1941: top 3 Allied fighters
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
fastmongrel
1st Sergeant
I dont think the P-40E and P-39D were in service in 1941 were they. I dont know enough about the P-39 to comment but I am pretty sure the P-40E (Kittyhawk MkIA) didnt get to service units till May 42.
- Thread starter
- #43
The 1st deliveries of the P-39D were in April 1941. The P-40E was delivered in August 1941, and for the RAF (a Kittyhawk IA) in December 1941.
The P-40E was the worst performing P-40 - as heavy as possible, but without the horse power to provide necessary performance. Altitude notwithstanding.
BTW - maybe it would be good to say why this or that fighter would be within top 3 here?
The P-40E was the worst performing P-40 - as heavy as possible, but without the horse power to provide necessary performance. Altitude notwithstanding.
BTW - maybe it would be good to say why this or that fighter would be within top 3 here?
- Thread starter
- #45
I think operational before the end of 1941 should qualify an aircraft. That's why I would disqualify the Typhoon. It was delivered in 1941 but didn't see any operational use until well into 1942.
Operational use by the US is always going to be pushing it for 1941, given the date of their entry into the war.
Cheers
Steve
Operational use by the US is always going to be pushing it for 1941, given the date of their entry into the war.
Cheers
Steve
Last edited:
According to America's Hundred-Thousand:
Nov 15, '41: Two squadrons in Philippines, 3rd and 17th, were equipped with P-40E. Dec 1 a total of 74 P-40Es had been received in the Philippines.
Dec 7, '41: Five pursuit groups were equipped with P-39D's; 8th, 31st, 36th, 52nd and 53rd.
P-40E was slightly faster than the C, but most importantly it had about twice the firepower.
Nov 15, '41: Two squadrons in Philippines, 3rd and 17th, were equipped with P-40E. Dec 1 a total of 74 P-40Es had been received in the Philippines.
Dec 7, '41: Five pursuit groups were equipped with P-39D's; 8th, 31st, 36th, 52nd and 53rd.
P-40E was slightly faster than the C, but most importantly it had about twice the firepower.
If we allow the P-40 in, which seems fair as they would certainly have been operational during the defence of the Philipines, then you either include both it and the Hurricane, or make a very tough choice between the two to make room for a third like the P-39 (not for me) or Beaufighter. It's very difficult to put the Beaufighter in competition with any of the single engine types as it was a very different aeroplane serving a very different purpose.
The Spitfire V is a no brainer, we're really only discussing 2 and 3.
Cheers
Steve
The Spitfire V is a no brainer, we're really only discussing 2 and 3.
Cheers
Steve
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #50
The MiG-3 is at least the no. 2 here IMO. The only one to compete vs. the Bf-109F-1 to F-4 on equal footing above 5 km. Yak-1 is also a strong competitor, though under 5 km.
If we want the combat radius, the American aircraft come in front, though.
The F4F and Hurricane, for all their qualities, don't make an answer for LW competition.
If we want the combat radius, the American aircraft come in front, though.
The F4F and Hurricane, for all their qualities, don't make an answer for LW competition.
oldcrowcv63
Tech Sergeant
Yes, the Finns began receiving the B-239/(de-navalized F2A-1) as early as February, 1940. Except by common usage, this aircraft was NOT the (B-339B) sent to Belgium which began to arrive in Britain in June of 1940 and used initially for training after some modification and later by the FAA in the Med to no good purpose, or even the subsequent Buffalo I (B-339E) sent to SE Asia and received by the RAF and commonwealth arms in early 1941.
Last edited:
parsifal
Colonel
have to disagree, because of the specialised usage of these types, at least the use of the Hurricane aboard ships, i mean. I have problems with the F4F because until late September or so it gave little return for the investment. Early versions had problems with the fuel systems, no folding wings, problems in the armament. Most of those delivered to the RN were never used until the martlet II.
Nevertheless, both types were well worth the investment (for the f4f...eventually) . Sea Hurricanes, and the CAM ship equivalents probably did more to save the British in 1941 than any other type, quite arguably preventing the loss of up to 1 million tons of shipping and later giving enough performance for the fleet air arm so that it could continue re-supply operations into Malta, and later still into Murmansk. It was an aircraft easy to maintain and fly, and handled deck ops better than the Seafire in its early guises. F4F and later marks of the Martlet should need no introduction, particualalry in the Pacific.
