in on an Allison was WEP power 
see. http://zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/P-39/P39SEFC.pdf

For limits on a P-39Q. 
ANY use of WEP called for a notation in the log book. Now as time went on it may have taken more notations or notations of longer periods of use before the engineering officer decided to change the plugs or check for metal particles in the oil or take 10-20 hours off the life of the engine before pulling for overhaul. 
This is also subject to operational requirements and the availability of spare spark plugs and spare engines. Engineering officer is using his best judgement to balance extra wear and tear on the engines with need to keep planes in the air with his manpower (mechanics) and spare parts. 
Pilots did not use anything over military power no matter how briefly and NOT tell crew chief/engineering officer. 

and again, if you had an engine with 9.60 supercharger gears, 66in was forbidden, _ever, _upon penalty of holing a piston or putting a rod through the side of the block. Maybe the Russians did it but a forced landing on Russian soil was a lot different than a forced landing in the Pacific Ocean.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Apr 21, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> No, anything over 42-45in on an Allison was WEP power
> see. http://zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/P-39/P39SEFC.pdf
> 
> For limits on a P-39Q.
> ...



I think the need for WEP was much more pressing for Anglo-American fighters operating in the Med or over the ETO than in the Pacific - they had more of a speed / dive advantage they could exploit against Ki-43 and A6Ms for escape / disengagement.

From what I read, when they landed the crew chiefs could immediately tell if they had been 'pushing the engine' because you would usually see scorch marks and oil coming out of them.

From what the Russians said the oil was a big issue for them. Once they got their 'oil culture' sorted out they were able to push the P-39s and P-40s a lot harder. They also mentioned if an engine was 'making metal' (i.e. metal particles in the oil) which they new was a sign of doom so to speak, so that jibes with what you are saying.

S

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 21, 2018)

Schweik said:


> From what I read, when they landed the crew chiefs could immediately tell if they had been 'pushing the engine' because you would usually see scorch marks and oil coming out of them.



I don't know about the entire war but for period the crew chief could tell by looking at the throttle in the cockpit. Before takeoff there was a thin wire fastened across the throttle gate with a seal. If the plane came back with the wire intact then the pilot hadn't used the the WEP, if it came back broken or missing then he had.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 21, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> I don't know about the entire war but for period the crew chief could tell by looking at the throttle in the cockpit. Before takeoff there was a thin wire fastened across the throttle gate with a seal. If the plane came back with the wire intact then the pilot hadn't used the the WEP, if it came back broken or missing then he had.


Certainly the case in WW2 Hawker Tempests with a similar arrangement for breaking wires

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dan Fahey (Apr 21, 2018)

It is interesting that WW2 planes engines did not have oil or air filters.
So contaminates also were a cause for early wearing out of the engines.
Peace time operations also ran engines at lower HP levels!
Combat pushed the engines to their limits as it was a life death situation.
Maximum performance and how to get it became a game.
Germans standardized on 96 octane fuel and used ADI or NOS to improve performance.
Allies had 100, 130, and 150 octane, Radial engines adding ADI for more performance.
German engines were 37 liters to our 28 liters and rarely ran them above 2800 rpm.
The Allison was pushed to 3600 rpm, mostly limited to 3200 and the Merlin 3000.
Some of the later British Sleave Valve engines went to 4000 rpm 
To get more power the Germans would bore out their engines and port and polish the runners.

Always wondered what a Reno Racer air speed would be at best altitude?


----------



## pbehn (Apr 21, 2018)

Dan Fahey said:


> It is interesting that WW2 planes engines did not have oil or air filters.
> So contaminates also were a cause for early wearing out of the engines.
> Peace time operations also ran engines at lower HP levels!
> Combat pushed the engines to their limits as it was a life death situation.
> ...


any chance of some evidence for these assertions?


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 21, 2018)

When comparing engines you have to look at a lot of things.

And once a country starts on a few engine designs they tend to get stuck with them, you cannot retool factories on a whim. 

The DB 601 and Jumo 211 were much larger displacement engines than the Merlin and Allison. But the aircraft designers don't give a hoot about displacement. 
This isn't auto racing, Planes are not divided up into classes depending on the displacement of their engines. 
The Merlin III, the Allison C-15, The early DB 601s and the early Jumo 211s weighed within about 100lbs of each other, they were within a few inches in width and in hight and they made similar power at similar altitudes. Merlin bit ahead.

The Germans had traded displacement for RPM. Since everybody started with 87 octane fuel (mid 30s) nobody could use much more boost than anybody else. 
Germans went with a large displacement but lightly stressed engine (low rpm) rather than a high rpm engine.
And BTW, Rpm can very misleading, it depends on what you are trying to compare. For comparing pistons, rods, crankshafts and bearings a much more useful figure in piston speed. An even better figure is the corrected piston speed which is the mean speed divided by the square root of the stroke to bore ratio.
This gives a much better indicator of the bearing loads. 
And please note that bearing loads, like many other things (like friction) go up with the square of the speed. 

I would also note that once you get to high powered aircraft engines everybody was polishing the ports/runners. Nobody was going to leave rough cast surfaces and then have to put more HP into a supercharger to get the desired airflow. 

Once the Germans (or the British) were tooled up to make certain engines they had to stick with what could be made on prtty much the same tooling machinery.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 21, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> When comparing engines you have to look at a lot of things.
> 
> And once a country starts on a few engine designs they tend to get stuck with them, you cannot retool factories on a whim.
> 
> ...


​I read recently that Rolls Royce considered the limit for internal combustion engines was 6" bore and stroke. Above that there were problems of detonation and flame front stability, below it you are not making best use of the space you have.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 21, 2018)

pbehn said:


> I read recently that Rolls Royce considered the limit for internal combustion engines was 6" bore and stroke. Above that


 
Some engine designers did differ but they were up against some very real limits. Like the speed of the flame travel through the cylinder. They wanted the burning of the fuel to be complete or nearly so when the crankshaft was 20 degrees past top dead center. This allowed for a useful expansion of the gases as the piston continued to descend and before the intake valve opened. Just about ALL these engines used fixed ignition timing so whenever the plugs fired, it had to work for idle and max RPM, it was a bit of a compromise. Even with two spark plugs per cylinder staring flame fronts in different places a bit over 6 inches in bore was about as big as you could go. You could go a bit bigger if you went to three spark plugs in each cylinder but the vast majority of engine builders wanted to avoid that. 

Stroke was limited by piston speed. 3000fpm of piston speed was about all the current bearing technology could handle. Even post war and into the early 50s may racing cars had corrected pistons speeds of around 3500fpm, in fact the 1951 1 1/2 liter BRM V16 had a corrected piston speed of 3529 (at 11,000rpm) the fact that the Merlin had a corrected piston speed of 2846fpm back in the mid 30s tends to put things in perspective. Under square engines get a pit of a break, over square engine get a bit of a penalty to help account for the size/weight of the pistons. This is a theoretical figure but one that has held up over time. You can kind of track progress with it. 

But there you have it. some basic limits on the size of a cylinder that could be used which meant, with a given type of fuel limiting the pressure inside the cylinder there were some limits as to what the engine designer could do. 
It also allows us arm chair engineers to evaluate engines a bit better. For example the Hispano 12y engine was a 36 liter V12 that weighed under 1100lbs. It had 2mm more stroke than a RR Griffon and 2mm less bore and yet weighed only about 54% as much. Were the French really smart or would the Hispano 12Y simply not run as fast and stand p to as much pressure in the cylinders? 

This also explains the push to 24 cylinder engines. With 87 octane fuel they were hitting the limits on how much power they could get from one cylinder and the were about at the limit of how big that cylinder could be leaving more cylinders as the only option. 

Better fuel solved a whole bunch of problems.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Apr 21, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> I don't know about the entire war but for period the crew chief could tell by looking at the throttle in the cockpit. Before takeoff there was a thin wire fastened across the throttle gate with a seal. If the plane came back with the wire intact then the pilot hadn't used the the WEP, if it came back broken or missing then he had.



Although there were some manufacturers that utilized this wire (Vought comes to mind), it wasn't a universal practice like some people tend to believe it was.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 21, 2018)

Maybe it wasn't universal but you need a better system than looking for scorch marks and _more oil than usual_ on the outside of the plane. These planes used gallons of oil per flight. A P-47 could use a couple dozen gallons in one flight.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Apr 22, 2018)

I can see your point entirely. In the case of the Hellcat it had a physical limit stop (not a wire) which had to be breached for WEP. This was a point beyond the "full throttle" setting used during normal take-off. The pilot would be fully aware that he did this. There was also the added feature of an ADI tank gauge on the right side of the instrument panel showing the amount of water-alcohol solution, if any, that was used during the flight. And I would think that Navy mechanics had their own "special ways" of investigating for the possible use of WEP without having to resort to asking the pilot....

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dan Fahey (Apr 22, 2018)

pbehn said:


> any chance of some evidence for these assertions?


Yes go read


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 22, 2018)

Dan Fahey said:


> Yes go read



Wow...


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 23, 2018)

Dan Fahey said:


> It is interesting that WW2 planes engines did not have oil or air filters.


Not sure what you mean by this, but they most certainly did.
For example, the DB601 had it's oil filter located at the rear of the engine, right below the throttle gearbox and fuel pumps.
The Allison V-1710 had it's oil filter on the right-rear of the engine, located below the fuel injector feed tube, sometimes referred to as an "oil strainer".
Most radials have their filter or "sock" located at the sump pickup - the BMW801's oil filter was located at the rear of the engine, by the oil heater, and had an advanced oil sludge filter, too (schlammablass).


----------



## pbehn (Apr 23, 2018)

Dan Fahey said:


> Yes go read


I have, engines did have oil filters (see post above) and most in desert environments had air filters, the Spitfire 's was called a Vokes filter. The rest of your post is actually just a comparison of engine stroke, which when multiplied by RPM gives piston speed, see post by S/R.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 23, 2018)

Dan Fahey said:


> It is interesting that WW2 planes engines did not have oil or air filters.
> So contaminates also were a cause for early wearing out of the engines.
> Peace time operations also ran engines at lower HP levels!
> Combat pushed the engines to their limits as it was a life death situation.
> ...



Where is proven beyond doubt that:
- WW2 planes engines did not have oil or air filters
- Germans standardized on 96 octane fuel
- German engines were 37 liters to our 28 liters
(and 'our' - who are 'we'?)
- The Allison was pushed to 3600 rpm, mostly limited to 3200
- Some of the later British Sleave (!) Valve engines went to 4000 rpm
- To get more power the Germans would bore out their engines and port and polish the runners.



Dan Fahey said:


> Yes go read



Sending fellow members to a wild goose chase instead of providing exact answer(s)? Not a way to earn respect among the members.

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


----------



## pbehn (Apr 23, 2018)

Easy to overlook what is happening in an engine.
An engine turning at 3,000RPM is doing 50 Revs per second, that is the piston goes from TDC to BDC and back to TDC, so it starts and stops 100 times per second. On a six inch stroke motor the piston covers 50 ft per second but stops 100 times per second.
Increasing the revs to 3,600 the piston covers 60 ft per second but stops 120 times per second. The mean piston speed increases in a linear fashion with revs but the maximum speed increases exponentially as do the engine loads.
Merlin_______ Bore 5.4" stroke 6"
Griffon______ Bore 6 " stroke 6.6"
Alison V 1710 _Bore 5.5" stroke 6"
DB 605______Bore 6.06 stroke 6.3"
Sabre _______Bore 5" stroke 4.75"

To produce power the combustion/explosion must exert pressure on the piston, as revs increase on long stroke motors the piston accelerates as fast as the flame front which is why and how you can increase revs and decrease power in addition to blowing everything to pieces.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 23, 2018)

Allisons were rated at 3600rpm. However this was the _allowable over speed_ in a dive with the throttle part closed, this was usually for some brief period of time like 20 or 30 seconds? Throttle was not fully closed to keep the prop from trying to turn the engine. Somewhat of a balance was needed. The engine was in no way, shape or form making anywhere near rated power while doing this. 
later Allisons got the _allowable over speed _raised to 4000rpm? 
There is some discrepancy between what Allison said the later 12 counterweight cranks could do and what the USAAF put in the manuals. I believe ALlison said the 3200rpm limit but the USAAF held to the 3000rpm limit on many (but not all?) of the engines. This was the end of 1943/beginning of 1944 so it doesn't really affect too many planes except late P-38s. 

This is a problem with fastening on one little tidbit of information and trying to make a big deal of it. Without context (time of use or scale of use) it doesn't really tell us what was going on or just confuses things.
In 1941-42 _some units _in the field were overspeeding Allison engines but this was not approved by either Allison or the USAAF/RAF high command (unless someone has docurmantion to the contrary).

I believe the Merlin was also allowed a fair degree of overspeed in a dive.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Apr 23, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> This is a problem with fastening on one little tidbit of information and trying to make a big deal of it. Without context (time of use or scale of use) it doesn't really tell us what was going on or just confuses things.
> In 1941-42 _some units _in the field were overspeeding Allison engines but this was not approved by either Allison or the USAAF/RAF high command (unless someone has docurmantion to the contrary).
> 
> I believe the Merlin was also allowed a fair degree of overspeed in a dive.



The Russians are the only ones I know of who specifically mentioned flying at higher RPMs - when I read that I assumed they really meant overboosting (higher manifold pressure). Now I understand the context a bit better.

What would the advantage of over-revving be over overboosting, or do the two go together?

The latter (overboosting) seems to have been a semi-institutionalized practice though. The Allison memo linked upthread noted that Allison itself had already approved 60" Hg manifold pressure as a WEP setting before Dec 1942, and referred to 'near 70"' as a common practice among "The Australians" and 66" as a common setting among unnamed American squadrons operating in North Africa. They specifically mentioned throttles being "rewired" for that power setting.

This matches anecdotal evidence of many pilots commenting on overboosting P-40s as a combat adaptation.

So given the substantial power increase and corresponding improvements in speed, acceleration, and climb (and probably dive acceleration as well and perhaps turn radius too) I think we can assume that it was a militarily significant practice on the strength of that document alone, especially in light of all the anecdotal comments.

I have also read anecdotal reports (in MAW for example) of P-40 squadrons having a particular aircraft which was known to be faster than the others. One of them was involved in a friendly fire incident when it shot down a Spit Vc from 1,000 yards after a long chase.

This may represent a modified engine or throttle, or it may just be a better build quality or something.

S


----------



## Schweik (Apr 23, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Maybe it wasn't universal but you need a better system than looking for scorch marks and _more oil than usual_ on the outside of the plane. These planes used gallons of oil per flight. A P-47 could use a couple dozen gallons in one flight.



Of course. Any good crewchief would be looking the plane over and have many other ways to tell. I just remember reading references to this specifically from the Russians and USAAF squadrons in the Med; i.e. they said that looking at the plane when it landed they could tell if it had been 'pushed' from the extra oil stains and scorch marks behind the exhaust stacks.

S


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 23, 2018)

Trouble with this is if the engine was "pushed" in the morning and then flew in the afternoon did they really have time to clean the morning oil stains of and repaint the area behind the exhaust stacks before an afternoon flight? 

Sometimes due to weather no flying was done for days at a time and at other times several missions were flown in one day.


----------



## Schweik (Apr 23, 2018)

Some comments on rpms / Allison engines by Golodnikov

Part 2

"*N. G.* The Tomahawks had the Allison engine, not very good, but in itself powerful. As one pushed it to full RPMs, toward maximum output, it would begin to �make metal� [tiny metal particles in the oil]. But apparently it was our fault because, we were told, we had insufficient �oil culture�. Later the Americans modified the engines and in the Kittyhawks the engines were more powerful and reliable."

Presumably he means V-1710 from the P-40K which was the mount of a lot of Soviet aces including I think Golodnikov himself. I think one of the reasons he liked the P-40 was he was mostly flying the later types.
...
"*N. G. * So they say. Normally, pitch and throttle are coordinated in the following manner: more RPMs�reduce pitch. This is how the linked system worked. However, when we were trying to overtake the enemy in a dive or conversely to break away, for maximum acceleration we needed to increase RPMs sharply. Initially the propeller was loaded up and only later was pitch reduced. If in a dive, with the increase of RPMs the propeller pitch was reduced immediately, the propeller would begin to function as a brake. German aircraft were good in the dive. In a fighter with a linked throttle-pitch system in a dive we either fell back or he caught up to us. Therefore we always preferred a separated or de-linked system."
....
* "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 the Tomahawk was equal to the Bf-109F and the Kittyhawk was slightly better.

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

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

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

I flew somewhere around 50 combat sorties and participated in 10�12 aerial engagements in the P-40. Then the regiment became the next in line to replace its equipment�for the P-39 Airacobra."

This last quote refers to engine modification improving acceleration.

S

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Apr 23, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Trouble with this is if the engine was "pushed" in the morning and then flew in the afternoon did they really have time to clean the morning oil stains of and repaint the area behind the exhaust stacks before an afternoon flight?
> 
> Sometimes due to weather no flying was done for days at a time and at other times several missions were flown in one day.



Yes I'm aware - I don't really know how they could distinguish but apparently they could. I know that leaked oil would often get on the windscreen so they may have at least wiped them down between sorties even if they were doing 3 or 4 a day as they certainly sometimes did.

S


----------



## Schweik (Apr 23, 2018)

A little bit more from Golodnikov on throttle settings etc.

"In horsepower, of course, it would have been nice to have more power in the P-40 air frame. But the genuinely noticeable deficiency of thrust-to-weight ratio became palpable only toward the end of 1943.

* A. S. Was there a special high-output regime?*

* N. G. * There was no supercharger per se, but it had a special regime called �full rich��which delivered an enriched fuel mixture. This capability was employed to achieve especially high output, and this system was not abused. The mixture selector had three positions. MIN [minimum] was for economical flight. AUTO RICH was for normal flight. FULL RICH was for maximum power. The majority of flights were executed on AUTO. Over the ocean or during routine patrols we normally placed the selector at a position midway between AUTO and MIN. This was both economical and enabled us to maintain sufficiently high speed.

* A. S. Could these regimes be used at all altitudes?*

* N. G. * Yes, all altitudes. The engine smoked a bit on FULL RICH, but the power was there.

* A. S. Was this engine capable of higher altitudes than the Hurricane�s engine?*

* N. G. * Somewhat; we could freely climb up to 8,000 meters. It was particularly good at 4,000�5,000.

* A. S. What about the propeller?*

* N. G. * The P-40 had two types of propeller. With the electric propeller, the pitch was regulated by an electric motor, and with the mechanical propeller, conventionally with levers and rods. The electric propeller was automatic, with combined control by the throttle and pitch. The throttle quadrant had a rheostat and the movement of the lever automatically regulated the pitch. The Tomahawk had the electric propeller, while the latest Kittyhawks had mechanical propellers. Both types of propeller were reliable."


----------



## Schweik (Apr 23, 2018)

I just found another very interesting excerpt from that Golodnikov interview which for some reason was left off of the article on that lend-lease air force website. It's clearly the same interview though.

The book is *Barbarossa and the Retreat to Moscow: Recollections of Soviet Fighter Pilots.* It's on google books here.

Pages 130-131

I think it highlights the strengths of the P-40 against the Bf 109 and especially in comparison to the Hurricane, this is almost exactly the conclusion I had come to from reading a lot of other interviews, but I'd never seen as concrete of an example.

"An example of the P-40 in action/ One time we were flying Tomahawks. Four of us engaged six Bf 109Fs and shot down three without losing one of our own. We did this employing correct tactics and the aircraft did not fail us. Here's how it went. We were flying at an altitude of 3,000-4,000m. The Germans in the bf 109Fs were 500m lower. We attacked them with surprise, out of the sun, at a good speed. They never saw us. We shot down two in the first pass, leaving four. They reacted appropriately, dispersing in pairs and attempting to engage us in battle in the vertical plane, counting on the superiority of the Messer in this manoeuvre. We also split up and entered the battle 'pair versus pair'. This was our kind of fight! We shot down the third right away, since the P-40 did not lag behind in the vertical (we had a good reserve of speed) and was superior to the Messer in horizontal combat. Their will to fight quickly left them. They split up, went to full power, and broke away in a steep dive.

If we'd been flying Hurricanes, we wouldn't have been able to impose such an active and aggreessive combat. The main strength of the P-40 was its speed.

I shot down a Bf 109F. I was a wingman and the German pilot attacked my leader. He failed to see me or just didn't take me into account (I think that he just didn't see me). I noticed him from far away. I saw him attacking my leader. I had quite good experience and knew the habits of German pilots well. If I'd been less experienced, I'd have opened covering fire, just repelled the German, but I decided to shoot him down. I calculated when he would open fire and planned my manoeuvre so that I'd catch him. Of course it was a serious risk. If I made a mistake, i would have lost my leader - an infamy that would always live with you! So I had to manoeuvre in a way that I'd not lose my leader and open covering fire at any moment. In general, when the German was in the position to fire 100m behind my leader, i was 25m behind the German. I opened fire: two large calibre machine guns at point-blank range. It sounds like a long story to tell, but in the battle this all lasted just a few seconds."

I think what he means specifically in talking about 'the main strength of the P-40 was its speed" is in reference to dive speed. The Hurricane couldn't dive quickly. Aside from dive speed the Russian pilots (including Golodnikov) noted that the P-40 was pretty slow in acceleration, unless 'pushing' the engine.

There is also a bit more about the hurricane which he compares to "flying a pterodactyl" due to it's ponderous handling.


----------



## MiTasol (Apr 23, 2018)

slaterat said:


> The p 40 was too heavy and its climb rate too slow to be equal to the 109. Canadian P 40 ace Stocky Edwards had a chance to fly both and he considered the 109f superior. He states that it was difficult to fly the Kittyhawk to its strengths and lateral instability and jamming guns made it tough to succeed in combat involving violent aerial manueovres.
> 
> Slaterat



The one thing that all these comparisons that I have seen is they fail to identify which models of each aircraft.
Gun jamming was a problem not only on P-40s but also on almost all US aircraft. Given some of the cartoons on the subject the main problem was sloppy handling of the assembled belts


----------



## Schweik (Apr 23, 2018)

MiTasol said:


> The one thing that all these comparisons that I have seen is they fail to identify which models of each aircraft.
> Gun jamming was a problem not only on P-40s but also on almost all US aircraft. Given some of the cartoons on the subject the main problem was sloppy handling of the assembled belts



James "Stocky" Edwards also specifically mentioned that the P-40K cured most of these problems he had with the P-40E - esp. lateral instability, which was an issue at takeoff and in requiring the frequent use of trim tabs when changing speed, but also the issue with gun stoppages which was gradually fixed (in late model E and K on out) by some changes made starting in 1942.

As you noted that was also an issue with Wildcats, early Hellcats and Corsairs, and even to some extent with P-51s. I'm not sure they ever fully resolved it but changes in how the ammunition was stored (plus probably improvements in the maintenance culture) seem to have greatly alleviated the problem by late 1942.

S


----------



## Schweik (Apr 24, 2018)

Ok so I've been thinking about a couple of questions based on that new Golodnikov interview excerpt. Maybe people here can answer.The Soviets repeatedly mention removing the wing guns (at least in some squadrons) from P-40B/C Tomahawks, but I've never seen a photo of one without wing guns. In general I'm wondering what a "Field Mod" Tomahawk of the type Golodnikov describes would really be like.

EDIT: Does this one have wing guns?






Do any of you know of a photo of a Soviet Tomahawk with wing-guns removed?
How hard could you overboost or overrev one of those early V-1710 on the Tomahawk ?
How much weight savings would removing the 4 .30 cal wing guns and their ammo, charging systems and so on give you.
What kind of performance increase would that translate to?
Did the RAF or Americans ever remove any wing guns in Tomahawks? (I know this was done in Kittyhawk / Warhawks)
I can guess as to all these but just wondering what other peoples opinions might be.

S


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 24, 2018)

Amazing - the P-40 with number 58, as the type was represented in the PG3


----------



## Schweik (Apr 24, 2018)

tomo pauk said:


> Amazing - the P-40 with number 58, as the type was represented in the PG3



Forgive my ignorance - what is PG3? Page 3?

EDIT: Another possible candidate though i can't tell






It's probably just hidden by the dark area of the fuselage but I thought I would throw it out there.


----------



## Greg Boeser (Apr 24, 2018)

Since the .30 barrels protruded from the wings of the P-40B and C, these are apparently gun free wings. At least #58. The one above appears to have barrels protruding.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 25, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Forgive my ignorance - what is PG3? Page 3?



Panzer General 3 'Scorched earth', turn-based strategy game dealing with ww2. I've played and modded it a lot.


----------



## Schweik (Jun 15, 2018)

Noticed this interesting tidbit on wiki today. It is taken from Shores MAW vol 1

"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."

Between Bf 109F-4 vs. P-40 B/C I wouldn't have expected quite those results. 3 RAAF and 112 RAF were good squadrons, and Aces Neville Duke and Bobby Gibbes made claims that day so maybe that is part of the formula for (relative) success here.


----------



## Dan Fahey (Jun 15, 2018)

One of the things that is not well discussed. US and British used 100 octane as the prime fuel because of availability. However the Brits used their 100/130 octane on US aircraft like the P51 and P40. Describing them as different beasts. Which is where you hear of the 70 inchesmanifold pressure used on the Mustangs. I wonder what fuel was used most in Africa and CBI. Burma Oil controlled by the Brits refined fuel. If so created different blends. Africa the fuel was shipped in from the US and Britain or Egypt. General Montgomery and Alexander always had a 4 to1 ratio of troops vs the Axis. Most of them were to protect the Suez Canal. They also took over Syria and Iran oil from the Italians. Had Hitler by passed Moscow and headed for Iran there would have been a different conversation. 

The P40 with an extra 100/200 hp would have give the Me109 fits. Especially at combat weight!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 16, 2018)

Dan Fahey said:


> One of the things that is not well discussed. US and British used 100 octane as the prime fuel because of availability. However the Brits used their 100/130 octane on US aircraft like the P51 and P40. Describing them as different beasts. Which is where you hear of the 70 inchesmanifold pressure used on the Mustangs.



And P-40s too.



> I wonder what fuel was used most in Africa and CBI. Burma Oil controlled by the Brits refined fuel. If so created different blends. Africa the fuel was shipped in from the US and Britain or Egypt. General Montgomery and Alexander always had a 4 to1 ratio of troops vs the Axis. Most of them were to protect the Suez Canal. They also took over Syria and Iran oil from the Italians. Had Hitler by passed Moscow and headed for Iran there would have been a different conversation.
> 
> The P40 with an extra 100/200 hp would have give the Me109 fits. Especially at combat weight!



Well they rated the P-40K for 60" Hg manifold pressure for 1580 hp 'officially' for both V-1710-39 and V-1710-73, apparently due to pressure from combat units, so I think that actually did happen. From what I gather so far it only really worked at very low altitude. Unofficially per the memo I linked above you'll notice that Allison acknowledges that they (Australians and and unnamed US Fighter Group in the Middle East) were running P-40s at 70" or 66" of mercury too for what they estimated was ~1700 hp (again only down low).

The P-51 memo you are probably referring to noted that the English were running P-51A / Mustang I and II at 70" mercury for up to 20 minutes without problems, and that is on the V-1710-39 I believe, whereas the -73 was much stronger.

The memo also specifically mentions that it was safer to do this using "amendment 5" fuel (item 4 on the memo). So I assume that is higher octane

Overboosting was also of course done with Merlins, both on Spitfires and Mustangs and P-40s too. And Hurricanes no doubt.

S


----------



## Dan Fahey (Jun 17, 2018)

Schweik said:


> And P-40s too.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The added boost does impact higher altitudes! Figure a few more thousand feet of useful performance. Interesting that performance tables were not developed using Combat operations Boost levels. The P40 should have hit the 380mph mark. The impact was in climb and sustained turn performance. 

The early Allison supercharger was redesigned. Allowing for higher boost performance as it wore out the gears on earlier models. 

Again was DAF using British 130 octane or US 100 octane?

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 17, 2018)

Dan Fahey said:


> The added boost does impact higher altitudes! Figure a few more thousand feet of useful performance. Interesting that performance tables were not developed using Combat operations Boost levels. The P40 should have hit the 380mph mark. The impact was in climb and sustained turn performance.
> 
> The early Allison supercharger was redesigned. Allowing for higher boost performance as it wore out the gears on earlier models.
> 
> Again was DAF using British 130 octane or US 100 octane?



This test gives an example of climbing at higher boost. They took a P-40N-1CU and climbed at 57" mercury (nominal WEP rating)

Climb rates were

Sea Level
1000 ft / 57" / 3100
2000 ft / 57" / 3140
3000 ft / 57" / 3180
5000 ft / 57" / 3220
6800 ft* / 57" / 3370
7500 ft / 55.5" / 3270
10000 ft / 50.5" / 2930
12500 ft / 46.25 / 2610
15000 ft / 42.25 / 2300

*6800 ft was the 'critical full throttle height' ,meaning after that the boost started gradually declining.

Note that in the test - the plane got to 15,000 feet in 5 minutes flat. Rate of climb actually increased until the plane got to 6800 ft. but then declined sharply. Without boost the initial climb rate (in another test also posted to wwiiaircraftperformance.org) for the same plane was 2,300 fpm and it took 6 and a half minutes to get to 15,000 ft.

I wasn't aware the supercharger was redesigned, unless you mean the change in gear ratio. I know they strengthened the crankshaft considerably on the V-1710-73


----------



## Dan Fahey (Jun 17, 2018)

Schweik said:


> This test gives an example of climbing at higher boost. They took a P-40N-1CU and climbed at 57" mercury (nominal WEP rating)
> 
> Climb rates were
> 
> ...


----------



## Dan Fahey (Jun 17, 2018)

More of a redesign upgrade using larger bearings to prevent gears galling at high pressure! Field reports from CBI where the Early Tomahawks we’re losing power after a few hundred hours. Again coming from snipit comments from field reports. Russians experienced the same issues. Later model Allison SC were able to overboost without failing.


----------



## Schweik (Jun 17, 2018)

Dan Fahey said:


> More of a redesign upgrade using larger bearings to prevent gears galling at high pressure! Field reports from CBI where the Early Tomahawks we’re losing power after a few hundred hours. Again coming from snipit comments from field reports. Russians experienced the same issues. Later model Allison SC were able to overboost without failing.



The Russians had all kinds of maintenance problems with P-40s but in part that was due to their not realizing the importance of keeping dust out of the oil etc., not having spare parts and being forced to drill holes in all kinds of systems to drain out all the fluids every night during Winter.

S


----------



## Dan Fahey (Jun 17, 2018)

Schweik said:


> The Russians had all kinds of maintenance problems with P-40s but in part that was due to their not realizing the importance of keeping dust out of the oil etc., not having spare parts and being forced to drill holes in all kinds of systems to drain out all the fluids every night during Winter.
> 
> S


Not to mention there were no oil or air filters. Plus their oil quality was poor. They quickly caught up. But maintenance in minus 20 degree weather did not help.

The P40 N made good power and equal to the late model zeros. What was the power and performance when the Brits by-passed the boost limiters and went to 70 inches?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 19, 2018)

Found an interesting example of overboosting in combat. First my sources and then some background:

The anecdote comes from the diary of an American P-40 pilot with the 57 FG, George Mobbs, who survived the war with 4 victory claims. This was in "P-40 Warhawk Aces of the MTO" by Carl Molesworth (Osprey 2002) on pages 15 and 16.

I cross referenced it with Christopher Shores (et al) Mediterranean Air War Vol II, pages 365-368

In the leadup to El Alamein, Allied squadrons started engaing in more aggressive tactics against the Luftwaffe by bombing and strafing their fighter bases. On Oct 9, 1942 there was a massive raid at a LW base at what they called El Daba. DAF aircraft / forces included:

92 Sqn RAF (Spitfire Vc)
301 Sqn RAF (Spitfire Vc)
250 Sqn RAF (Kittyhawk III)
450 Sqn RAAF (Kittyhawk III)
5 Sqn SAAF (Tomahawk IIb)
2 Sqn SAAF (Kittyhawk I)
4 Sqn SAAF (Kittyhawk I)
33 Sqn RAF (Hurricane IIc)
213 Sqn RAF (Hurricane IIc)
238 Sqn RAF (Hurricane IIc)
335 Sqn RAF (Hurricane IIc)
1 SAAF (Hurricane IIc)
64 Sqn / 57 FG USAAF (P-40F)
65 Sqn / 57 FG USAAF (P-40F)

About 120 fighters in total, 80 of which were loaded with bombs.

+ and at least 62 Baltimore Bombers from 223 RAF and other unnamed bomber units, and at least 6 USAAF B-25s possibly more.

These were up against 4 /5 /6 /7 /8 and II Stab .JG 27, 7/ JG 53 from the LW (about 30 planes all Bf 109F-4 Trop), and 73,74,75,84,91,96 and 97 RA Squadrons, (about 70 MC 202 fighters).

Germans and Italians claimed 50 Allied fighters shot down in the days action, Allied claimed 10 shot down plus 50 destroyed on the ground.

Actual losses were 15 DAF (8 Hurricanes, 1 Spit, and 6 P-40s, all Commonwealth) vs. 5 Axis (4 Bf 109 F-4 Trops and 1 MC 202). 10 more German planes were destroyed on the ground and 20 seriously damaged. It's worth mentioning that two of the Bf 109s lost were indicated by the Luftwaffe as being shot down by P-40s in their records (per Shores).

DAF claims broke down as: 4 by the Spits and 6 by P-40s (3 by 250 Sqn Kitty III, 1 by 3 RAAF Kittyhawk I, 1 by SAAF Tomahawk, and 1 by a USAAF P-40F from the 57th FG). No claims were made by Hurricane pilots. The 57th FG claim was the first USAAF claim in the Med while flying as an independent American Squadron, 57 FG pilots also making a probable and a damaged claim. The anecdote corresponds to the damaged claim by a pilot called George Mobbs.

The incident occurred on *Oct 9 1942 at 10:20 AM *as 6 P-40Fs from 64th Sqn / 57th FG were escorting 18 Boston Bombers in a raid on "El Daba", an Axis base used by both Luftwaffe and Regia Aeronautica Fighters.

Spitfires flying high cover were diverted to help Hurricane squadrons in big trouble at another airfield so the P-40s were on on their own, though 250 Sqn RAF (flying Kittyhawk III) and 3 RAAF (flying Kittyhawk I) were operating in the same area at the same time.

Incident to follow in the next post.


----------



## Schweik (Jun 19, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Found an interesting example of overboosting in combat.
> 
> The incident occurred on *Oct 9 1942 at 10:20 AM *as 6 P-40Fs from 64th Sqn / 57th FG were escorting 18 Boston Bombers in a raid on "El Daba", an Axis base used by both Luftwaffe and Regia Aeronautica Fighters.
> 
> ...



This is all directly from P-40 Aces of the Med, page 16:

_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 gon 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 was running the engine at 55 to 65 inches of mercury and 3,000 rpm, so I could pretty well stay with them. *They would keep alternating the attacks between them. 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 im. I gave him a squirt and nothing happened. I moved over a little and changed my sighting, and on about the third burst his aeroplane burst into flames and fell off to one side. i was going to watch him go down so i would have a chance of getting credit for one destroyed, but one of the other jokers attacked so i was busy evading him. However, I spotted the first one moments later a few hundred feet below me, still spiraling down, but I never got another look at him after that.

I was still in a hole. 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. I could see the aeroplane jerk each time I pulled the trigger but saw no debris or fire from it., and I was driven away by the other one. attacking. I must have hit the Jerry, because I never saw him again.

Now I just had one to worry about, but on his next attack I finished my ammunition. He kept following and attacking, but with just him to worry about, I was making pretty good time back toward our lines. On another attack we met head-on, and I didn't think he fired his guns. I didn't see them, anyway, and i was already out of ammunition.

We were down pretty low by then - 1000 ft - and the German ack-ack had opened up at me. But I was going so fast that they were shooting behind me. *I had everything forward. I was running awfully hard*, and the ack ack was getting pretty close to the Jerry behind me.* It was kind of amusing, becuase it looked as if I was going to make it back if my engine didn't quit. *We were so low that I could see the ack-ack gun emplacements below.'

In fact the engine in 1Lt Mobbs' P-40F did hold together and the Bf 109 gave up the chase. The American returned safely to base, where he was awarded one Bf 109 probably destroyed for the mission. Four days later, Mobbs recorded his first of four confirmed victories during a scrap with 20 Bf 109s over El Alamein.
_
Mobbs probable claim was later downgraded to a 'damaged'.

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.

DAF losses were 4 (USAAF lost one P-40F in the action, plus a Spitfire was FTR -apparently a recon plane that blundered into the fight- and 2 Hurricanes collided). 4 SAAF Kittyhawks were also damaged but made it back to base. Germans claimed 8 (5 P-40s, 2 spitfires and a P-39). Once again significant overclaiming by the Germans. If you are generous and give them the two Hurricanes that is still 2-1, otherwise it's 4-1.

Analysis to follow in the next post.


----------



## Schweik (Jun 19, 2018)

From the previous anecdote, I conclude the following:

Based on the German records, Lt. Mobbs 'damaged' claim may have been a victory after all. Possibly making him an Ace since he had 4 confirmed later in his tour. Its hard to say for sure but Germans lost three fighters in that area at the same time - the victories may have been from RAF Kittyhawks. The other LW loss was later and in a different area.

This is a clear example of overboosting to 55" - 65" Hg. You can certainly understand why.
It sounds like he was alternating from 55" to 65", both settings would be considered WEP, and the fight appears to have lasted much more than 5 minutes though it doesn't indicate precisely how long it actually was.
He was able to hold his own fighting three Bf 109s from the elite JG 27 unit, possibly shoot at least one of them down and then outrun another.
From all this I conclude that using overboost, P-40F could outrun Bf 109F-4 (Trop) at low altitude
I also conclude P-40F was at least an even match with the Bf 109F-4 (Trop) at low altitude, maybe a little better.
German overclaiming is notable in both incidents and by a wider margin than Allied claims. 4-1 LW vs 2-1 for DAF on Oct 9, and 2-1 LW vs 4/3 DAF on Oct 13.
It is also possible that he was actually fighting MC 202s or that he made it all up. But considering that his victory 4 days later over another bf 109F-4 it seems to be legitimate and backed up by German records I doubt it.

Comments welcome of course.

S


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 19, 2018)

Uh, If he was flying a P-40F then he had a Merlin engine.


----------



## Schweik (Jun 19, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Uh, If he was flying a P-40F then he had a Merlin engine.



So?


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 19, 2018)

So a lot of this thread lately (and a few others) has been about how good the _Allison _powered P-40s were when over boosted. 
The P-40F had a lot more power higher up and didn't lack much (if any) unless very, very low compared to the P-40E/K. 

There are arguments that the Merlins should have been stolen from the P-40Fs (at the factory ) and used in early Mustangs because the Allison was so good at low altitudes. 
Also please note that 12lbs boost (54.3in?) was the _normal _take-off rating for the Merlin V-1650-1 used in the P-40F and that 61in was the WEP power setting listed in the pilot's manual. 48.2in was the military rating and 44.2in was the max continuous. 
It doesn't sound like this pilot was exceeding the recommended limits (or what would become the official limits?) by very much.


----------



## Schweik (Jun 19, 2018)

I have similar DAF accounts with Allison engined P-40s as well (mainly Kittyhawk III or P-40K), though they don't all mention the throttle settings. They do mention running down or out-running Bf 109s.

I know we were discussing Allison engine overboosting in another thread, but the point here is per the Op and Thread Title - could P-40s contend with the Bf109. 

While I think it's quite clear P-40 pilots suffered from the poor to limited altitude performance of the type, and inexperienced pilots or those using flawed tactics (flying in Vic formations, lufberry circles and so on) died quite a bit being bounced by Bf 109s and MC 202s. The altitude performance issue, especially with the Allison variants but with the Merlin ones as well to a lesser extent, was the major flaw or vice of the P-40. One never addressed.

Once they learned to fight disciplined - they could take advantage of two known virtues of the P-40 -dive and maneuverability, and one which they developed or learned in combat - overboosting. I am now convinced that on high boost, down low, the P-40 was a beast. I believe this is why it was still viable through 1943 even into 1944, despite not appearing to be on paper. The dive as disengagement coincides with excellent low altitude performance (using boost) to make for a dangerous opponent. 

Still not very comfortable for pilots since they always faced the prospect of being bounced from above, and therefore often had to concede the first round to the enemy. 

And frustrating for commanders because they could not escort heavy bombers or do a very good job of intercepting high flying targets.

This to me explains why the P-40 seems to be at once so hated especially by senior officers and administrators, and so loved by some of the pilots who flew them (in spite of the big flaw). They would get you home. The 'ruggedness' was of course a factor, but a limited one. No amount of ruggedness won't save you from a shower of 20mm cannon shells, or even one well aimed machine gun bullet. The dive, maneuverability (high speed roll rate especially even though it turned well too) and the beast like low altitude performance is what saved lives.

S


----------



## Schweik (Jun 19, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> So a lot of this thread lately (and a few others) has been about how good the _Allison _powered P-40s were when over boosted.
> The P-40F had a lot more power higher up and didn't lack much (if any) unless very, very low compared to the P-40E/K.



According to my records, the V-1650 / Merin 28 on the P-40F/L got up to ~1450 hp at max boost, whereas (by mid 1942) the P-40E was rated at 1470 hp at the 'official' WEP setting of 56" and the P-40K was rated at 1550 hp at it's official WEP setting of 60" Hg. Both engines were reportedly sometimes operated at overboost as high as 66" or even 70-72" Hg for over 1,700 hp. 



> so please note that 12lbs boost (54.3in?) was the _normal _take-off rating for the Merlin V-1650-1 used in the P-40F and that 61in was the WEP power setting listed in the pilot's manual. 48.2in was the military rating and 44.2in was the max continuous.
> It doesn't sound like this pilot was exceeding the recommended limits (or what would become the official limits?) by very much.



65" is overboost for that engine, by a considerable margin. And it's obvious he was using it a lot longer than 5 minutes. It means he was probably operating at ~1,500 hp or more.

I believe the 61" rating had actually developed from combat experience, increased from a previous lower rating. Much like the "official" WEP rating had gone from 45" to 57" for the Allisons and in the field 60" (secretly acknowledged by Allison) and routinely 65" - 72" by actual combat units, for up to 20 minutes according to that report on the Mustang I.

In this case it appears Lt Mobbs was running his P-40F on 65" boost for more than 20 minutes. Enough Hp for long enough to outrun a Bf109F-4.

S


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 19, 2018)

There is little argument from me that the P-40 could pull above it's weight in certain circumstances. Sometimes well above. 
For the Generals however those circumstances were too limiting. The same "investment" in ground crew(and supplies) airfield space ( dispersal points) and fuel/ammo supplies) could be used by more "all round" aircraft. 

Even in your example the P-40Fs were initially given top cover by Spitfires until the Spits were called away to cover the Hurricanes. 
what the starting set up ( no plan survives first contact with the enemy) would have been with P-40Es instead P-40Fs I don't know.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 19, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> There is little argument from me that the P-40 could pull above it's weight in certain circumstances. Sometimes well above.



Maybe not from you, but read through the earlier pages of this thread - a lot of people can't get their head around it. Many people will never admit that a P-40 could hold it's own with a Bf 109 or an A6M. I myself wasn't sure a couple of years ago.



> For the Generals however those circumstances were too limiting. The same "investment" in ground crew(and supplies) airfield space ( dispersal points) and fuel/ammo supplies) could be used by more "all round" aircraft.



I agree with you - if I was a General I'd want a more capable plane. But the reason that the P-40 endured so long and saw action in so many places all around the world is that so many intended replacements failed (or had extended teething troubles), so few types in production could hold up to the attrition, and P-40 pilots managed to keep shooting down enemy aircraft in spite of their major flaw.

We tend to forget how late the P-51B (and later) types were to the show, so to speak. And while you and I know how much trouble they had with the P-38, or the operational limitations of the Spitfire, that doesn't always make the translation to the general public.



> Even in your example the P-40Fs were initially given top cover by Spitfires until the Spits were called away to cover the Hurricanes.
> what the starting set up ( no plan survives first contact with the enemy) would have been with P-40Es instead P-40Fs I don't know.



Yes but contrary to legend, USAAF P-40s did not typically have Spitfire or P-38 escorts for high cover. P-38s were used to escort the 4 engine heavies at 25k', and still had trouble. Spits had limited range and were mostly used to defend the airbases and on shorter-ranged raids.

P-40Fs often escorted P-40K or P-40E on fighter bomber sweeps. Both the RAF 'Wings' and the USAAF Fighter Groups did this, though especially the latter. USAAF P-40Fs were also used a lot to escort medium bombers, mainly A-20s and increasingly, B-25s.

At least this was the pattern from Autumn of 1942 through spring of 43. Shores Vol III book ends in May. After that there seems to have been a lot of air to air action at Panterelina, Sicily, and Italy, particularly at Anzio where they were contending with Fw 190s quite a bit.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 19, 2018)

I would also note that anecdotes are not really good indicators of service _averages._
when you build engines by the 10s of thousands some perform much better than _average_ and some perform worse.

Anecdotes for Merlins include. 

" I had to return from Nurnberg in a Wellington II on one engine and used maximum boost and rpm on a Merlin X for 5 hours with no sign of distress"

The Captain of Lord Mountbatten's Avro York,
" We struck the most appalling weather with extraordinary icing conditions. To maintain height I had to use 2850rpm and +12lb for 3 hours."

One Lancaster pilot is supposed to have lost an engine on climb out and continued on to bomb Stuttgart on 3 engines running at climb power for the whole trip. 

Perhaps not examples of overboosting but certainly operating engines well beyond recommended book limits.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jun 19, 2018)

Merlin 24, which is generally similar to the V-1650-1, had the following ratings at +18psi boost (66.4inHg MAP):

Takeoff: 1,610hp @ 3,000rpm
MS: 1,640hp @ 3,000rpm @ 2,000ft
FS: 1,500 @ 3,000rpm @ 9,500ft

With 100/150 fuel the boost could be taken up to +25psi (80.8inHg MAP) and the ratings would be:
Takeoff: 1,730hp @ 3,000rpm
MS: 1,730hp @ 3,000rpm @ sea level
FS: 1,780hp @ 3,000rpm @ 4,000ft

The engines could probably take the over boost on lower grade fuels, but detonation would be a big risk.


----------



## wuzak (Jun 19, 2018)

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/V-1710_Service_Use_of_High_Power_Outputs.pdf


----------



## Dan Fahey (Jun 20, 2018)

Schweik said:


> According to my records, the V-1650 / Merin 28 on the P-40F/L got up to ~1450 hp at max boost, whereas (by mid 1942) the P-40E was rated at 1470 hp at the 'official' WEP setting of 56" and the P-40K was rated at 1550 hp at it's official WEP setting of 60" Hg. Both engines were reportedly sometimes operated at overboost as high as 66" or even 70-72" Hg for over 1,700 hp.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If they were over boosting. That would,mean they were using the British 100/130 octane fuel. Not the US 100 octane fuel.
Can someone verify this?

D


----------



## Schweik (Jun 20, 2018)

Dan Fahey said:


> If they were over boosting. That would,mean they were using the British 100/130 octane fuel. Not the US 100 octane fuel.
> Can someone verify this?
> 
> D



They didn't need 130 octane fuel to overboost - it just made it safer to overboost _more_. I think it had to do with spark plugs fouling among other things.

I believe the Americans also had high octane fuel, I think up to 150. Shortround do you know?

S


----------



## Schweik (Jun 20, 2018)

wuzak said:


> http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/V-1710_Service_Use_of_High_Power_Outputs.pdf



Yes been posted many times. There is also this memo which discusses overboosting on British (Allison Engined) mustang Is - up to 72" for 20 minutes with no 

E-GEH-16


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 20, 2018)

The US used the British fuel in WW II as far as I know. It was only used in Europe. The Americans were working on a 115/145 fuel which became standard post war but I don't believe any was used during WW II. The Americans wanted the higher lean number to improve cruise performance. 

The 100/150 fuel (and perhaps the 115/145) was more likely to foul spark plugs even if the extra boost was not used during a flight. 
There was no extra power unless the extra boost was used.

There were two kinds of detonation. One was sort of a warning and gave symptoms a bit like a car engine climbing a hill, a rattle or pinging/banging noise coming from the engine. This _could _lead to piston or piston ring problems with pitting of the piston top or in extreme cases melting a hole in the piston top. 
This was the result of fuel igniting due to compression (or hot spots) in places away from the spark plugs and the flame front/s from the different sources of ignition meeting and squeezing the remaining mixture between them and causing it to ignite in a more violent manner. 
If bad enough you could get the entire contents of cylinder flashing at once (detonating) rather than 2 or more competing fame fronts moving across the cylinder/piston top. When this happened things could get catastrophic pretty quick. It sometimes happened before the piston hit top dead center so the explosion was trying to turn the crankshaft backwards. This resulted in broken pistons and/or bent/broken connecting rods and crankshaft damage or damage to bearings.
It sometimes tried to lift the cylinder head on V-12 engines (stretching or breaking bolts/studs) and on air cooled engines had been known, on occasion, to blow a cylinder completely off the crankcase. 
It took very brave (or desperate ) pilots to really push the detonation limits in flight. 

I would note that some pilots who pushed things a bit too far might be listed as lost under "unknown causes". Just because pilot A used 70 inches for 20 minutes on Tuesday morning doesn't mean that pilot B got away with it on Thursday afternoon. Different air temperature, different engine with more hours on it, spark plugs not in the same condition. 

Or pilot A used the 70in for 20 minutes on Tuesday and the plane flew on Thursday and Friday and then the engine lost a bearing or threw a rod on Saturday on take-off. 
Can the squadron engineering officer trace Saturday's failure back to Tuesday?

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 20, 2018)

Yeah I hear all that, but this is pretty clear to me:

"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. "

This guy was recommending a policy change specifically for units in North Africa. I don't think he would have been that definitive if he had any reason to believe they were getting engine failures after running hard (though no doubt, 20 minutes at 72" would shorten the time to the next overhaul).

I also read your comments on how hours between failures may be calculated and how bearing failure wasn't the same as engine failure. However a couple of facts come to mind:

We know they were overboosting at similar rates in the Med as well, and
We know that an engine failure even at low altitude did not automatically mean pilot death in fact
Hundreds of DAF pilots in fact did survive crash-landing their fighters at low altitude and live to tell the tale
...and we know the P-40s in general and Allison engined ones in particular did not have a reputation for mysterious engine failure, to the contrary.
Most engine failures were due to combat damage and quite often they made it home in spite of bullet holes, even damaged radiators. I read 3 anecdotes so far of pilots landing to let the radiator cool down and taking off again, and two of a guy actually reparing his engine somehow and taking off again to make it back to base.
So while I concede that it's possible a plane flying back over the channel at 50' had a sudden engine failure and just died mysteriously, to be listed as FTR or whatever, but I can tell you they didn't have that mysterious, unknown losses of P-40s in the Med. It's maybe 2 or 3% of their losses. They were usually aware of the cause and they certainly tracked the causes as much as they could.

I'm confident that General Born knew what he was talking about in that memo when he suggested they increase the default boost settings on the throttles, and I'm confident they would know if they were actually getting high losses as the result of overboosting.

S


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 20, 2018)

You also have cross timing, The memo is dated August of 1943. They had stopped production of Allison P-51s in May, 3-4 months earlier.
The Americans had a grand total of 55 F-6A photo planes (P-51s) with -39 engines (the ones the British were over boosting in Europe) with 8.80 supercharger gears.
They had 500 A-36s with the 7.48 supercharger gears and there was no way those engines would every reach 70in of manifold pressure without running the engines well beyond 3000rpm. (which is another can of worms)
ANd then the US had 260 P-51As with 9.60 supercharger gears (V-1710-81 engines) and these were the ones that the Allison reps were really worried about as the higher gear ratio heated the intake air more and pushed the engine closer to the detonation limits. which is why Allison only rated them at 57 in WEP power. 

I really have no idea what planes he was suggesting that the boost limits be raised on.
The F-6As which were about the only planes/engines that would actually hit those limits were used by two squadrons in North Africa/Italy. The 154th observation squadron and the 111th Photo Recon squadron. 
It didn't matter what the British were doing with their -39 engines in hundreds of Mustang Is if your Mustang/Apaches in North Africa/Italy have different engines with different supercharger gears.


----------



## Schweik (Jun 20, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> I really have no idea what planes he was suggesting that the boost limits be raised on.
> The F-6As which were about the only planes/engines that would actually hit those limits were used by two squadrons in North Africa/Italy. The 154th observation squadron and the 111th Photo Recon squadron.
> It didn't matter what the British were doing with their -39 engines in hundreds of Mustang Is if your Mustang/Apaches in North Africa/Italy have different engines with different supercharger gears.



Well, in 1943 the DAF still had a couple of thousand Kittyhawk I and Ia (P-40 D and E) fighters which used the same V-1710-39 in that Mustang, and several hundred Kittyhawk III (P-40K*) fighters both in RAF / Commonwealth use and in some of the American Fighter Groups, which used the V-1710-73 -which as you know is a reinforced, tougher (and therefore higher rated) equivalent of the -33. Both of which engine types had the low 8.8 gear ratio and could be (and we know, _were_) overboosted to very high manifold pressure settings.

Also while I'm sure the higher geared -81 and -110 etc. Allisons were a bit riskier to boost all the way up to 72", it's clear that they did overboost them as well. The Allison memo recommends using the higher grade fuel. They didn't say anything about reducing overboost below their already agreed to level of of 60".

The 1943 Mustang memo is mainly relevant in that it confirms and reinforces the 1942 Allison memo. If they could boost Mustang I to 72" with V-1710-39 for 20 minutes with no engine damage, I don't see any reason why they couldn't do the same with P-40Es flying with the same engine, except possibly for Desert conditions.

By the way the Soviets did mention specifically running Kittyhawk engines at higher RPMs to increase power. When I first read that I thought it was a mistranslation of increased manifold pressure, but it may have meant running higher RPM to increase boost potential.

S

*RAF Kittyhawk III category also included P-40M which had the higher 9.6 gear ratio.


----------



## RCAFson (Jun 20, 2018)

Allison engine overboost in late 1942 US mock combat trials:



> 9. ZERO vs P-3D-1:
> 
> Climb from sea level to five-thousand (5000) feet
> indicated. Take-off was accomplished in formation on signal.
> ...


We can see above that it wasn't possible to use 70in boost under the conditions of the test. The low altitude to which 52in boost could be maintain is also noted.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 20, 2018)

I think the whole idea of the P-40s using 70in of manifold pressure is a bit (or more than bit) overdone, in regards to P-40s having much higher than book performance and being able to outperform German aircraft. 
I have no doubt it was done although with a number of the planes not having pressure gauges that read that high some accounts may be a little suspect. (pilot estimated base on far the needle swung back around past zero?) 

Mechanical or perhaps physically we have a bit of a problem. The engines with the 8.80 gears were only capable of making 66in of pressure in the manifold sitting on the ground at sea level on a "standard" day. (15 degrees C). the extra 4in of pressure had to come from forward speed or over revving the engine (or both). 

Please note that in often posted Allison memo of 12-12-42 that on page two it says that 1780hp can be achieved with 70inches on a 75 Degree F day *but only by running the engine at 3200rpm. 
*
This rather amazing amount of power disappears rather rapidly in fight. Without over revving the the engine it depends on Ram (and staying very, very low)
The Ram is from the forward speed of the aircraft and should the aircraft slowdown (hard G turn or climb) the airspeed falls off and the RAM declines. 
As an example (poor as it is a different engine and different intake) a Spitfire V with Merlin 45 engine lost 1.7in of MAP dropping from 369mph to 195mph at 13,000ft.

This in itself isn't too bad but the Allison was straining to hit that 66in number to begin with. If the plane is at 3000ft the fall from 29.92 in (round to 30) of outside pressure to 26.81in means without Ram the 66in the manifold has dropped to 58.98.

I think we can see that even with RAM a P-40 or Allison Mustang is NOT going to be climbing using 70in of MAP for very long. At 2000ft the numbers are 27.82in for ambient air and 61.2in for manifold pressure without RAM. This is pretty much why Allison rated the -39 engine at 1480hp at 4300ft at 56in of MAP. At 3000 rom on a standard day the supercharger was maxed out and simply will not supply any more air without the assistance of RAM, there is NO 70in at 4300ft, there is NO 66in at 4300ft, you are lucky to get 60in at 4300ft without over revving the engine by several hundred RPM. 
as for power between the 4300ft mark and the rated 11,700ft point? you are going to loose about 1.67in of MAP for every 1000ft you climb until you get to the 11,700ft mark and the 44.6in of MAP, not a whole lot of extra power at 10,000ft. 

Please note there will be a slight difference between a Mustang and a P-40 because the higher speed of the Mustang will create higher pressure in the intake duct before the Carb/supercharger (RAM)

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 20, 2018)

I don't know how often they used 70 or 72" but it's clear that they did, the Allison and Mustang memos both spell it out quite unambiguously.

It's also clear you have a hard time getting your head around it but I am definitely not phased by that. You have a lot of knowledge about engines but you don't know everything and frequently disagree with period sources that don't agree with your calculations or theories. It's far more likely to me that you simply haven't considered all the variables.

I have no way of knowing what precise rates of overboosting were most common. I might find out more if I continue to aggregate pilot testimony for a while, but that is limited - and sadly few WW2 pilots are still around. No doubt full 70" was only useful on the deck, but there are so many sources on overboosting now, including with the 9.6 ratio engines, that it's quite clear it was not only a widespread practice, by some point which may have varied Theater to Theater, it was probably universal.

To date, I have basically no information on overboosting Tomahawk era P-40s (Bs and Cs and their equivalent) so I'll skip those.

But when the P-40E first arrived, the official 'WEP' rating was 45" Hg - or at least that is what some squadrons were being told. It was pressure from the pilots which nudged it, and all the other standard settings (takeoff power, military power etc.) upward. Particularly foreign pilots who had bought the planes and could do whatever they liked with them. Then Americans too. First to 51 then 56 or 57", then (per the Allison memo) to 60". The Allison memo mentioned 66" as standard practice in an unnamed unit in the Med, that may have been the sweet spot for them.

The memo on the P-40N shows overboost / WEP did most definitely play a siginifcant role in climb. It shortened the time to 15 and 20,000 ft but it also nearly doubled the climb rate down low, and that of course would make a big difference dogfighting. Fights between aircraft tend to move downward over time.

This combined with the P-40s good dive acceleration and very high dive speed, as well as good high speed handling and specifically roll rate, translates to a routine escape maneuver (Split S and dive down followed by a roll right and turn right). After the escape maneuver, if followed, apply overboost and outperform the enemy like in the example I cited already.

here is another example by the Australian Ace Bobby Gibbes. He doesn't mention specific throttle settings but it's clear his acceleration was greatly increased in the (V-1710-73 powered) "KItty III"

_"Well I was a poor shot. Air to ground I think I was a very good shot. I could group my bullets and make sure they didn't run through. I could hold them on target while I went in and strafed. But air to air I certainly missed an awful lot of aeroplanes I fired at. I think the classic example was one day when I had a Kitty Mark III - I had acquired it illegally, I might say - and I had to give it back to the RAF later - but I had a little bit more horsepower than the rest of the squadron and when three 109s passed overhead or ahead of us, if I had waited to take the squadron with me, which normally I would have done, they would have got away.

But seeing them and* knowing I had that bit more power I opened the taps and went after them. *I had a look at the three of them and I thought, if I pull a lead on the number one, number three could probably get a deflection shot at me, so I thought, well, I'll get number two first. So I fired at number two. I must have misjudged their speed completely because the one behind, probably fifty yards behind, flicked over and went down smoking like hell. I looked round to see who else had shot at it but I was the only one in the sky. I then decided, well, I'll go after the number one and number two but, of course, they didn't wait for me. The one, incidentally, number three, did go in.

Yes, it was a successful mission. We had a big celebration that night in the squadron and a few of the 'Yanks' came over and they thought the shooting was quite brilliant and I had only fired very few rounds. However, during the night I managed to get quite a few grogs on board and I decided that I'd confess that I hadn't even aimed at that one, I'd aimed at the one ahead of it. And, of course, when I did tell them of course no one believed me, but it was true."_

Gibbes also said this about the Kittyhawk Mk I:

_"Well it was basically the same aeroplane. We were a little disappointed when we first got the Kitty, we thought it'd be way ahead of the Tomahawk. In actual fact, it was a little bit better. One thing I personally didn't like about it was the Tomahawk had fairly high sides and you'd be sitting behind a thin sheet of metal but you felt safer. The Kittyhawk had perspex coming way down and you felt as if you were sitting up, very vulnerable, because you could see out so much. That was one feature I do remember.* However, later when we got our Kittyhawks running properly - were getting better performance - they were a better aeroplane."*_

That sounds to me a lot like overboosting. And probably rewiring throttles as reported in the Mustang memo.

The manifold pressure gauge spinning around back to 20 actually is something that more than one pilot has mentioned. I don't see why it's so startling. I once had a motorbike that did that.

S

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 22, 2018)

Found this interesting quote in the Osprey book P-40 Warhawk Aces of the MTO, P. 65.

This was from a letter by Lt Richard T Conly of the 315th FS / 324th FG describing an April 29 encounter over Tunisia in which he scored his first confirmed victory:

'When I pulled back up, I had just climbed to about 7000 ft when another '202 jumped me at nine o'clock high. I turned into him, and he started turning to get on my tail. At this point I really swore by a P-40, because I could dogfight and *out turn him with ease*. He saw I was going to get a shot and headed for the deck, strait down. I never got farther than 100 yards behind him, and he stayed right in my sights. I watched my tracers pound into him all the way. Those good old six "fifties" raked him from the tail up. He hit the deck about 50 ft just offshore and went strait in. I almost got wet in the splash.'

Just a particularly clear anecdote out of many similar which emphasized that the P-40s flown by USAAF units at that time (mostly P-40F/L plus some P-40K) could easily out turn the MC 202 / 205, and I also have numerous similar anecdotes about the Bf 109F and G. Will post a few of those later.

It also seems he had no trouble keeping up with it in a long dive.

S

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 22, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Found this interesting quote in the Osprey book P-40 Warhawk Aces of the MTO, P. 65.
> 
> This was from a letter by Lt Richard T Conly of the 315th FS / 324th FG describing an April 29 encounter over Tunisia in which he scored his first confirmed victory:
> 
> ...


I must say that the anecdotes you quote seem very much like PR blurb, very emotive and flowery language "At this point I really swore by a P-40, because I could dogfight and out turn him with ease. " Had the pilot been in combat in any other type, did he have any connection to the aviation industry?

Reactions: Creative Creative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jun 22, 2018)

Just a note on turning.

During the BoB it was found that less experienced pilots in Spitfires could be out-turned by experienced pilots in Bf 109s. This was found in evaluations of captured 109s by experienced test pilots.

When pilots of equal experience and skill were flying the two aircraft, the Spitfire easily out-turned the Bf 109. All about knowing how far the aircraft could be pushed.

In the BoB, many RAF pilots were novices, while Luftwaffe pilots had some experience behind them.

I do not know whether a 202 could out-turn a P-40, but equally the pilot may have lacked the skill and experience to get the best out of his aircraft.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dan Fahey (Jun 22, 2018)

wuzak said:


> Just a note on turning.
> 
> During the BoB it was found that less experienced pilots in Spitfires could be out-turned by experienced pilots in Bf 109s. This was found in evaluations of captured 109s by experienced test pilots.
> 
> ...


If the P40 out turned a Italian Fighter. It was about a 1000 lb lighter because they used a good half of their fuel to travel and attack the Italian bases. The Italian Fighters were filled with fuel to intercept. So weighs would have been similar. 

That was one of the features of the P40 it had a decent range. In the combat zone competitive performance. The higher boost levels did not increase speed that much compared to the Mustang. It did improve combat speed range and climb performance.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 23, 2018)

The P-40 had a _slightly_ lower wing loading at 1/2 fuel than the MC 202 did with full fuel. As in a P-40E with 600lbs of fuel on board (1/2 fuel if the drop tank is counted.) has a wing loading of 91% of the MC 202 sitting in dispersal with tanks full but engine not started. 

A P-40E with 1000lbs of fuel gone is in serious trouble over an Italian fighter base. It has 200lbs of fuel left. 33-34 gallons. enough for 1 hour flying low and slow.
enough for 11-12 minutes using the overboost some forum members are so fond of. Not enough to do both. 

You start getting into differences in wing loading of close to 5% (P-40K was several hundred pounds heavier than the E, and the MC 202 was going to burn 150lbs or more of fuel starting, warming up and taking off.) and things get too close to call. Can either pilot really fly that close to stall? Is each plane flying the exact same speed? even a difference of 10mph is going to make a small difference in turning circle. We don't know the actual coefficient of lift at the angle/s of attack being used in the tight turns (or the coefficient of drag). 

Look at the arguments concerning the Spitfire (wing loading 24lb/sq/ft) and the 109E ( wing loading 32lb/sq/ft) and then try to figure the difference between two planes that were between 32.6lb sq ft and 35.7lbs sq ft depending on fuel state (and I am knocking several hundred pounds off the P-40 internal fuel capacity).

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 25, 2018)

Shortround6 I think this is a good example of not applying your considerable knowledge to the right data and therefore reaching (or reinforcing) an inaccurate conclusion. You are making several assumptions here which are incorrect.

First of all this



Shortround6 said:


> The P-40 had a _slightly_ lower wing loading at 1/2 fuel than the MC 202 did with full fuel. As in a P-40E with 600lbs of fuel on board (1/2 fuel if the drop tank is counted.) has a wing loading of 91% of the MC 202 sitting in dispersal with tanks full but engine not started.



Is based on what?

*Your wing loading comparison seems to be off- the P-40E had a better wing loading from the start.*

My data:

MC202 (Serie IV) Loaded Weight of 6,458 lb, wing area 181 ft², wing loading 35.67
P-40E Loaded Weight of 8,280 lb, wing area of 235.94 ft² wing loading 35.09
P-40 is lower before burning a drop of fuel. By the time they flew to a target it would be _considerably_ lower. For Bf 109s, I have seen wing loadings from 34-36 for Bf 109F-2, from 35-37 for Bf 109F-4, 37-41for Bf 109G-2 and G-4, and 41-44 for G-6. Obviously it depended exactly how they were loaded and you can find different weights for all the planes mentioned, but in the Med, when planning a fighter sweep or escort mission, they actually lightened their planes as much as possible.



> A P-40E with 1000lbs of fuel gone is in serious trouble over an Italian fighter base. It has 200lbs of fuel left. 33-34 gallons. enough for 1 hour flying low and slow.
> enough for 11-12 minutes using the overboost some forum members are so fond of. Not enough to do both.



*Where is this hypothetical Italian fighter base relative to the hypothetical American base? *

DAF pilots in fact did 1) fly over Italian fighter bases (often carrying bombs) perform ground attack, dogfight, in many cases use WEP / overboost, and then fly back to their own base, sometimes fighting all the way. Please see post 690 on this and also, for your convenience, the same passage from Google Books. Note they were overboosting over the enemy base and all the way back.

It sounds like maybe you are thinking of a base several hundred miles away, like in Italy if they were flying from Algeria or Tunisia. In the example I cited the base in question was in Tunisia about 150 miles from the DAF base which was in (North East) Algeria.

*Your fuel use calculation seems to be wrong*

We have discussed this before, but most of the fuel on the way to a target would be burned from the external tank.

*You are assuming the wrong fighter types*

You mentioned the P-40E but USAAF pilots flew mostly P-40F and L, (and a few K) by that action which was in April of 1943, it would mostly be *P-40L*. P-40L was considerably lighter than the E in part because less fuel (also 4 guns instead of 6 and less ammunition).

P-40L Loaded Weight at 8,020 lb, wing loading of 33.9
Of course, MC 202 weight varies by type and by field mod. On the upper end of the scale, by April 1943 the Regia Aeronautica were using MC 205 and they lost a few of those at that time. MC 205 was much heavier with a wing loading of around 41 lbs / ft². On the other hand, I have read from Italian pilots that said they often removed the .30 cal wing guns from their MC 202 to improve performance and that would push the weight and loading in the other direction. Also, Allied pilots routinely misidentified MC200 as the (far sexier) MC202. They were much more likely to shoot down the former.



> Look at the arguments concerning the Spitfire (wing loading 24lb/sq/ft) and the 109E ( wing loading 32lb/sq/ft) .



This is a function of people playing favorites. The Spitfire easily out-turned the Bf 109. Some people will argue the Earth is Flat but that doesn't make it so.

*Although the P-40 apparently had a better wing loading, wing loading is not the only factor in turn radius or turn ability.*

There is the wing and body shape, wing span and CLmax, though I know that is a subject of intense and (mostly fruitless) debate. Also engine power made a difference in a turn and P-40F/L or K had a bit better power, depending on altitude than the MC 202. MC205 had superior power. Both P-40 and MC 202 pilots used partial flap settings to tighten turns especially at lower speed.Handling and control forces also affected maneuverability.
*
The pilots didn't seem to live in the same world you are describing...*

.. because it was an article of faith among all P-40 pilots flying in the Med that the P-40 (and the Hurricane and the Spitfire) could easily out-turn both the Bf 109 E through G and the MC202 / MC 205. Most of the German pilots said the same thing. The tradeoff was between altitude and speed vs turn and dive. This comment by Australian Ace Bobby Gibbes from a 1993 interview is pretty typical:

_:"...its [109s] performance was quite terrific. *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. But with climb, they could out-climb us to blazes. Our best fighting ceiling was twelve to fifteen thousand feet, above that the Kittyhawk went off badly. The 109 was good up to thirty-odd thousand feet and so always we had them sitting up above us. Almost never would we find them on our level."_

This is just one typical (and short) example of combat in which they used turning to evade being shot down. This is from Ospreys "P-40 Aces of the MTO" (2002), page 34, last paragraph. Context was an early morning 24 March, the 59th FS flew a sweep back over Djebal Tebera and "encountered opposition over the target". This is from an interview with Lt Richard E. Holcomb,. who was credited with one Bf 109 damaged:

_"Lt Harry Haines and I ended up in a ground-level dogfight right over the German airbase. It was quite a fight, *as we were out-turning them* and shooting up aeroplanes on the ground while they climbed to start the fight again. We would run for home until their cannon shots came close to Harry's tail *and again we would out-turn them*. I felt sure we at least two were damaged as they left the fight but we couldn't confirm them."_

... but more importantly they made it back to base and survived the mission. There is incident after incident in which this exact tactic is described in various sources I have on the DAF pilots. Here is a direct link via google books to the above for those who might suspect me of making it up.

Incidentally, the air to air fighting on March 24 (in which US P-40 pilots made 10 victory claims, losing 1 fighter, and Luftwaffe reported 7 losses in total) was subject of a big debate upthread. In the Osprey book I found an extended pilot commentary from that day describing a couple of the victory claims which I'll transcribe and post later (even though that effort may not be equally appreciated by everybody).

S

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 25, 2018)

Schweik said:


> *Although the P-40 apparently had a better wing loading, wing loading is not the only factor in turn radius or turn ability.*
> 
> Engine power made a difference in a turn and P-40F/L or K had a bit better power, depending on altitude than the MC 202. MC205 had superior power but a much higher wing loading.
> 
> Both P-40 and MC 202 pilots used partial flap settings to tighten turns especially at lower speed. I believe on the MC 202 it was a specific setting, on the P-40 it was kind of like a dimmer switch, there was a wheel and a switch on the control column.



I should mention that in addition to using partial flap settings for some turns, Bf 109 also had the famous leading edge slats.

I have read a few anecdotes by Allied pilots saying essentially "normally they would not turn with us, if they did, it was usually trouble." I.e. (I think) 'experten'. Pure turning ability isn't or wasn't the only measure of maneuverability, for example Bf 109s would sometimes engage in 'rolling scissors' to get on the tail of Allied fighters in a dogfight, but only the most skilled / experienced pilots seemed able to pull that off. Quite often when they did dogfight, even from an altitude advantage, they suffered 'unacceptable casualties' and lost some experten that way as well.

S


----------



## Schweik (Jun 25, 2018)

pbehn said:


> I must say that the anecdotes you quote seem very much like PR blurb, very emotive and flowery language "At this point I really swore by a P-40, because I could dogfight and out turn him with ease. " Had the pilot been in combat in any other type, did he have any connection to the aviation industry?



Of all the Tropes, pet theories, rationalizations and excuses I have ever seen to explain why a given fighter was supposedly bad in combat in spite of the evidence to the contrary, this is one of the most creative. I would love to see some evidence that this pilot had a "connection to the aviation industry". I don't know, though I consider it very unlikely.

All I do know about Lt Richard T Conly is that he was a combat veteran, a pilot with the 324th Fighter Group who was credited with a confirmed victory over an MC 202 that day. This was one of 3 or 4 detailed examples of combat with an MC 202 in the book I quoted from which I ran across while reading said book. Here is a direct link via google books since you seem to hint that I might be making it up (perhaps as part of the same Curtiss Aircraft conspiracy)

If the anecdote annoys you, maybe you could take it up with Osprey, the author (Aviation Historian Carl Molesworth) or the pilot himself or his family. Maybe you could convince him to reconsider his story and his personal experiences of combat based on your theories.

S

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 25, 2018)

wuzak said:


> Merlin 24, which is generally similar to the V-1650-1, had the following ratings at +18psi boost (66.4inHg MAP):
> 
> Takeoff: 1,610hp @ 3,000rpm
> MS: 1,640hp @ 3,000rpm @ 2,000ft
> ...



I don't think the Merlin 24 matches the V-1650-1 / Merlin 28, sadly it did not have quite that much power. Max is listed as 1,300 hp for takeoff and ~1,450 for WEP, though that is not boosted to 65" (I think it's 52") as in the anecdote I transcribed. I have never heard any accounts of them boosting Packard Merlin 1650-1 to 80.8" Hg but would be very interested to learn that they did or could if you know of any such sources.

S


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 26, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Shortround6 I think this is a good example of not applying your considerable knowledge to the right data and therefore reaching (or reinforcing) an inaccurate conclusion. You are making several assumptions here which are incorrect.



How about you read what I wrote again, and quit making assumptions of your own. 

I was replying to another poster who "_claimed_" "If the P40 out turned a Italian Fighter. It was about a *1000 lb lighter because they used a good half of their fuel *to travel and attack the Italian bases. The Italian Fighters were filled with fuel to intercept. *So weighs would have been similar.* 

This poster was not you. But the fact/s remain that this is not true. 
A P-40E (or F) only held 888 pounds of fuel in the internal tanks and 312lbs in the 52 gallon external. 1200 lbs total. 1000lbs lighter due to fuel burn of 1/2 the fuel simply doesn't come close to adding up. 




> *Your wing loading comparison seems to be off- the P-40E had a better wing loading from the start.*



Please show (quote) were I said it didn't? 





> My data:
> 
> MC202 (Serie IV) Loaded Weight of 6,458 lb, wing area 181 ft², wing loading 35.67
> P-40E Loaded Weight of 8,280 lb, wing area of 235.94 ft² wing loading 35.09
> P-40 is lower before burning a drop of fuel. By the time they flew to a target it would be _considerably_ lower.



Depends on your definition of _considerably_ doesn't it? 

Again, the poster I was responding to said 1000lbs lighter and I was trying to give him at least some benefit of the doubt. Since the P-40 didn't hold 1000lbs of fuel inside I went with the 1200lb total including the 52 gallon external tank and used (as he claimed) 1/2 half or 600lbs. 

Guess what, 8280lbs + 366lbs (external tank and fittings) = 8646lbs - 640lbs (1/2 total fuel and weight of tank) = 8006lbs/ 236 sq ft =33.92 lbs per sq ft.

Maybe in your world 33.92lbs/sq/ft is "_considerably_ lower" than 35.09 but my back of the envelope calculation says it is 96.6%



> *Where is this hypothetical Italian fighter base relative to the hypothetical American base?*



Does it matter?? The other poster had the P-40s over the Italian base with 200lbs of fuel on board (assuming they started with 52 gallon drop tank)worst case.
DO you really think the P-40 could dogfight, exit, fly back to own base and land on 200lbs of fuel (33.3 gallons) Best case they had 600lbs (1.2 fuel instead of the absurd 1000lbs used in which case the fuel is a non-issue but then the wing loading doesn't look quite so good.


----------



## wuzak (Jun 26, 2018)

Schweik said:


> I don't think the Merlin 24 matches the V-1650-1 / Merlin 28, sadly it did not have quite that much power. Max is listed as 1,300 hp for takeoff and ~1,450 for WEP, though that is not boosted to 65" (I think it's 52") as in the anecdote I transcribed. I have never heard any accounts of them boosting Packard Merlin 1650-1 to 80.8" Hg but would be very interested to learn that they did or could if you know of any such sources.
> 
> S








http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Aircraft_Engines_of_the_World_Rolls-Royce_Merlin.pdf



> Merlin 25: Same as Merlin 24, but with reverse coo]ant flow.
> Merlin 28,29,31,33, 38,224,225: Similar to Merlin 24 built by Packard Motor Car Company in the United States of America.



+14psi (58.4inHg MAP)/+16psi (62.5inHg MAP) boost permitted on 100 octane fuel in Lancasters

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Lancaster/Merlin_28_Operational_Limitations.jpg
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Lancaster/Merlin_28_Operational_Limitations_10sept42.jpg
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Lancaster/Merlin_28_13april43.jpg
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Lancaster/Rating_Certificate_Merlin_28_29_31.pdf

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dan Fahey (Jun 26, 2018)

Weight of a gallon of Gasoline is 6.3 lbs per gallon.
100 gallons, 630 lbs., 200 gallon 1260 lbs.

Most P40 carried about 250 gallons internally.
So about 1545 lbs of fuel. 
Plus what ever was in the Auxillary Tank.
Some had less but you get the point.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 26, 2018)

wuzak said:


> View attachment 499511
> 
> http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Aircraft_Engines_of_the_World_Rolls-Royce_Merlin.pdf
> 
> ...




'Similar to' doesn't apparently mean the same thing as the same HP.

According to this

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Aircraft_Engines_of_the_World_Packard_Merlin.pdf

V-1650-1 ratings were

1,300 @ 54 Hg / sea level (takeoff)
1,240 / 11,500 ft (military)
1,120 hp / 18,000 ft (military)

So it's actually similar to the Merlin 24 at altitude but much lower HP for takeoff and lower down. That PDF doesn't show WEP power but like I said, that is closer to ~1450 (@60") than anything near 1,700,, at least as far as I know.

Like I said, if you find anything specifically to do with V-1650-1 / Merlin 28 being boosted to 80" I'd love to see it. Would turn the P-40F/L into a very impressive beast indeed.


S

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jun 26, 2018)

V-1650-1 had same construction, same supercharger and same supercharger gearing as the 24.

80inHg MAP was only with 100/150 fuel. Which only became available in 1944 (?).


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 26, 2018)

Dan Fahey said:


> Weight of a gallon of Gasoline is 6.3 lbs per gallon.
> 100 gallons, 630 lbs., 200 gallon 1260 lbs.
> 
> Most P40 carried about 250 gallons internally.
> ...



Actually the US figured aviation gas at about 6lbs per gallon. At least in every pilots manual I have read so far. 

Like the one for the P-40D P-40E. 

https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/p-40d-e-pdf.46566/

where 120 gallons is 720lbs
25.5 gallons is 153 lbs

and 52 gallons in the drop tank is 312 lbs. 

No production P-40 carried even 200 gallons of fuel internal let alone 250 gallons.

Most of the ones that had self-sealing tanks didn't even carry 150 gallons. 

The F and L were supposed to carry a bit over 150 gallons but the manual doesn't agree with itself. 

https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/p-40f_foi-pdf.69920/

Fuel capacities on the fuel system diagram don't quite match the fuel capacities on the weight and balance chart. 

and the P-40F & L are shown as carrying 1254lbs of fuel including the 52 gallon drop tank. 

Your source for the P-40 with 250 gallons of internal fuel please?


----------



## Schweik (Jun 26, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> and the P-40F & L are shown as carrying 1254lbs of fuel including the 52 gallon drop tank.
> 
> Your source for the P-40 with 250 gallons of internal fuel please?



Ok so half fuel is ~500- 600 lb less (rather than 1,000 lbs), say 500 to give a little margin to fight and get home... that is still a pretty big difference when it comes to performance. Same as a bomb... almost equivalent of a second crew position or two more guns.

I can't speak for the other guy but I think that is the point he was making.

This is something to think about for the A6M as well - after flying 500 miles they would be a lot lighter and perform even better. Same for a P-51 needless to say.

And of course, the Bf 109 and MC 202 (and the Spit and Hurricane) will also be flying lighter especially when flying over an enemy base, just not by quite as much of a margin.

S


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 26, 2018)

It might be nice if we tried to make our points with a little less fiction. 

I am not particularly interested in winning bar bets or arguing about the digits to the right hand side of the decimal point. 
But 250 gallon P-40s are a bit much.

I Brought up the BoB Spitfire and 109 because we have anecdotes and arguments about planes with rather different wing loadings (Spit was about 75% of the 109 and no the slats didn't make up the difference) and between the MC 202 and the P-40 the difference in wing loading was in single digits. I am not saying the MC 202 could outturn a P-40 with everything being equal, just that they were pretty close and other things may have made the difference in any particular fight. 
As for the P-40F, according the weights in the manual it had a wing loading of 37.5lbs sq ft with full internal fuel, ammo and extra radio receiver. with front wing tank empty, 235 rounds per gun and single radio receiver and transmitter it's wing loading was 36lb sq ft.


----------



## Schweik (Jun 27, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> It might be nice if we tried to make our points with a little less fiction.
> 
> I am not particularly interested in winning bar bets or arguing about the digits to the right hand side of the decimal point.
> But 250 gallon P-40s are a bit much.
> ...



I agree the wing loadings look close, but it's also true that as I noted, the Anglo-American pilots apparently took it for granted that they could out-turn Bf 109s and MC 202s, in fact specifically with the USAAF squadrons they counted on it to such an extent that they would attack enemy units with superior numbers or for example, strafe enemy aircraft on the runway in between attacks, as in the example I quoted upthread.

Russian pilots like Golodnikov said this too - if you saw them coming they couldn't get you.

Earlier RAF / Commonwealth pilots flying P-40Es against Bf109Fs seemed a lot less sanguine about the whole experience. To be frank many of them were basically terrified of the Luftwaffe but I think that is in part due to poor tactics they were using (flying extra low, not using wingmen / pairs, using defensive circles and so on) and in part due to less performance of the E vs. the later models.



> As for the P-40F, according the weights in the manual it had a wing loading of 37.5lbs sq ft with full internal fuel, ammo and extra radio receiver. with front wing tank empty, 235 rounds per gun and single radio receiver and transmitter it's wing loading was 36lb sq ft.



Well, first of all, what was in the manual wasn't necessary what they were flying with. They actually threw out any and everything they could to lighten them particularly in the Med, though meanwhile new equipment was also being added all the time too. And as a result, many different weights were quoted for the P-40F (some versions even being 20+ inches longer than the others). For example I have two books sitting on my desk right now showing the P-40F "Loaded Weight"* as 8,480 lbs and 8,069 lbs respectively. These are both with six guns by the way (more on that in a second). The heavier of those two weights (8,480 lbs) makes for a wing loading of 35.2 lbs / ft ² which is still (slightly) less than the MC 202. At the lower weight it's more like the P-40L around 33-34.

And this is with 6 guns. In the field we know that many pilots took out a pair of guns and some like the 325th FG Ace Robert Baseler took out _two_ pairs for some missions. I think this was more for speed than turning ability (which they seemed to take for granted) but who knows.

I suspect flaps may have had something to do with it. Or wing shape or wing span. I don't know.

*Not to be confused with max gross weight which may include multiple bombs and external fuel tanks and so on.

S


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 27, 2018)

Look at the manuals and look at the weight break downs in "America's Hundred Thousand". A P-40F went just under 6500lbs empty. assuming that it weighed what the specifications said. Many didn't, the example used in AHT was 109lb OVER the Guarantee weight. This is fairly normal, most planes did vary a few percent from lightest to heaviest in a production batch. However there wasn't a whole lot of "stuff" to throw out. 

Empty in this case doesn't include guns but does include armor and radios. The oxygen system was a whopping 15lbs. 

They got the L's down a bit in weight by throwing out such unnecessary "stuff" as the forward fuel tank. Saved about 125lbs of tank and sealing. Of course you only had 120 US gallons of fuel internal but what the heck, that saved another 168lbs of loaded weight. Most Ls only had four guns. 

I would note that the manual calls for a 200lb pilot and AHT calls for a 180lb pilot  
The radio was either a SCR-522A transmitter and receiver OR an SCR-274-N transmitter and receiver AND an SCR-5515A and/or the SCR-535 receiver. 

I am guessing that the SCR-535 was actually the IFF equipment as a demolition charge and switch was provided to destroy the SCR-535 to prevent it from falling into enemy hands. Apparently the other radio equipment was NOT secret. 

You can't just yank the BP glass on the later P-40Fs and the Ls as the BP glass was actually the windscreen, it was not mounted behind (or in front of) any glass or plexiglass that would seal the cockpit. 

You are running out of stuff to yank out. 

Guns and ammo were the only real options and yanking a pair of .50 cal guns was worth about 150-160lbs and the ammo to go with them (at 235rpg) was 130-140lbs. 
Please note this was done on the production line with most of the Ls along with yanking (not installing) the forward fuel tank. This got the gross (clean) weight of the P-40L down to 8120lbs (give or take) and the likelihood of getting a P-40F _much_ below that in the field (using similar modifications) is pretty slim. 

The manual called for 7027lb "basic" or empty equipped. No pilot, fuel, oil or ammo but 6 guns. having a gross weight of 8,069 lbs with 6 guns calls for a skinny pilot, less than full fuel and less than "normal" (let alone full) ammo. Or a typo? 
Manual calls for 135lbs of oil (for 720lbs of fuel) with another 23lbs of fuel for all internal tanks full. 

Lets assume we can "cut" 45lbs from the "F" by getting rid of the oxygen, the mooring kt and tool kit. etc. The we will yank two of the guns (475lbs/6 times=180lbs roundup) 180lbs for a 'basic weight' of 6802lbs, add a skinny 170lb pilot (with parachute) and 720lbs of fuel (didn't fill front wing tank) and we will only put in 120lbs of oil. Gee we are up to 7812lbs and we haven't put any ammo in the plane. 200rpg of .50 cal ammo for four guns is 240lbs, or 8052lbs gross for this combo. See weight of the P-40L.


----------



## Schweik (Jun 27, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Look at the manuals and look at the weight break downs in "America's Hundred Thousand". A P-40F went just under 6500lbs empty. assuming that it weighed what the specifications said.



~6500 empty for the six gun configuration matches most of my sources too, so we are in sync there at least.

The rest of that post though is I think a good example of a bunch of speculation (which is fine, nothing wrong with speculating) but then combined with assuming that we know everything they could or did take out of a P-40 to lighten it, in yet another vigorous effort to prove wartime sources incorrect.

In History research I tend to believe the primary source data unless I have a good reason not to. Others tend to disbelieve them. It doesn't matter that much ultimately because as more data points arrive the picture gradually becomes clearer and always changes. This is the nature of history.

Your effort here seems to be largely for naught though simply because even a very good imagination usually fails to think of everything in a machine as complex as a fighter plane.



> Lets assume we can "cut" 45lbs from the "F" by getting rid of the oxygen, the mooring kt and tool kit. etc. The we will yank two of the guns (475lbs/6 times=180lbs roundup) 180lbs for a 'basic weight' of 6802lbs, add a skinny 170lb pilot (with parachute) and 720lbs of fuel (didn't fill front wing tank) and we will only put in 120lbs of oil. Gee we are up to 7812lbs and we haven't put any ammo in the plane. 200rpg of .50 cal ammo for four guns is 240lbs, or 8052lbs gross for this combo. See weight of the P-40L.



Ok for example. In this May 1942 test of a P-40F (AC No 41-13601) to evaluate cruise speed with an external fuel tank, the weight_ with_ a 75 gallon fuel tank was reported as 8734 lbs. They specifically mention by the way this included 506 lbs of ammunition which I assume is a full load. If you subtract the external fuel tank (since this fuel would be burned on the way to the target and the tank typically jettisoned before combat) that is 450 lbs (using your 6 lb per gallon ratio, though how gas gets lighter by 0.3 lbs is beyond me) which puts the weight at an even 8284, or roughly mid-way between the two figures I originally posted above for the P-40F. And this is clearly a _fully _loaded aircraft with six guns. At that weight the wing loading is 35.11 which is still lower than an MC 202.

If you take out two guns incidentally that does put the weight at the standard Loaded Weight for a P-40L of just about 8,000 lbs. But I think they could and did get it lower than that if they wanted to (not all pilots did).

This document for example also notes that the "wing bomb racks" were installed. I don't know how much a pair of those weighed (50 lbs? 100?) but wing bomb racks are precisely the kind of thing you would _remove_ for a fighter sweep, armed reconnaissance, or escort mission and it's a good example of something you missed.

The official Loaded Weight for the P-40L in fact represents the same field stripping that was already being done to P-40Fs in North Africa, they just did most of it in the factory before the plane was delivered, saving the mechanics some time. I know that in addition to two guns and some ammo, and the forward fuel tanks, they also removed some pieces of armor plate forward of the cockpit (I think protecting the radiator) and reduced some of the radio gear (radio sets being rather heavy and bulky in 1942). Some planes were shipped with two radios, one for a squadron frequency and one for longer range - the latter were usually just put on the squadron leaders aircraft.

Lets again not forget that some P-40Fs were 20" longer than others, which also made a difference!

I don't know how well the IFF gear worked in WW2 or if they kept or not. I believe they also had radio direction finder (RDF) gear on some planes though I don't know which ones or precisely when that started. This would mostly be used when flying long distances over water such as during action against Sardania, Sicily, etc. Other optional gear included the dinghy and other water survival gear and some desert survival stuff including a couple of gallons of water. Pilots also typically stowed a bag of stuff in the little cargo hatch behind the cockpit. My conclusion is perhaps not surprisingly, I do not assume your calculations trump what all the books say, though admittedly the latter do vary in the numbers they report. Some of this variance is attributable to reporting either empty, loaded, or 'max gross' / overload weight. Some is different variants, and some is weight as in the field (stripped) while some is per factory weight or by the manual.

It is also true as I mentioned previously, at least one Italian pilot reported that the wing guns were often removed from the MC 202 which would lighten them by probably at least ~250 - 300 lbs or more. It's hard to know exactly how much weight they could strip from those as well. As a general rule, when going against enemy fighters you needed less firepower and wanted as little weight as possible - for the P-40s mainly for speed and climb not so much turning ability, but for the MC 202 presumably more for turn and roll.

The anti-fighter role was usually the mission for DAF P-40Fs and P-40Ls, at least during several extended periods (battle of El Alamein and Mareth Line, final battles in Tunisia El Guettar etc., Pantelleria / Lampedusa, Invasion of Sicily, fighter sweeps over Sardania, Invasion of Italy and the battle of Anzio) whereas RAF Kittyhawk I and Hurricane squadrons, and USAAF squadrons flying P-40K variants did more of the ground attack missions. The five USAAF Fighter Groups equipped with P-40F/Ls (57th FG, 325th, 324th, 79th and 33rd FG) mostly claimed Bf 109 and MC 202 'kills' in their tallies, whereas RAF groups claimed more Stukas and Ju 88s etc. though still a lot of fighters.

When Axis air activity subsided for a while and they were doing FB / strafing raids for extended periods (as did also happen with the P-40F/L), or during those fairly rare periods when the Axis was flying a lot of medium bomber raids and they needed to shoot down bombers (this happened against their bases and also when convoys were going by), they tended to put more guns & ammo and other (navigation and survival etc.) gear back into the plane. Strafing or shooting down bombers required more guns and weight didn't matter as much.

S


----------



## Dan Fahey (Jun 27, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Actually the US figured aviation gas at about 6lbs per gallon. At least in every pilots manual I have read so far.
> 
> Like the one for the P-40D P-40E.
> 
> ...



I deal with Fuel a lot in race cars for Drag Racing.
I see 6 lbs weight of fuel for aircraft, boats and cars used a lot.
Just easier to use as a quick multiplier.

Thought the P-40 carried as much as 250 gallons of internal fuel in the the two fuselage tanks.
Definitely off a 100 gallons. 

D

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 27, 2018)

Schweik said:


> ~6500 empty for the six gun configuration matches most of my sources too, so we are in sync there at least.
> 
> The rest of that post though is I think a good example of a bunch of speculation (which is fine, nothing wrong with speculating) but then combined with assuming that we know everything they could or did take out of a P-40 to lighten it, in yet another vigorous effort to prove wartime sources incorrect.
> 
> ...



Seems there is quite a bit of supposition and imagination going on in your post. 

Please look at the manuals posted. They are a primary source although not infallible. 
There is a major problem with the WEP power in the engine chart for instance. 

Baggage, life rafts, and assorted extras have to be accounted for somehow. 
In the weight and balance there is a line for baggage. It is blank, if you are carrying baggage fill in the amount carried. 
Life rafts (for navy fighters) might come under equipment or furnishings or some other catagory. Life rafts for army planes may have to added into the weight when fitted. As would dessert survival equipment or other things that were location specific. 

Wartime letters or accounts might very well be accurate to the best knowledge of the writer. But without either actually weighing the stuff coming out or running the "stripped" aircraft across a large scale they are estimating weight reduction. 

going back the "manual" armor in a P-40F consisted of.
A 3/8in non magnetic plate mounted forward of the instrument panel at station No 2. 
A 5/16in plate mounted forward off and completely covering the bulkhead at station no 5 
A 5/16in plate mounted on the forward side of the above plate, immediately aft of the pilots headrest. 

aside from the Bulletproof windscreen no other armor or protection is listed. (self sealing fuel takes excepted). 

Some P-40F did dispense with certain items as the production continued, like glycol spray for the Windscreen. (de-icer?) and the emergency hydraulic system (which worked on the main landing gear only, not on the flaps or tail wheel). So yes perhap some enterprising souls did rip a few things out of the earlier P-40Fs. 

As far as the fuel weight goes, I have no certain knowledge of why modern car fuel weighs more than old Av-gas. But Modern car fuel may not be made from the same base stocks or have the mix of aromatics (if any) or meet a number of the same specifications as old Av gas did. 
And BTW, even in WW II there was a difference in the specifications for 80 octane "motor" fuel and 80 octane "Av-gas" (used in trainers/light transports) as far as vapor pressures, residue, particles/precipitation and other things. 

As far as the the .3 pounds being dropped to make it easy to multiply/round off???

Think about that one long and hard.

B-17 carried 1712 gallons or 10,400lbs according to one chart in it's manual. or 6.0747 pounds per gallon. If the fuel weighed 6.3 pounds per gallon they were off by .225 lbs per gallon or 385lbs for that fuel load. Now try the 2812 gallons/16,900lb load. Being "off" by over 800lbs is not what you want just to make it a bit easier to do the math.


----------



## Schweik (Jun 27, 2018)

The manual is fine - it is indeed a primary source, but it's not the last word - we know for example they did not limit themselves to 54" Hg for WEP, right?

Just to be clear, when I'm talking about the exact, specific weight of an aircraft I'm not talking about letters home from pilots or postwar interviews or their personal opinions. I have quoted / transcribed those and will continue to do so, but in reference to other more subjective things (like if they could out-turn a Bf 109 or an MC 202, or if they used overboosting or flaps in combat).

When I am talking about something concrete and objective like the weight of the aircraft or the wing-loading, I am drawing from sources like the wartime document I already linked above, and a stack of books I have here on my desk, nor wartime letters or the opinions of Aces. I think that should be obvious.

For example in '*The Curtiss Hawks*' (Wolverine Press, 1972. Library of Congress No. 79-173429), on page 249, it mentions that the P-40L-1 (50 produced) had 'some armor eliminated'. For the P-40L -10 (148 delivered) it gets more specific - "armor removed from coolant tank".

*Curtiss* *P-40, snub nosed Kittyhawks and Warhawks* (Osprey 2013) says the same thing - Coolant tank armor removed from P-40L-10 onward

*Curtiss P-40 from 1939 to 1945* (Planes and Pilots 3 - ISBN 2-913903-47-9.) says the P-40L-5 had 448 lbs of weight removed including armor, forward fuel tanks, two guns and reduced ammunition (from 280 to 200 rounds per gun).

The dinghy and other survival gear I mentioned were all standard at least for some missions, in the Desert - as they were frequently flying over the Med.

The bomb shackles, extra radio(s), IFF system* and other gear you mentioned like auxiliary hydraulic system etc., could be and were removed. As were (typically) one pair of wing guns.

Do you contest the weight listed in the WWIIaircraftperformance document I linked upthread? Because I think that makes the point just fine.

* Which apparently didn't work very well based on what I've been reading and only affected radar which was generally lacking in North Africa)

S


----------



## Schweik (Jun 27, 2018)

Ok so in an attempt to raise the signal to noise ratio of the thread a little, here is the pilot anecdote that I had promised earlier. This is from the same hotly contested day of March 24, 1943, in which (per Shores MAW Vol III) the American P-40 pilots claimed 10 bf 109s (and US Spitfire pilots claimed 3), and lost 1 P-40 which belly landed (piloted by Robert Kantner who survived, as described below), the Germans lost 7 Bf109Gs.

This is from the Osprey book "P-40 Warhawk Aces of the MTO", page 34 from the top:

_"Col Momyer _[Ace and CO of the 33rd FG] _immediately threw his P-40s back into the fight, scheduling three missions on 24 March - the 33rd FG's first full day at Sbeitla. The morning mission was an escort for B-25s attacking an enemy airstrip near Djebal Tebeta. A gaggle of Bf 109s hurredly took off from the strip as the formation approached the target, and Capt. John Bradley, who was leading the escort, and Capt Charles Duncan broke away for a diving attack as the enemy fighters were still climbing. Bradley knocked down one of the attackers before the P-40s rejoined the formation.

The Bf 109s kept coming however, eventually following the P-40s back to Sbeitla, but losing three of their own to Lts Lassiter Thompson, Johnnie Haselby and Harold Wilson along the way. _[Capt. Charles ] _Duncan takes up the story as the P-40s reached Sbeitla:

"They followed us back to Sbeitla and disrupted our landing. In the middle of things, Lt Robert Kantner (my wingman) and I started to land because of low fuel. Kantner's coolant was shot out and he bellied in. On my landing roll I looked back to see a '109 coming down the runway intent on putting me out of commission. I went around, flaps and all, turning and 'washing clothes' (pushing the stick every which way and kicking rudder to throw him off). No hits. I decided to slow up and wait for a while.

'I then saw an Me-109 on the tail of what turned out to be John Bradley's P-40. I was 90 degrees to their flight path, so I pointed my nose at Bradley, and somewhat above, with the intent of scaring off the '109 with my tracers. I had little chance of hitting the '109, and I know I had no chance of hitting Bradley with no lead. I fired a bunch of rounds and the '109 broke off.

'Now, really low on fuel, I climbed to about 5,000 ft to throttle back and wait things out. Next I observed a '109 being chased in a climb by two P-40s. The P-40s didn't have enough power or speed to close on the '109, the pilot of which apparently thought he was in no danger. When almost on top of the '109 I fired - but only two or three rounds because that was all I had left. A puff of smoke came from the '109 as he was hit, and his reflexes apparently caused him to pull his throttle to off. I had a time "S-ing" to keep from overrunning him, and he glided in and crashed strait ahead. An engineering unit situated near to where the aircraft crashed, notified our group that *the top of the pilots head had been blown off*.'

Later that morning of 24 March, the 59th FS _[of 33rd Fighter Group]_ flew a sweep over Djebal ebeta and encountered opposition over the target."_

After that it's the part I mentioned earlier where they described out-turning the 109s.

The German pilot who got the top of his head blown off was either Lt Ferdinannd Jahn of 9./JG 77 (listed as 'shot down by a P-40' and KiA), or one of the three MIA pilots from - Hans Wendt from 5 / JG 53 (MiA), or Walter Homke, or Herfried Korner both from 6./JG 27 - (also listed as MiA that day).

S


----------



## Schweik (Dec 1, 2018)

In reference to the oft raised issue of whether a P-40 could out-turn a Bf 109

See interview excerpt here


----------



## Schweik (Dec 25, 2018)

(double post, unable to delete)


----------



## Schweik (Dec 25, 2018)

Ok so Christopher Shores Meditteranean Air War Volume IV is out. It gives us considerable data about P-40 operations in the MED, mainly merlin engined P-40F and L from the 5 US Fighter Groups operating the type in Italy and North Africa in 1943 and 1944: 57th FG, 33rd FG, 325th FG, 324th FG, and 79th FG, plus the independent 99th FS (Tuskegee) which was attached to different FG throughout 1943.

Time for an update to the relevant operational history data in this thread.

But first to review, I'm reposting previous data from earlier in the thread, this was posted earlier here:

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.

Also I've learned that *US P-40 Fighter Groups claimed 592 victories in the Med *(Source is "American Victory Roll", while *RAF KIttyhawk groupos claimed 450**. There were also at least two Free French squadrons flying P-40s but I don't have their victory claim totals handy. It is apparent that the US P-40 groups did much better in a shorter time (also suffering far fewer losses) which is probably attributable to their being issued mostly merlin engined P-40F and L, along with at least 1 squadron worth of P-40K (Allison engined but fairly 'souped up' with ~1500 hp available at low altitude). Shores also says that American pilots arriving in the Med had more training and were flying pairs etc. It's worth noting however that there were 46 Commonwealth P-40 Aces, and at least 10 RAF or RAAF double aces (six of whom had 15 or more kills in the type), while there were only 18 US P-40 Aces in the Med and one double Ace (Levi Chase from the 33rd FG).

Anyway, here is some more operational data from May, June and July 1943, coinciding with operations over Pantelleria, Sicily and Sardania. Operation Husky - the invasion of Sicily was on July 10 1943. On many of these days (and several others I didn't include in this post) P-40 pilots made claims but so did Spitfires or P-38 pilots. I included a few of those just to give a sense of it. On a few days P-40 units, especially the 325th FG, were on fighter sweeps far away from friendly fighters, and engaged Axis fighters on their own. I put these in bold.

*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*

So far I found one day in Vol IV where there were massive losses of P-40s in air combat:

July 10 1943 (Invasion of Sicily day) 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) all to undertermined reasons. German losses included 7 x Bf 109, & 4 x RE 2002

Though I have not read the book yet only skimmed it and read the pages of the above conflicts. 





The standout group here is the 325th FG "Checkertail Clan" which was assigned as escort fighters for the 2686th Bomb Wing (which included 17th, 319th and 320th Bomb Group, all flying B-26 'Marauder' Medium bombers). 325h was basically free to do fighter sweeps and fly loose escort missions and thus engaged large numbers of Axis fighters on numerous occasions.

This period was the invasion of Italy so opposition included a mix of Bf 109, Fw 190, MC 205, MC 202 and Re 2002 fighters. Fw 190s were mostly being used as Jabos and for ground attack.


* 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: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Dec 25, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Ok so Christopher Shores Meditteranean Air War Volume IV is out. It gives us considerable data about P-40 operations in the MED, mainly merlin engined P-40F and L from the 5 US Fighter Groups operating the type in Italy and North Africa in 1943 and 1944: 57th FG, 33rd FG, 325th FG, 324th FG, and 79th FG, plus the independent 99th FS (Tuskegee) which was attached to different FG throughout 1943.
> 
> Time for an update to the relevant operational history data in this thread.
> 
> ...


Thanks for posting that. Very enlightening.
Lately I've been comming to realize that the p40 was a whole lot more effective than the conventional wisdom has had it all these years.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Dec 25, 2018)

Agreed - it's also a lesson in how tactics and field modifications could make a major difference in outcomes. The 325th FG were real killers, they had a very good leader who was himself an Ace (Lt. Col. Robert Baseler) who was simultaneously flexible and disciplined.

The lightening of the aircraft (later built-in with the P-40L), tweaking the engines for higher boost, flying in pairs and using special tactics, and being able to specialize in fighter operations instead of a heavy emphasis on fighter-bomber sorties all made a big difference.






Apparently he had a competition with his crew, he kept painting 'stud' on the plane, they kept painting 'mortimer snerd' on it. It went back and forth.


One thing the 325th did on at least two occasions was to use one lower flying squadron as bait, flying out ahead of the others. The first squadron would be attacked by the Bf 109s or MC 205 / 202s, and would 'pull' their pursuers out to sea, where they would be 'bounced' from out of the Sun by the other squadron or sometimes two squadrons, while the original bait squadron would initiate a hard 180 degree turn and rejoin the fight. This is what apparently happened on July 22 and July 30, to the Italians and Luftwaffe respectively.

325th converted to P-47s in September though so their time using P-40s was pretty short. Later they converted again to P-51s.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Dec 25, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Agreed - it's also a lesson in how tactics and field modifications could make a major difference in outcomes. The 325th FG were real killers, they had a very good leader who was himself an Ace (Lt. Col. Robert Baseler) who was simultaneously flexible and disciplined.
> 
> The lightening of the aircraft (later built-in with the P-40L), tweaking the engines for higher boost, flying in pairs and using special tactics, and being able to specialize in fighter operations instead of a heavy emphasis on fighter-bomber sorties all made a big difference.
> 
> ...


Verry cool stuff. Not sure if I mentioned this already but another conventional wisdom trope about the p40 that I have read for years, decades actually, is that there were no allied units oparating the p40 in front line service in Europe by the end of the war. Well ive fairly recently found out that there were at least 3, the 450th, 250th, and I think 150th RAAF still flying p40s in fron line service right up until VE day.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 25, 2018)

Yeah as "kittybombers" - kinda feel sorry for some of those squadrons as they got turned into bomber units.

I think some of the CBI fighter units were still operating P-40s in 1945 too, like 51st FG, they converted to P-51s some time in 1945 I think a few months into it.

This is a pretty epic photo of one of their P-40s, worth a click


----------



## michael rauls (Dec 25, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Yeah as "kittybombers" - kinda feel sorry for some of those squadrons as they got turned into bomber units.
> 
> I think some of the CBI fighter units were still operating P-40s in 1945 too, like 51st FG, they converted to P-51s some time in 1945 I think a few months into it.
> 
> ...


There was at least one US unit oparating then in the CBI right up until the end. I can't remember the number right now. I'll do a little digging and see if I can remember.


----------



## michael rauls (Dec 30, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Yeah as "kittybombers" - kinda feel sorry for some of those squadrons as they got turned into bomber units.
> 
> I think some of the CBI fighter units were still operating P-40s in 1945 too, like 51st FG, they converted to P-51s some time in 1945 I think a few months into it.
> 
> ...


Schweik,
I promised I'd try and find the units oparating p40s till the end of the war in the CBI. So far the only concrete example I've been able to dig up is the 23rd fighter group.
I know ive seen reference to a couple others over the years including one group that was part Chineese pilots and partly American( i think it was officially a USAAF unit if I remember right). I'll keep looking but the 23rd is at least one of them.


----------



## Glider (Dec 30, 2018)

I do admit to getting a little piqued when accused of making mistakes, some of course are inevitable . The phrase to err is to be human is very true however context is so important in these situations. 


Schweik said:


> *May 27 1943 (US 325th FG vs. Italian 51 and 42 Stormo) 3 x MC 202 lost / 0 P-40s los*t


In reality the Italians lost 2 x Mc202 and 1 x 202 damaged whilst the 325th lost one P40 which hit the sea. The combat was 14 x Mc202 and 2 x Mc205 vs 35 x P40 escorting 26 x B26. The Italians attacked both the P40's and the B26's aggressively and the B26 Gunners claimed a total of seven Bf109. I believe it would be wrong to assume that both the Mc202 losses were by the P40's. The Damaged Mc202 was noted as being return fire presumably by the bombers.
Here with 35 escorting fighters against 16 attacking fighters some of which clearly attacked the bombers I would have been amazed if the P40's had lost more than the Italians. 


> 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


There were a number of combats this day and the total claims made by the the US forces were :-
B17 Gunners 1 x Bf109, 1 x Mc202. Note only Italians attacked this force
48 x P40 325 FG 6 x Bf109
24 x B26's being escorted by the P40's claimed 7 x Bf109
B25's 11 x Bf109 1 x Mc202 
P38's claimed 2 x Bf109
Across the entire day the Luftwaffe did lose three Bf109's but they fought a number of actions and again to assume that they only had losses against the P40's I believe would be a mistake. 
A pilot from the 325th states that he was in a unit of 48 aircraft and they spotted about 13 mixed Mc202 and Bf 109's intercepting. Again we have a situation where a heavily outnumbered Axis force attacked both the escort and the bombers so to expect them to shoot more P40's down than their losses would be a significant achievement.

I am having serious computer issues and will come back to the rest later,

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Dec 30, 2018)

Glider,

If you read that post you are responding to, I carefully distinguished between days when multiple fighters made claims, and days when only P-40 units made claims which are indicated in bold. On days when P-38's, Spits etc. also made claims it's usually too hard to tell which unit caused what losses. I included a few of those days just to convey a sense of the fighting.

Defensive gunners on bombers seemed to have usually overclaimed at a much higher rate than fighter pilots. Often ten to 1 or more, though there are some exceptions (esp. B-17 gunners seem to have scored some real kills).

I'm having computer problems too and will be limited somewhat in my responses until some time next week.


----------



## Glider (Dec 30, 2018)

Schweik said:


> 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


On this day three Bf109's were lost and no P40's were shot down. However one 109 was shot down by a Spitfire, one was damaged by Boston's, then shot down by Italian flak and the third was shot down just by the Italian flak. Not a good day for the Italian flak gunners, or a good day depending on how you look at it.
There was a combat between the P40's who were escorting B26's and 109's with claims made by both sides but the book is clear that there were no losses to either side.


> 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


There was a lot of fighting on this day in a fairly small area and there is no doubt that the allies came out on top and the numbers quoted above are good. As far as the P40's are concerned the narrative states that they believe that the 
325th fought II/JG27 twice that day losing 3 x P40 against 2 x Bf109. Two of the P40's were lost on the first mission and the third on the second.
79th FG were also involved in an action. 6 x Bf109 and 24 x Mc202 went to attack Boston's and B24's that were escorted by approx. 50 Spitfires of 31st FG and then ran into approx. 40 P40's whilst trying to extricate themselves from the initial action, with not surprisingly heavy casualties on the Axis side

I am not going to continue with this as its a major task and the point has been made. The axis forces were heavily outnumbered in most cases and more than held their own.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 30, 2018)

I guess you didn't read my last post, and clearly only skimmed the post you are replying to. I already mentioned all the other claims you listed on June the 10th for example in the original post.

The days you went over above had multiple claims by different fighter units flying different aircraft, which I already pointed out twice (so far).

The decisive actions (indicated in bold in my original text) took place on the days when P40 units were operating on their own in areas where no other Allied fighters were operating. Namely July 8, 22, 26 and 30.

All the victories on July 30 are particularly notable as only one squadron - the 317th fighter squadron of the 325th Fighter Group made claims. The fight was between that squadron and possibly one other against at least two and probably three squadrons of JG 77. The Germans claimed 5 P40s while 325 FG claimed 21 109s. Shores summary of the actual losses were "five or six" BF 109s and one P-40.

The Germans themselves reported three of their losses as "shot down in combat P-40". Pretty hard to refute.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Dec 30, 2018)

Similarly on the 22nd of July , Shores notes 325 FG encountered "a strong force of MC 202 and 205s" from two squadrons of 155 Gruppo. Actual US losses were 2 Warhawks, per Shores "...the Italian losses were considerably more serious" consisting of 3 x MC 205 and 2 x MC 202 shot down or crash landed, plus 2 more MC 205 " shot up" and 2 or 3 other non fighter aircraft I didn't even bother to list shot down.

Like in the previous example the Italians attributed several of their own losses specifically to P 40's.

MC 205 by the way armed with 2x Mg 151 / 20mm plus 2 × 12.7 mm mg so hardly "under armed."

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


----------



## Schweik (Dec 30, 2018)

As for the June 10 engagement you mentioned, you have some omissions. In your claim that the original 30 Axis fighters 6x Bf 109s and 24 x MC 202s were "heavily outnumbered" - a couple of points.

Worth pointing out all 6 of the Spitfire claims at the time of that engagement were by one (1) squadron, the 309th FS of the 31st FG. Implying that only that squadron was engaged. They claimed 6 and got 7.

Then the Axis group engaged 79th FG P 40s, and 15 of their 17 claims were by one (87th) squadron. 2 more claims were from the 85th FS. Shores in fact points out that only these two squadrons were engaged, so probably no more than 30 fighters.

The biggest omission though seems to be that you forgot to note that at least 12 x additional Bf 109s from the famous JG 27 also joined the fray when the P-40s were attacking seaplanes at low altitude. Shores mentions one of these colliding with a P 40 and losing a wing.

German casualties that day included 13 x BF 109s from (4, 5, 6 and II squadrons of) JG 27. Plus two others from JG 53 and one other unit.

Italians lost 8 x MC 202s

Shores lists 3 P 40s lost in the day, two from 325 FG and one from 79th FG

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Dec 31, 2018)

So I'm not so sure they were outnumbered at all. The Italians claimed to have engaged first 40 and then 50 Spitfires, which they claim to have shot down 9 Spitfires.

They seem to have ACTUALLY engaged one squadron of Spitfires and then two squadrons of P-40Fs, of which they shot down one of the latter.

Then at least 12 Bf 109s joined the fight and seem to have gotten waxed.


----------



## Glider (Dec 31, 2018)

Schweik said:


> As for the June 10 engagement you mentioned, you have some omissions. In your claim that the original 30 Axis fighters 6x Bf 109s and 24 x MC 202s were "heavily outnumbered" - a couple of points.
> 
> Worth pointing out all 6 of the Spitfire claims at the time of that engagement were by one (1) squadron, the 309th FS of the 31st FG. Implying that only that squadron was engaged. They claimed 6 and got 7.
> 
> Then the Axis group engaged 79th FG P 40s, and 15 of their 17 claims were by one (87th) squadron. 2 more claims were from the 85th FS. Shores in fact points out that only these two squadrons were engaged, so probably no more than 30 fighters.



That a re run of the _RAF were not outnumbered during the BOB because all the escorts were not in combat at the same time_ argument


> The biggest omission though seems to be that you forgot to note that at least 12 x additional Bf 109s from the famous JG 27 also joined the fray when the P-40s were attacking seaplanes at low altitude. Shores mentions one of these colliding with a P 40 and losing a wing.


Please read the narrative with more care. the 12 x 109s escorting the seaplane were from II/JG 27 which only lost two Bf 109's during the day. If one did crash from losing its wing then only one was shot down earlier


> Shores lists 3 P 40s lost in the day, two from 325 FG and one from 79th FG



Correct but in the narrative it is clear that he refers to three losses from the 325 FG two in the first action and one in the second. You say two I say three the book says both, you pays your money and back the one you want


----------



## Schweik (Dec 31, 2018)

So whats your excuse about July 30?


----------



## Schweik (Dec 31, 2018)

Glider said:


> That a re run of the _RAF were not outnumbered during the BOB because all the escorts were not in combat at the same time_ argument



Its funny because if you read it, its clear Allied units were often outnumbered. The opening engagement was ten Spitfires of the US 31st FG vs 36 Bf 109s.

The whole day over Pantelleria involved 7 x US fighter squadrons (307th and 309th sqns / 31st FG [Spitfires], 64th sqn / 57th FG [P-40F], 317 and 319 sqns /325th FG [P -40F], and 85th and 87th sqns /79th FG [P-40F]) and 1 x RAF (185 sqn [Spitfire IX])

Vs

9 x German fighter Squadrons (5., 8., and 9. / JG 53 and 4., 5. and 6 / JG 27) plus HQ units from both groups (II. /JG 53 and II JG 27) plus no less than 9 x Italian Sqns (154, 163, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 373 and 374)

All of the above either made claims or took losses or both. No doubt some Axis units were under strength, and you could assume that all four US FG were there in full strength (with some sqns just not involved in the fighting) but that would still be 13 Allied vs 18 Axis fighter squadrons.

There were 3 more RAF Spitfire sqns in action over Malta but even adding those doesnt change the ratio.

So I would say it is hardly a case of the Luftwaffe being heavily outnumbered, even if you really want them to be.



> Please read the narrative with more care. the 12 x 109s escorting the seaplane were from II/JG 27 which only lost two Bf 109's during the day. If one did crash from losing its wing then only one was shot down earlier
> 
> Correct but in the narrative it is clear that he refers to three losses from the 325 FG two in the first action and one in the second. You say two I say three the book says both, you pays your money and back the one you want



If you read it carefully he's saying that 2 were lost for the day.

But here's the bigger problem with your narrative. The Germans and Italians took too many losses to account for.

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 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 Bf 109s unaccounted for.

Are we to assume they all had engine trouble? UFO's? I think its more likely that at least 9 Axis fighters fell to the P 40 pilots.

If we assume roughly the same rate of overclaiming by 31st, 325th and 79th FG, it is clear that the P 40 units dominated the Luftwaffe, with probably more like 8 or 9 falling to Spits and 13 or 14 to the P -40s.

If this had been some stand out fluke I could see reason for the extreme skepticism. But its almost every day during the Pantelleria campaign.

Look at *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.

This was btw. from a large Axis unit of 40 fighters.

I agree there is wiggle room in many of these activity summaries, and you could try to push one way or the other. I had previously pointed out June 10 as just such a day. Other days are far more cut snd dry however, and the overall pattern is very clear. The P 40 had no trouble contending with late model Bf 109s, MC 205s, MC 202s Re 2002s or Fw 190s during the operations from May through July 1943 and in fact almost always came out with 3-1 or better margins. They did not always outnumber their opponents and were often on their own such as over Sardinia where 325th FG scored so many victories

S

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Dec 31, 2018)

Schweik said:


> So whats your excuse about July 30?


Small point but I don't do excuses. I try for reasons and on this day, the P40's did very well, no question.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Dec 31, 2018)

I looked at June 6 again and I think you are right about that one. Certainly can't be sure they were P 40 victories. June 7 looks solid though, 3 to 5 P 40 victories for no losses.


----------



## CORSNING (Dec 31, 2018)

This is just an FYI and probably doesn't answer anyone's questions, but it is 
somewhat interesting. The following information comes from page 247 of
AHT by Francis Dean:

"Jul,'45- The USAAF continues to use the P-40-mainly in the Pacific and
Mediterranean areas, and in July there is a single P-40N group in the Pacific."

"Jul23,'45-RAAF Kittihawks bomb a final target in Borneo. The RAAF, at its
peak, has 14 fighter squadrons, of which eight are equipped with Kittihawks.
In addition, Dutch Sdn. 120 equipped with Kittihawks, accompanied the RAAF.
The RNZAF at its peak has seven Kittihawk squadrons and has received a 
total of 293 of the Curtiss fighters." 

"(19)'49-P40N aircraft are being used by the Netherlands East Indies against 
the Indonesian rebels. This is the last combat use of the P-40."

"(19)'58-Some P-40N aircraft are still in service in Brazil."

By the way, Jeff .......

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


----------



## Schweik (Dec 31, 2018)

I found one more group that flew P-40F/L in Italy, 27th Fighter Group, previously 27th Fighter Bomber group (and a bunch of other stuff befor that going back to the Philippines as an A 24 / Dauntless bomber group)

Anyway they had been flying A-36 (P 51 dive bombers) in Italy from 1943 until Jan 44, then as the A-36 was being phased out they switched to P-40F which was complete by March. Operated as a mixed P-40 / A36 unit through Anzio.

As there were limited P-40 F or L available I suspect these were hand me downs, probably a little worn out, from the other 5 FG. Same as was done for the Free French unit. Due to scarcity of Merlin P-40s they may have also used P-40K or N though I have no evidence. The 99th FS (Tuskegee) apparently had some P-40Ns for a short period.

In May the 27th were renamed the 27th Fighter Group (as distinct from Fighter Bomber). In June they started to convert to P-47s.

So it seems we do have one case of (Allison) Mustangs with Warhawks.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Dec 31, 2018)

27th Fighter Group


----------



## Schweik (Jul 8, 2019)

For what it's worth, as far as I have been able to determine the following RAF / Commonwealth combat squadrons converted from Hurricanes to P-40s in the Western Desert (use of some types overlapped). It was a total of 7 combat squadrons in all:

From *239 Wing*:

*112 Sqn RAF* (Hurricanes I in the first half of 41, Tomahawk in the second half, Kittyhawk I from Winter 41, Kittyhawk III in 1942, Kittyhawk IV in early 44, then Mustang III in late 44)
*250 Sqn RAF *(Hurricane I and IIB and IIC from February to April 42, Kittyhawk I and II April - October 42, Kittyhawk III from October 42, then Kittyhawk II again, then Kittyhawk IV in 44*,* and finally Mustang III from August 45)
*260 Sqn RAF* (Hurricane I and II from Nov 41 - Feb 42, Tomahawk II from Feb - Mar 42, Kittyhawk I from Feb - Sep 42, Kittyhawk IIA from Jun 42 - May 43, Kittyhawk III from Dec 43-Mar 44, Mustang III from Apr 44- Aug 45)
*3 Sqn RAAF *(Gladiators and Gauntlets - and a few Lysanders- in 1940, then Hurricanes in 1941, then Tomahawks in late 1941, then Kittyhawks from 1942- Nov 1944, then Mustang IV)
*450 Sqn RAAF* (Hurricane from May-Dec 41, Kittyhawk I and Ia from Dec 41 - Sept 42, Kittyhawk III from Sept 42 - Oct 43, Kittyhawk IV from Oct 43 - Aug 45, Mustang III from May 45-Aug 45)

from *223 Wing
4 Sqn SAAF* (Hurricanes from March 41 - plus some Mohawks - Tomahawks from Sept 41, Kittyhawks from some time in 42, then Spitfires in July 43)
*2 Sqn SAAF* (Gladiator and Gladiator II from 1940, Hurricane in early 1941, Tomahawk IIB June 41 - May 42, Kittyhawk I Apr 42 - June 43, Kittyhawk III, June 43 - July 43, Spitfire VC from July 43 - march 44, Spitfire IX from Feb 44 - July 45)

As far as I can tell, one unit, *239 Squadron RAF* operating as a recon unit from England switched from Lysanders (Sep 40 - Jan 42) to Tomahawk I and IIa (from Jun 41 to May 42) to Hurricane I and IIc (from Jan 42- because they didn't like the Tomahawk). Then they were converted to the Fairey Battle in Jun 42!!! Then the Miles Master in March 42, then finally to Mustang I in May 42, and Beaufighters in Oct 43 and then Mosquitoes from Dec 43.

I couldn't find any Western Desert units that switched from P-40 to Hurricane _though I am not saying there weren't any_. I just couldn't find it if there was.

5 Sqn SAAF never got Hurricanes to begin with (Mohawk Vk, Dec 41 with Tomahawk IIB, late 42 with Kittyhawk III, Kittyhawk IV in 1944)

In addition, some Canadian squadrons which seem to have been home-defense units based on Canada's Pacific coast, converted from Hurricanes to Kitythawks, but I don't consider these combat units. They included:

133 Squadron British Columbia (converted from Hurricanes to Kittyhawks in March 44, then to Mosquitoes)
135 Squadron Patricia Bay (converted from Hurricanes to Kittyhawks in May 44)
163 Squadron Sea Island (converted from Hurricanes to Kittyhawks in Oct 43)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jul 10, 2019)

I found the one squadron in the Middle East- 73 Sqn RAF started with Hurricane I, briefly had Tomahawk IIBs but then switched to Hurricane IIB. They appear to have flown ground attack missions, even after they switched to the Spitfire Mk V in June 43


----------



## Dan Fahey (Jul 10, 2019)

Schweik said:


> For what it's worth, as far as I have been able to determine the following RAF / Commonwealth combat squadrons converted from Hurricanes to P-40s in the Western Desert (use of some types overlapped). It was a total of 7 combat squadrons in all:
> 
> From *239 Wing*:
> 
> ...



Wow they went all Warhawks
What were the reasons the Brits changed planes to the Warhawk !??
Did they ever use/use up the Hurricanes that were replaced with US Fighters?


----------



## Schweik (Jul 10, 2019)

The Hurricanes weren't deemed suitable for air to air combat after roughly 1942. They started switching to Tomahawks and then Kittyhawks in 41, by mid 42 all the Remaining Hurricanes were in FB units or ground attack units. They were basically bombers from that point onward.


----------



## fubar57 (Jul 10, 2019)

A sample....





​....from this 59pg. book, "RAF Strength M.E. and Med. Command, 1941-1945". There are also "RAF Strength Far East Command, 1942-1945" and "RAF Strength-Fighter-Bomber Coastal Commands, 1939-1945"

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jul 10, 2019)

Interesting but... relevance? Am I missing something? Isn't that for 1945?


----------



## fubar57 (Jul 10, 2019)

True but the book goes from '41-'45. Its the first page I opened so I posted it. I'm heading into camp now but I'll go through it when I get home on Wednesday I'll go the 1942 section and post Hurricane and P-40 strengths

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jul 10, 2019)

Oh Ok. Thanks. Shores lists them for a few specific dates in MAW as well.


----------



## fubar57 (Jul 10, 2019)

If you want, I can PM you the books when I get home and you can compare them to Shores books

Reactions: Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jul 10, 2019)

Sure, sounds like they might be good to have in the library


----------



## fubar57 (Jul 10, 2019)

PM sent


----------



## Dan Fahey (Jul 11, 2019)

Schweik said:


> The Hurricanes weren't deemed suitable for air to air combat after roughly 1942. They started switching to Tomahawks and then Kittyhawks in 41, by mid 42 all the Remaining Hurricanes were in FB units or ground attack units. They were basically bombers from that point onward.


Thanks !

Begs the question..
Brits using the P40 with the Merlin -1 or -81 Allison during the Battle of Britain
Not sure if they were available then.
May have been a better platform !!
One advantage they carried more fuel to stay on station.


----------



## Glider (Jul 11, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> Thanks !
> 
> Begs the question..
> Brits using the P40 with the Merlin -1 or -81 Allison during the Battle of Britain
> ...


The P40 of the summer of 1940 wasn't combat ready, lacking a number of essential features such as armour, self sealing fuel tanks, altitude performance and a decent radio.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 11, 2019)

The Allison available during the BoB was the C-15 version and in fact the first 277 in U.S. service in 1940 had to be derated to under close to 950 hp at 2770 rpm until reworked at the factory.
P-40s in the summer and early fall of 1940 were not combat ready.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jul 11, 2019)

Agreed. And by the time the faster versions were ready, they weren't fast enough to attack integrated defense systems around the German occupied side of the English Channel. That was where the Mustang I was ideal for a while.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 9, 2019)

I'm splitting off a P-40 / MC202 / Bf 109 debate which emerged as a derail from this thread:

"Stretch or not strech" of aircraft designs



Ivan1GFP said:


> Actually there was no need to comment because the numbers you were listing were not really in disagreement with the numbers I had already seen. Average monthly availability in North Africa for 1942 was about 30-70 Folgores.
> The only number that seems to be in dispute is the percentage of sorties flown by Folgore.
> 
> - Ivan.



Par for the course I guess, never let facts get in the way of a good theory eh?

Ok despite the futility let’s summarize what I posted on this so far:

*Feb 1942 *
38 x MC.202, 81 x MC.200 and G.50, and 61 x CR 42 - fits your theory

*November 1942*
146 MC.202, 21 Re 2001, 12 MC.200, 26 G.50bis and 72 CR 42 fighter bombers- doesn't fit your theory

*June 1943*
6 x Bf 109, 11 x MC 205, 10 x Re 2005, 32 x MC 202, 4 x MC 20, 4 x D.520, 17 x CR.42 - doesn't fit your theory either


In addition –

I finally found that post I had made long ago. It is here. It shows the match up right before El Alamein.

From Shores the theoretical Allied fighter strength was 336 fighters (128 Kittyhawks, 128 Hurricanes, 32 Hurricane IID, 75 Warhawks, and 48 Spitfires) by theoretical I mean it does not show on-hand aircraft like I've been showing for the Italians and for the Germans in that post. The hard core of this group are the 48 Spitfires, 75 P-40F/L, and 60 x RAF Kittyhawk II and III for 183.
Total Axis on-hand fighter strength ads up to 307 front line (Bf 109 and MC.202) fighters plus 150 Cr.42 fighter bombers, 12 Bf 109E Jabo and 46 Bf 110.
German actual fighter strength (via Shores for August 1942) was 92 x Bf 109F, 12 x Bf 109E, 46 x Bf 110

If you counted the CR 42s the Allies were actually outnumbered (457-336) though as I said due to fuel shortages and their vulnerability the biplanes rarely flew.

And then the Italian strength, which no wonder I couldn’t find it in Shores as it was derived from this website.

Here is what the website shows. Before the Battle of El Alamein in *October 1942:*

210 x Macchi 202 in 7 groups
150 CR 42 “Fighter Bombers” in 5 groups
1 group / 20-30 planes of Ju 87
1 group / 20 planes of Z 1007 bombers
2 groups / 40 planes of Sm.79
Then for *November 1942* it once again shows 147 fighters, 85 fighter bombers and 61 bombers in Libya specifically – which matches almost exactly the number of MC.202 I listed above from Shores for that same month; plus another 184 fighters in Sicily and 33 in Sardinia.

So rather the average of 30-80 MC.202 may be applicable for January or February of 1942, but their numbers steadily built up in 1942 and by mid year (when the Americans first started trickling in) I think it's actually more like 100 - 150, peaking around 200 before El Alamein. And while 150 aircraft may not sound like much, the Germans also had about 80-100 state of the art Bf 109s manned by elite JG 27, 51, 53, and 77 (77 replacing 27 after they were overwhelmed) later joined by Fw 190s, so you are talking about 250-300 top level Axis fighters facing about 300-350 Allied fighters, most of which were P-40s and Hurricanes. The Hurricanes almost totally relegated to fighter bomber duties.

As I already pointed out, the 325th FG claimed 95 Bf 109 and 26 MC 202 'confirmed' destroyed while flying P-40s, as you can see here, their only other Italian fighter was a single MC 200 damaged. That is 99.9% front-line aircraft. From Shores we know that about 10 of their victories in 1943 were actually MC 205. None were MC 200. I've posted those too somewhere.



So the *TL : DR *is that *the trope that the P-40 did well in North Africa only because they faced sub-par opposition is just that, a legend and not based on fact.*



Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello Schweik,
> 
> First of all, this isn't MY theory. It was something I lifted from an Italian book about the Macchi C.202.
> You REALLY should read what you posted. Your data is actually in pretty good agreement.
> ...



*Let me remind you of the twists and turns of this conversation: *
I commented off hand as part of a discussion about the P39 that P-40s had a good record in the MTO, PTO etc.
You remarked (incorrectly) that those were against inferior opposition.
I pointed out that the Japanese fighters were hardly inferior, neither were the Germans on the Russian front, and neither were the German or Italian in the MTO
You claimed (incorrectly) that P-40s were mostly facing inferior Italian planes in the MTO
I pointed out the Luftwaffe was there in strength with their most modern fighters and the main Italian fighter, the MC.202 was equivalent to the Bf 109
You made claims of inferior performance (debunked) guns (debunked) and finally insisted there were only 30 MC 202 at any one time in the Theater
I pointed out by the second through fourth quarter of 1942 there were usually at least 150 MC 202 + 100 Bf 109, peaking at 200 - which compares pretty well to Allied front-line fighter strength
And now you are claiming that it's only 66 because only the ones based in North Africa counted.

This is actually immaterial to the original claim that P-40s faced marginal opposition since 80% of the fighters based in Theater and 99% of the fighters they claimed as victories were Bf 109 or MC 202. However there is a further fallacy in that MC 202s operating out of Pantelleria and Lampedusa, and also Sicily and Sardinia, fought US and DAF fighters in North Africa routinely in 1942 and 1943 - and more and more from those bases as Operation Husky approached, this is why they were taken out .

I found an even more detailed breakdown of Italian airpower.

Regia Aeronautica in WWII Units, Bases, and Assigned Aircraft 1940-1943

Source is listed as: Dunning, C., Combat Units of the Regia Aeronatuica, Italian Air Force, 1940-1943, 1988, England, Air Research Publications Copyright GFN 1993

Fighter units conversion dates to modern types are as follows (it also shows where they were stationed each month):

These units switched to the MC.202 in 1941
*6 Gruppo CT *Switch from MC.200 to MC.202 in 06/21/41. Switch to MC 205 in 03/43
*9 Gruppo* switch from MC 200 to MC 202 in 07/41
*10 Gruppo *switch from MC 200 to MC 202 on 12/41. Switch to MC 205V starting on 05/54 completed by 07/43
*17 Gruppo* switch from MC.200 to MC.202 on 06/41
*20 Gruppo* switch from G.50 to MC. 202 on 12/41

These air wings switched to MC.202 or Re.2001 in 1942
*2 Gruppo *- Switch from G.50 to Re 2001 03/42
*7 Gruppo* switch from MC.200 to MC.202 in 09/42
*22 Gruppo* switched from MC 200 to Re.2001 on 7/42
*23 Gruppo* switched from Cr 42 & MC 200 to Mc 202 on 07/42
*13 Gruppo* switch from MC 200 to MC.202 on 11/42

So five air groups flying MC.202 by the end of 1941, and ten air groups flying MC.202 or Re.2001 by the end of 1942.

The following units switched in 1943
*16 Gruppo Assalto* switch from MC 200 to MC 202 on 2/43
*18 Gruppo CT *switch from MC 200 to MC.202 on 4/43
*24 Gruppo CT *switched from G.50 to Mc 202 and MC 205 on 05/43

The following units kept older types
*8 Gruppo* still on MC 200 by 09/43
*12 Gruppo* Still on MC 200
*21 Gruppo* CT still on MC 200


----------



## Schweik (Oct 9, 2019)

Stig1207 said:


> No, I'd say they probably were; from Pantelleria specifically though it seems more likely that they would be engaging RAF fighters from Malta, which is about 240 km away, compared to say Tobruk which is 1200 km away.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



As I already pointed out to Ivan, many of the Italian claims were shared claims between multiple pilots, as you can see yourself easily by looking through your copy of MAW II or III. For example on August 5, 1942 (page 298 in MAW II) no less than 9 MC.202 pilots made claims for 4 x P-40s plus one probable. A German pilot from 4./JG 27 also made 1 claim.

Four of the MC.202 pilots shared a claim for one of those kills.

Actual losses were two Hurricane IICs and one P-40 shot down, plus one Hurricane damaged "Cat 1"

Allied pilots also claimed a Bf 109 plus three damaged and a probable, and an MC.202 damaged. But there were no Axis losses.

So you have 9 MC.202 pilots making claims, for an actual loss of 3 fighters.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 9, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello Stig1207,
> 
> That is actually pretty consistent with the initial operations of the Macchi C.202 in late 1941.
> Now keep in mind for distances that for the most of the early versions of the Macchi Folgore were not equipped with racks for carrying drop tanks and internal fuel for these aircraft is 430 liters or 113 Gallons.
> ...



If you look at this link which I helpfully provided earlier (you may want to download it or copy / paste it into word because they will only let you open that page a few times, after which it goes behind a paywall)

Regia Aeronautica in WWII Units, Bases, and Assigned Aircraft 1940-1943

it shows how the various Italian fighter squadrons were moved around constantly from base to base in the MTO, from the Islands to the North African continent and back again. They also went to Italy, usually when transitioning to a new type.

So for example of the incidents I mentioned previously in August, I note the following Italian Gruppo, next to which I have noted where they were stationed:

9° - 1942 // Sicily, Italy, Cirenaica (North Africa), Egypt, Cirenaica, Tripolitan // 1943 // Italy , Sicily , Italy
10° - 1942 // Sicily, Italy, Cirenaica, Egypt, Cirenaica, Tripolitan, Italy // 1943 // (begin conversion to MC.205) Italy, Sicily, Italy
23° - 1942 // Italy (for transition to MC.202 completed on 7/42*), Sicily, Pantelleria, Tripolitan, Egypt, Cirenaica, Tripolitan // 1943 // Tripolitan, Tunisia, Sicily, Italy

(I'm sure there were others but that is enough to make the point)

The above doesn't count moves from bases within the same zone, which were frequent. So you can see they moved routinely and quite restlessly from the Islands to Libya, Tunisia, or Egypt and back again. So to suggest that if at any one moment, a unit was in Sicily or Pantelleria, that it was not involved in the fighting is completely absurd. Even if you think they didn't fly sorties from the Island bases they were soon transferred to another base and then another, looks like they moved about every two or three weeks in 1942.

*23° was a CR 42 unit in 1941

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Oct 9, 2019)

Hello Schweik,

Your method of leaving out contradicting statements in quotes of YOUR OWN POSTS is quite unethical.
Let me remind folks of your post earlier:



Schweik said:


> So that is:
> Med Islands: 91 MC. 202, 21 Re 2001, 2 MC.200, 26 G.50bis, and 33 CR.42, for a total of 112 modern, 28 second string, and 33 biplanes.
> North Africa: ~ *55 MC.202, ~ 10 MC.200*, 39 CR.42



(Emphasis is mine.)

What is the point of playing games like this? This is just plain dishonest.

- Ivan.

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 9, 2019)

Well that's a bit rude Ivan, not to mention excessive. Aren't you the same person who recently suggested that calling people names is immature? Or was that someone else?

I am not going to make any sweeping judgements of your character based on our forum banter, I don't know you so it would be ill considered to make assumptions. In other discussions you seemed pretty reasonable if a little opinionated (not rare in forums like this). But I have noticed a few times recently where it seems like you miss key parts of passages you read, perhaps in haste, like that Fw 190 test or my posts in this discussion.

To wit, I don't think it is even _remotely_ relevant which of the 146 MC.202 mentioned above were stationed in Libya, Egypt, Tunisia, Pantelleria or Sicily on a given day. As I just pointed out (and as you can easily verify for yourself on that Globalsecurity.org page I helpfully linked) it is clear they were moving every few weeks and the unit in Sicily today was quite likely in Egypt Or Libya the next week and vice versa. On top of that, they routinely flew missions from the islands and engaged with Allied fighters (including specifically DAF and USAAF Kittyhawks). So it's a completely spurious argument to claim that only aircraft in the African continent fought P-40s in the MTO. It's just patently false and easily disprovable. Nor is the notion that the Italian fighter contingent consisted only of those stationed on the African mainland on a given day.

You had a theory, I pointed out facts incompatible with that theory. Now you are manufacturing fake controversies and getting self righteous about it. This seems immature.

But if I offended you by calling your posts boring, I apologize if was only out of exhasperation. And the Deja-Vu type sense of repeating the same points over and over only to be ignored regardless of the evidence demanded and provided.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 9, 2019)

*Gentlemen, please tone it down...*

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Oct 9, 2019)

If I may propose a little common ground here. I think regardless of the exact percentages of types or which axis units we include or exclude it seems evident that there was PLENTY of first rate oposition for the P40s and the majority of there victories were against first line types.

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


----------



## Stig1207 (Oct 10, 2019)

Schweik said:


> As I already pointed out to Ivan, many of the Italian claims were shared claims between multiple pilots, as you can see yourself easily by looking through your copy of MAW II or III. For example on August 5, 1942 (page 298 in MAW II) no less than 9 MC.202 pilots made claims for 4 x P-40s plus one probable. A German pilot from 4./JG 27 also made 1 claim.
> 
> Four of the MC.202 pilots shared a claim for one of those kills.
> 
> ...



Agreed, but in relation to your post "Stretch or not strech" of aircraft designs the majority of claims and losses are by 9 and 10 Gruppi; there are Mc. 202 units moving in and out of Libya, but they are not featured as prominently in the fighting as the above Gruppi.

MAW II (Feb '42-Mar '43) references Pantelleria all of 3 times (according to the book's index) and each time in chapters headed *Above the waves...'. Ivan's figures for 30-70 Mc. 202's on hand at any one time in North Africa are for 1942; operations in the spring/ summer 1943 involving the island are not relevant.



Schweik said:


> So the *TL : DR *is that *the trope that the P-40 did well in North Africa only because they faced sub-par opposition is just that, a legend and not based on fact.*



You have mentioned a number of times that this trope had arisen due to erroneous data, Lw fanbois in the 60's and 70's, etc., and that now the true facts are coming to light with new research and books like the MAW series.

In the same post as linked above, from MAW II for August 19, you posted the Bf 109 units and strength, 112 machines in total, with 97 serviceable, a c. 85% serviceability rate This passage in the book precedes the numbers you cited.

'Despite the increases in WDAF strength recently, the Luftwaffe *fighter forces were also now at their peak to date.*'

In my reply "Stretch or not strech" of aircraft designs I pointed out that you left out the 46 Bf 110's and 7 Do 17's that Shores includes among the fighter forces and that it was 97 aircraft of these total 165 that were listed as serviceable.

So MAW II is one of the sources that refutes the 'trope' yet still you infer that the number of serviceable Bf 109's was higher, and thus give the impression that the Axis fighter force was more formidable, numerically than it was. Why twist the facts? 

.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 10, 2019)

I'm not 'twisting' anything. I mentioned LW fighter strength as an aside to the debate about R.A. fighter strength. I didn't include the Me 110 and Do 17 but I believe I had mentioned the Me 110s a few times already. Sometimes if you don't transcribe every single pixel on a page you get pounced on like in a legal cross examination.

To your point, for August 19 LW may have been at a peak on paper (not counting servicability), but I would argue that 97 fighters was by no means the peak, per MAW, and that Luftwaffe fighter strength continued to increase in 1942, with the addition of JG 77 which came in to replace the now worn out JG 27, and the addition of elements from JG 2 (Fw 190), JG 51 and JG 53. I believe the next peak was right before El Alamein in October, for which Shores (I think?) gives figures, and then again shortly after Torch.

More broadly, both Allied and Axis fighter strength steadily built up in the MTO both in terms of quality and quality leading up to the first capitulation of Italy and then finally peaking for the last time during Anzio in 1944. It went up and down as each side built up strength before major battles and then lost aircraft in operations (and due to maintenance). I'd be guessing but I'd say the absolute peak of aircraft was some time in the second quarter of 1943.

If you want to debate the numbers of Axis and Allied strength through 1941-1943 or whatever, feel free to post them.

To your point, are you saying that I'm wrong that publications like that of Shores and the others I mentioned have changed the impression we had of events first laid out in the 1960s?


----------



## Stig1207 (Oct 10, 2019)

Stig1207 said:


> 'Despite the increases in WDAF strength recently, the Luftwaffe *fighter forces were also now at their peak to date.*'



You misrepresented what Shores has written; that there were 112 Bf 109's. 46 Bf 110's and 7 Do 17's off which 97 of were serviceable. It is pretty straight forward, yet you continue beating round the bush rather than acknowledge it.

You have pointed to MAW as one of the sources bringing forth new information that casts a new light on these events, but then post something from it without faithfully reproducing what is written.

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 10, 2019)

As for Italian fighter Strength Looking at the data from globalsecurity.org / "Combat Units of the Regia Aeronatuica, Italian Air Force, 1940-1943"

I see the following Italian Gruppi using MC.202 based in North Africa during 1942:
*6° Gruppo * (3 squadriglie)
With MC.202 in Tripoli from 1/42, Cirenacia 2/42-3/42, then to Italy, and back to Pantelleria in 12/42, then back into Tunisia from Jan - March of 43.
*9° Gruppo* (3 squadriglie)
With MC.202 North Africa with MC 202 from 11/25/41 to 12/41, then back in Cirenaica and Egypt from 4/42 - 12/42, then Italy
*10° Gruppo* (3 squad)
With MC.202 North Africa from 05/42 - 11/42, then Italy and Sicily (Converting to MC 205V starting May 43)
*17° Gruppo *(3 squad)
With MC.202 from 06/41, in Africa (Cirenaica) from 11/41 - 6/42, then bouncing around from Sardinia, Pantelleria, Italy and Sicily from 11/42 - 7/43
*23° Gruppo *(3 squad)
Cr-42 until 7/42, MC 202 Pantelleria 7/42, then Tripoli, Egypt, Tunisia and Cirenaica with MC.202 from 7/42-3/43

The following were only on the Islands or Italy in 42 and 43
*20° Gruppo* (3 squad)
with MC.202 5/42 in Sicily, converting to G.55 in 3/43, Sicily 5/43, Sardinia 8/43
*22° Gruppo *(3 squad)
MC 200 in Russia until 10/41, Re 2001 in Sardinia, Sicily 7/42 - 743 (some use of D.520 and Re2005)

The following were either on the Islands in 42 or equipped with MC.200 but were engaged in North Africa with MC.202 from early 43
*7° Gruppo* (3 Squadrigilie)
(was with MC 200 until converting to MC.202 in 9/42) - Tunisia from March 43 - May 43
*13° Gruppo* (3 squad)
MC.200 in Africa from 2/42 until 11/42, then MC.202 in Tunisia in 1/43, then back to Italy, then Tunisia again in 02/43, then back to Italy for home defense (partly with D.520)
*16° Gruppo Assalto *(2 squad)
MC.200 until 08//42, then MC.202 Tunisia 2/43 - 5/43, then Sicily

The following Gruppo remained used MC.200 or G.50 at least partly in 1942 and 43
*8° Gruppo* CT (3 squad)
With MC.200 fighting in North Africa for most of 1941 ad 42, then returning to Italy in Dec 42
*18° Gruppo *(3 squad)
operated in North Africa with a mix of MC.200 and MC.202 from 10/42 - 3/43
*24° Gruppo CT* (2 squad)
G.50 and Cr.42 In Italy and Islands through 8/42, MC202, 205 and D.520 in Italy from 05/43

*21 Gruppo* *(Stationed in Russia)*
MC 200, MC 200 and 202 from 7/42 - 5/43, back to Italy in 5/43 with just MC.200


So it looks like ~6 squadrons of MC.202 were active in North Africa in the 1st half of 42, then 9, 10, and 23 Gruppo (9 squadrons) were active in North Africa in the second half of 1942, plus three more Gruppo (9 squadrons) with MC 202 in the Islands in the Med by the fall of 42. So a peak strength of about 18 squadrons, or 216 fighters on paper, though no doubt actual strength was probably closer to ~150.

7, 16 and 23 Gruppo, (9 squadrons) were in North Africa in the first half of 43 (plus briefly 13 Gruppo), with several others in the Med islands where the fighting began to focus by the 2nd quarter of 43.

This was supported by 1 Gruppo with MC.200 in North Africa (3 squadrons) most of 1942, another (3 squadrons) with a mix of 202 and 200 in late 42 and early 43, and one (2 squadrons) with G.50 and CR.42 in the Islands.

So in the first half of 1942 6 squadrons of MC.202, second half of 1942 it looks like 9 squadrons plus 3 more on the Islands. So


----------



## Schweik (Oct 10, 2019)

Stig1207 said:


> You misrepresented what Shores has written; that there were 112 Bf 109's. 46 Bf 110's and 7 Do 17's off which 97 of were serviceable. It is pretty straight forward, yet you continue beating round the bush rather than acknowledge it.
> 
> You have pointed to MAW as one of the sources bringing forth new information that casts a new light on these events, but then post something from it without faithfully reproducing what is written.



I didn't misrepresent anything - *I had already previously mentioned the same exact listing with the Me 110s several times*, for example in this post (which I linked twice in the last 10 posts) the half dozen Do 17 (I think stationed in Crete, right?) didn't seem relevant to me because they were night fighters- *we were talking about front line / day fighters*. There was at that time no debate about German fighter strength, had there been I would have been more meticulous. You are making lawyerly nit-picks so typical of forum debates, but of zero relevance.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 10, 2019)

Of relevance to the actual debate, which was Ivans assertion that "_P-40s faced sub-par opposition in the MTO_", Stig1207, do you care to estimate how many Me 110 and Do 17 were claimed by any P-40 units in 1942 and 1943? I'll bet a reasonably significant amount of money if you like that it's less than 5% of their claims... I seriously doubt they shot down _any _Do 17 night fighters.

If you can't show any significant numbers I suggest that those aircraft are not relevant to the discussion. Me 110s were still being used as front line fighters in 1941 and maybe for a few weeks in early 1942, but after that they were on special duties away from the DAF fighters (or escorted by single engined types).


----------



## michael rauls (Oct 10, 2019)

Stig1207 said:


> You misrepresented what Shores has written; that there were 112 Bf 109's. 46 Bf 110's and 7 Do 17's off which 97 of were serviceable. It is pretty straight forward, yet you continue beating round the bush rather than acknowledge it.
> 
> You have pointed to MAW as one of the sources bringing forth new information that casts a new light on these events, but then post something from it without faithfully reproducing what is written.


I don't think he " misrepresented" it in that he was listing the fighter oposition the p40s would likely be facing. If they were indeed used almost entirely for night oporation by that time as he stated then there is no misrepresentation. Perhaps he was speaking of one thing, the quality of the oposition( which was kinda the subject) and you were speaking of total axis fighter strength in the area. Perhaps that is the root of the misunderstanding?
And at least to me I don't see how the 7 Do17s are relevant in either context.


----------



## Stig1207 (Oct 11, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Of relevance to the actual debate, which was Ivans assertion that "_P-40s faced sub-par opposition in the MTO_", Stig1207, do you care to estimate how many Me 110 and Do 17 were claimed by any P-40 units in 1942 and 1943? I'll bet a reasonably significant amount of money if you like that it's less than 5% of their claims... I seriously doubt they shot down _any _Do 17 night fighters.
> 
> If you can't show any significant numbers I suggest that those aircraft are not relevant to the discussion. Me 110s were still being used as front line fighters in 1941 and maybe for a few weeks in early 1942, but after that they were on special duties away from the DAF fighters (or escorted by single engined types).



 You do nothing for your credibility, Schweik.

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Stig1207 (Oct 11, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> I don't think he " misrepresented" it in that he was listing the fighter oposition the p40s would likely be facing. If they were indeed used almost entirely for night oporation by that time as he stated then there is no misrepresentation. Perhaps he was speaking of one thing, the quality of the oposition( which was kinda the subject) and you were speaking of total axis fighter strength in the area. Perhaps that is the root of the misunderstanding?
> And at least to me I don't see how the 7 Do17s are relevant in either context.



He definitely misrepresented, blatantly; but instead of me explaining once again, you ask Schweik this:

*'How many Bf 109's were serviceable on August 19, 1942 in North Africa according to MAW II'.*

Reactions: Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 11, 2019)

Stig1207 said:


> You do nothing for your credibility, Schweik.



Repeating a false assertion over and over doesn't make your point and doesn't do much for yours.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 11, 2019)

Stig1207 said:


> He definitely misrepresented, blatantly; but instead of me explaining once again, you ask Schweik this:
> 
> *'How many Bf 109's were serviceable on August 19, 1942 in North Africa according to MAW II'.*



Not even close. Zeroing in on a detail in a discussion and pretending great outrage (or contempt) because of an omission of 7 Do 17 from a list of fighters doesn't make it actually _relevant _or a legitimate point, let alone provide proof the the person you are trying to debate "misrepresented" anything, which I certainly did not do.

Ivan was claiming the following:

"_P-40s faced sub-par opposition in the MTO_"
"_MC.202s were sub par because guns_"
"_Besides, only 30% of the fighter sorties flown in North Africa in 1942 were by M.C.202, therefore the rest were probably obsolete types_."
It was against this last assertion that I was providing data. I was showing that the vast majority of fighter units, and fighter sorties, by the Regia Aeronautica in the Med during the times when P-40s were in use by the Allies were by the MC.202 and more modern types.

I added the list of German fighters as an aside because it was on the page when I was going through sorties for August 1942 in MAW II.

MAW II doesn't actually tell us how many Bf 109s were serviceable on August 19, it just tells the total number of aircraft, as you know. However I don't think that number would be impossible to find. It's quite clear that the vast majority of German fighters in the MTO were Bf 109s.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 11, 2019)

I should probably add, StiG1207 omitted that the Me 110 and Do 17 mentioned in the TO&E for Aug 19, 1942 were stationed in Crete. I.e. not North Africa


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 11, 2019)

*Folks - if the immature bickering doesn't stop I'm going to shut this thread down and start sending folks into cyberspace!!!! It's an interesting thread and I really don't want to make it disappear but stop with the BS!!! My last warning!!!!*

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 11, 2019)

I've been posting data, in attempt to increase 'signal to noise' ratio in the thread (and in others). Even if you disagree with the theory of the person posting the data, (and I don't pretend to have anything more than theories), the data is useful in understanding the subject. I've taken time to link and transcribe a lot of hard to find data.

But then I get attacks and personal insults from those who don't like what the data shows, which is a Catch 22. If I don't respond it seems like I'm acknowledging the insult, if I do respond it triggers a mod warning. Thus you aren't the only one who is frustrated. I'm not accustomed to being insulted.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 11, 2019)

So these charts are from the Osprey book "Aircraft of the Aces 2" - "*Bf 109 Aces of North Africa and the Mediterranean*", pages 81-82





He lists Luftwaffe *Bf 109* fighter strength* at various key points in the MTO battles, showing both total strength and serviceable.

1941 (various dates) starts at 14/11 and ends at 154/98
1942 Aug 20- shows 194 on strength and 125 serviceable
1943 Oct - Tunisia- shows 235 on strength and 137 serviceable (excluding Eastern Med and the Balkans)
1943 Oct - Sicily- shows 324 on strength and 182 serviceable
1944 March - Anzio - shows 93 Serviceable
1944 May - shows 54 / 37

Again, this is only Luftwaffe Bf 109 strength, it does not show Bf 110, Do 17, or Fw 190 aircraft. So the strength fluctuates a lot, and peaks in late 1943, but remains high from late 1941 through October of 1943, but appears to plummet by Spring of 1944.

On the second page he breaks down Bf 109 strength by area

in Aug 1942 in North Africa to 112 / 65 and Sicily to 71 / 54, plus 11/6 on Crete
in Oct 1943 in Tunisia to 196 / 114 plus 39/23 on Crete

So you can still make the claim that close to half of these fighters are in Sicily in August and therefore don't count (I would not agree with this but that is another debate), though some of those moved to North Africa during or right after El Alamein and then Torch.

It's worth pointing out, in addition to the above Bf 109 units, *several Fw 190 units *were also fighting in North Africa and the Med from 1942. According to this site the following units were deployed to North Africa starting on 16 November 1942: III./Z.G. 2, III./S.K.G. 10, II./J.G. 2, the _Stab_ and II./Sch.G. 2,

That site lists 6 Fw 190 pilots with 88 victories between them from II./J.G.2 alone (70 from the top two experten)



Here is another interesting table from "Strategy for defeat, the Luftwaffe 1933-1945" page 149, shows that Luftwaffe *fighter* losses by Theater. The MTO had the highest losses through May of 1943, reaching a peak in early April at 247 (overall aircraft losses are roughly double the fighter losses). Losses in the Western or Channel front did not catch up until May of 1943, then peaking in July. MTO losses remained higher than Russian Front losses for most of the year.

I think that shows pretty clearly that the MTO was a major comittment and source of losses for the Luftwaffe as well as the Regia Aeronautica, and that the Luftwaffe was committing a substantial amount of it's best fighters to the area.

I hope this helps shed light on the discussion.

* does not include Fw 190 units - JG-2 or Regia Aeronautica Bf 109 units


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 11, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I've been posting data, in attempt to increase 'signal to noise' ratio in the thread (and in others). Even if you disagree with the theory of the person posting the data, (and I don't pretend to have anything more than theories), the data is useful in understanding the subject. I've taken time to link and transcribe a lot of hard to find data.
> 
> But then I get attacks and personal insults from those who don't like what the data shows, which is a Catch 22. If I don't respond it seems like I'm acknowledging the insult, if I do respond it triggers a mod warning. Thus you aren't the only one who is frustrated. I'm not accustomed to being insulted.



*The warning is directed to EVERYONE. *

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Stig1207 (Oct 11, 2019)

Schweik said:


> *MAW II doesn't actually tell us how many Bf 109s were serviceable on August 19*, it just tells the total number of aircraft, as you know. However I don't think that number would be impossible to find. It's quite clear that the vast majority of German fighters in the MTO were Bf 109s.



That's right, it doesn't tell us; but this is what you posted:



Schweik said:


> August 19
> *(at this time Shores lists German fighter strength as follows:Top*
> *Stab/JG 27 - 2 x Bf 109F
> I./JG 27- 23 x BF 109F
> ...



I responded, adding in the information you left out, but which is what MAW II actually tells us:

August 19
*(at this time Shores lists German fighter strength as follows:
Stab/JG 27 - 2 x Bf 109F
I./JG 27- 23 x BF 109F
II./JG 27- 24 x Bf 109F
III./JG 27 - 24 x Bf 109F
JaboStaffel/JG 27 - 12 x Bf 109E
III./JG 534 - 24 x BF 109E and F
10./ ZG26 7 Do 17Z
Jagdkommando /JG 27 3 x Bf 109F*
*III./ ZG26 46Bf 110C*

*165 in total*
*Listing 97 aircraft of these aircraft servicable*) 

MAW II tells us that there were altogether 97 serviceable Bf 109's, Bf 110C, and Do17Z.

Instead of acknowledging that you had left some information out, and thus giving an incorrect picture of Luftwaffe strength, you replied:

[QUOTE
I didn't miss anything, I left out the twin engine birds because they were only flying night or maritime missions, so far as I am aware. Do you know any different?


][/QUOTE] 

I helped you out again:



> The 97 serviceable aircraft is of the total of 165 Bf 109's, 110's and Do 17's.



It should by now be abundantly clear, that the issue has nothing to do what roles Bf 110's and Do 17's had or where they are based. You could still at this point acknowledged that you hadn't transcribed the text from MAW II correctly. You chose instead to continue to confuse the issue:



> I believe he is implying that most of the air strength of the Luftwaffe was Do 17 and Me 110 night fighters...





Schweik said:


> Repeating a false assertion over and over doesn't make your point and doesn't do much for yours.



There is nothing false about my assertion, it's correctly reproduced from MAW II.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 11, 2019)

To the MOD - I'm responding politely to the issues raised directly at me.

I posted what I thought was relevant to the discussion - which at that time was about MC.202s. I thought the number of Bf 109s was also relevant.

After transcribing the Luftwaffe TO&E, once you brought it up I certainly did acknowledge that I left that information out of that post on the subject, and I explained why:

I do not think that the number of Me 110s was relevant,
I had already mentioned those same 110s a couple of times previously and
I don't think Me 110s or Do 17s were flying day-time fighter missions in August 1942.
I wasn't making any kind of point about Luftwaffe serviceability rates at that time, we were talking about the MC.202 and the Regia Aeronautica.
Yes this was intentional, no I was not hiding anything, I am well aware that many other people have that same book which is why I give page references and / or dates when I quote data from it so you can look it up for yourselves. In some cases I have also taken photos and uploaded them so people who don't have it can see I'm not making anything up.
Very similarly, when I partially transcribed excerpts about the Italian fighter strength in the MTO, I did not transcribe anything about the SM.79 or SM.82 or Ca 314 strength. I did include CR.42 numbers to be thorough, eventually I left those off too because they were relegated to flying bomber missions and were phased out at some point in 1942.

Leaving out the Me 110 contingent from that list was quite intentional. Very much like the Osprey book which I transcribed in post 796 above - the Osprey author only showed the Bf 109 strength because that is what that book is about. Whatever I'm going to transcribe from a book in the midst of a conversation is going to be relevant to that conversation - I'm not going to transcribe the whole book.

You may think there is something sinister in leaving out what I believe were night fighters / maritime patrol aircraft - the Me 110 and Do 17 units stationed on Crete, in the discussion about fighters faced by P-40s in North Africa and the MTO, but I don't agree. Just because you are certain that you are correct doesn't mean that I see it the same way.

We all have the right to have and share our own opinions.
We do not have the right to force anyone else to agree with our opinions.
Sometimes people look at the same data and draw radically different conclusions.

For example that British Fw 190 test that Ivan linked. We each drew quite different conclusions from the same report.
I don't think we will ever see eye to eye on it and we both just have to live with that. Others can draw their own conclusions.
I believe the same applies here.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 11, 2019)

There is some room for interpretation in the role of second-string fighters in any given Theater- in the Med by Aug 1942, most of the Hurricane and early mark Kittyhawk units were doing exclusively fighter bomber missions, the P39s were doing coastal patrol, and (in 1943) the A-36, though technically they were P-51 fighters, flew almost exclusively dive bomber missions and scored very few air to air claims. Allied fighter strength really consisted of Spitfires, P-38s, and late model P-40s. Later by mid 1943 P-47s began arriving as well.

The Beaufighter was kind of in a gray area, they were flying as both fighters and fighter-bombers, but as fighters they were mostly fighting far out to see and rarely encountered single-engined day fighters. They did sometimes though.

On the Axis side, the CR.42, the older 109Es, about half of the Fw 190s were flying almost exclusively bomber missions. The Me 110s and Ju 88Cs were flying coastal patrol / escort, night fighter and fighter bomber missions. I think the 7 Do 17s mentioned were night fighters though I really don't know I haven't read about that unit.

At certain points you also had naval assets, Fulmars, Martlets and Sea Hurricanes, and the Axis had a little flare up by the Vichy French who wrecked a lot of the aircraft of the CV Ranger and some CVEs around the time of Torch.


----------



## Stig1207 (Oct 12, 2019)

Schweik said:


> To the MOD - I'm responding politely to the issues raised directly at me.
> 
> I posted what I thought was relevant to the discussion - which at that time was about MC.202s. I thought the number of Bf 109s was also relevant.
> 
> ...



The only way that Me 110's and Do 17's are relevant to the discussion is that they make up some of the total number of the fighter forces, per Shores:

112 Bf 109's, 46 Me 110's and 7 Do 17's for a total strength of 165, of which 97 were serviceable. 

There was nothing wrong or sinister in you leaving out the twin engine fighters in your post; but you did write that of the 112 Bf 109's on strength, 97 were serviceable. Shores does not give any numbers for how many of each the above types were serviceable, just that altogether their were 97 serviceable Bf 109's , Me 110's and Do 17's. 

Whether it was intentional or not, you implied that there were more Bf 109's available than there actually, were according to Shores.

You did acknowledge that you left out Me 110's and Do 17's, but the reasons you give above just aren't relevant to the issue which is that you gave an incorrect number for serviceable Bf 109's.

It is pretty straight forward, there is nothing for you to misunderstand, so why is it that you keep on responding with posts with probably 90 % irrelevant content? 

Btw, the Do 17's were in North Africa and the Me 110's and the 3 Bf 109's of Jagdkommando 27 were on Crete; but as you know this is also irrelevant to our discussion.

Reactions: Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 12, 2019)

Stig1207 said:


> The only way that Me 110's and Do 17's are relevant to the discussion is that they make up some of the total number of the fighter forces, per Shores:
> 
> 112 Bf 109's, 46 Me 110's and 7 Do 17's for a total strength of 165, of which 97 were serviceable.
> 
> ...




See here is the thing - I understand what you are getting at, it is just irrelevant to me, like most of my posts apparently are to you. We don't actually know the number of serviceable Bf 109s available on Aug 19 because Shores only gives us a grand total. Right? Why debate endlessly about what percentage were Do 17 and Me 110 when on the basis of that data, if there is no way to determine it based on what Shores gave us on that page? 

Remember, until you complained about it, I was not aware there was anything to debate period, about the German fighter strength. To me the only rational answer, given your strenuous and repeated objections, is to find more data. Which I did.

In your response here, you are ignoring the fact that I found another source which *DOES *give us the total number of Bf 109s available for action for that time (one day later than the post were endlessly debating, on August 20) and also for four other time periods, showing the pattern of waxing and waning, but overall, steadily built up fighter strength up until well into 1944. Serviceability of course can vary widely day by day. A new shipment of oil filters and spark plugs arrive and 20 more fighters are ready to go.

This post here:

Bf-109 vs P-40

Provides that data, and sources are provided complete with photos of the pages in question for those who want to double check. Also summarized by myself for those who can't be bothered. And yet you had zero comment on that.

So what are we actually debating here?

(by the way based on that (Osprey) source there were actually more Bf 109 fighters available than Shores listed, 125 vs some number less than 97, the difference is probably based on which of the Island based fighters were involved in the fighting vs. which were not.)


----------



## michael rauls (Oct 12, 2019)

Stig1207 said:


> The only way that Me 110's and Do 17's are relevant to the discussion is that they make up some of the total number of the fighter forces, per Shores:
> 
> 112 Bf 109's, 46 Me 110's and 7 Do 17's for a total strength of 165, of which 97 were serviceable.
> 
> ...


Let me take another stab at this because as someone once said I may have made a hash out of my explanation the first time.
In a discussion about the QUALITY of the oposition faced by p40s why would a 10, 20, or whatever percentage dip in serviceability rate that would affect the QUANTITY of aircraft available but not the QUALITY be relevant.
Not trying to be argumentative but it just seems there's a misunderstanding of some sort here.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 12, 2019)

Yeah I think the only relevant part would be the _ratio_ of 1st line to 2nd line fighters not the daily or weekly fluctuation in serviceability rates. If the Me 110 had consistently a 99% serviceability rate and the Bf 109 only a 10% rate then it might be relevant, but there is no evidence of that.

Similarly it's abundantly clear that the majority of the fighters on hand for the Italians in 1942 and 43 were in fact the MC.202 (and later 205) types.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 12, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> *Folks - if the immature bickering doesn't stop I'm going to shut this thread down and start sending folks into cyberspace!!!! It's an interesting thread and I really don't want to make it disappear but stop with the BS!!! My last warning!!!!*



I second this. It’s getting really tiresome. It’s like a Kindergarten.


----------



## fubar57 (Oct 12, 2019)

I never went to Kindergarten. It appears that was a good thing

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Snautzer01 (Oct 13, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> I never went to Kindergarten. It appears that was a good thing


But you ended up here. Now tell me again missing kindergarten was a good thing ...

Ohh and taking 1 book as a kind of total infailable truth is a big mistake.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Snautzer01 (Oct 13, 2019)

Try some 1 st hand sources like

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Stig1207 (Oct 13, 2019)

I agree that this particular discussion has gone on for to long, but I will ask a rhetorical question.

Someone posts information from a specific source.
Someone else responds that the information posted is not actually correctly reproduced.
Is it not customery, for the original poster to ackowledge that the provided information wasn't correct and then correct it?
After all, what is the point of even giving the source of anything that is posted if it's not faithfully reproduced?

Whether the source of the information is correct or not or whether their are other sources that disagree, that is a whole other matter.

So Schweik could easily have owned up to that what he transcribed from MAW II was reproduced incorrectly, giving a misleading impression of Bf 109 strength ,edited his post; and that would have been the end of it. 

Instead he has tried to blur the issue, create confusion about what it's actually about, and succeeding soundly, at least with one particular forum member

For one last time, hopefully, it's not that he omitted the Me 110's and Do 17's, but that he included *the 97 serviceable aircraft *without mentioning that this number not just Bf 109's, but also includes some (unknown) number of me 110's and Do 17's.


----------



## fubar57 (Oct 13, 2019)



Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Winner Winner:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Oct 13, 2019)

Can I suggest this should be issued to all Mods to help them with their task of keeping the forum safe. 

Looking at the label I like the bit about political speaches,

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


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 13, 2019)

Agree - this is done!

And boys and girls - please don't contact me pleading your case, I will ban you permanently on the spot!!!

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


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 13, 2019)

People just cannot drop it.

A perfectly good discussion and thread closed because someone always has to try and have the last word.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------