Youve stated that carrier borne aircraft get no allowances. This is a mistake. Carrier borne aircraft were all generally of inferior performance to their land based counterparts until the Zeke, but still they outperformed land based aircraft to a marked extent because they could be carried on ships, and whenever the fight was over ships they had inherent advantages because of that. Time and again, a few carrier borne fighters would shoot down many times their numbers simply because they could be there, with no range or endurance penalties. Against the attacks on Pedestal for example, 650 axis aircraft were fought off by 70 carrier fighters (mostly sea Hurricanes) because the axis air fleets could not concentrate their numbers, were often forced to fly beyond normal endurance limits or without fighter cover because of range issues. These are all advantages inherent to carrier borne aircraft, and it is absolutely necessary to make allowance for their inferior performance if a true understanding of their vital importance to the Allies is to be understood.
tomo pauk sure MiG-3 was good high altitude fighter but its performance under 4,500 meters are low.
i try to put some numbers (from HoHun old graphs)
Speed
Hurricane IIB 535 km/h at 5.8km (475 km/h S.L.)(515 km/h at 8 km)
P40C 550 km/h at 5 km (460 km/h S.L.) (520 km/h at 8 km)
P40E 555 km/h at 3.8 km (485 km/h S.L.) (510 km/h at 8 km)
MiG-3 585 km/h at 7 km (475 km/h S.L.) (580 km/h at 8 km)
Yak-1 575 km/h at 5 km (485 km/h S.L.) (530 km/h at 8km)
P-36A 515 km/h at 0.8 km (500 km/h S.L.) (425 km/h at 8 km)
CW-21 505 km/h at 5 km (455 km/h S.L.) (470 km/h at 8 km)
Mohawk IV 565 km/h at 5.5 km (485 km/h S.L.) (540 km/h at 8 km)
M.B.152 515 km/h at 4 km (455 km/h S.L.) (460 km/h at 8 km)
F4F-3 530 km/h at 6.5 km (465 km/h S.L.) (515 km/h at 8 km)
i try to put some numbers (from HoHun old graphs)
Speed
Hurricane IIB 535 km/h at 5.8km (475 km/h S.L.)(515 km/h at 8 km)
P40C 550 km/h at 5 km (460 km/h S.L.) (520 km/h at 8 km)
P40E 555 km/h at 3.8 km (485 km/h S.L.) (510 km/h at 8 km)
MiG-3 585 km/h at 7 km (475 km/h S.L.) (580 km/h at 8 km)
Yak-1 575 km/h at 5 km (485 km/h S.L.) (530 km/h at 8km)
P-36A 515 km/h at 0.8 km (500 km/h S.L.) (425 km/h at 8 km)
CW-21 505 km/h at 5 km (455 km/h S.L.) (470 km/h at 8 km)
Mohawk IV 565 km/h at 5.5 km (485 km/h S.L.) (540 km/h at 8 km)
M.B.152 515 km/h at 4 km (455 km/h S.L.) (460 km/h at 8 km)
F4F-3 530 km/h at 6.5 km (465 km/h S.L.) (515 km/h at 8 km)
continue
climb rate at 0, at 4 km, at 8 km (m/sec, rounded)
Hurri IIB 17/ 14.5/ 8
P-40C 11,5/ 12/ 6
P-40E 11,5/ 11/ 3,5
MiG-3 16/ 15.5/ 10
Yak-1 15/ 15/ 6
P-36A 17.5/ 10/ 2.5
CW-21 17.5/ 14/ 6
Mohawk IV 18.5/ 15/ 8.5
F4F-3 15/ 13/ 7
M.B.152 18/ 16/ 5
climb rate at 0, at 4 km, at 8 km (m/sec, rounded)
Hurri IIB 17/ 14.5/ 8
P-40C 11,5/ 12/ 6
P-40E 11,5/ 11/ 3,5
MiG-3 16/ 15.5/ 10
Yak-1 15/ 15/ 6
P-36A 17.5/ 10/ 2.5
CW-21 17.5/ 14/ 6
Mohawk IV 18.5/ 15/ 8.5
F4F-3 15/ 13/ 7
M.B.152 18/ 16/ 5
- Thread starter
- #55
Sorry if my 1st post here was not 110% clear - my intention in this thread was the comparison between the fighters available to the Allies, where the CV birds can compete, but their CV compatibility is not a determinant. IOW, they don't score any point here for being CV compatible.
Then one might rate the S.H. 1st, Fulmar 2nd, the 3rd being whatever the British had on the decks. Ie. no Mosquito NF as 1st and Spitfire 2nd. But, again, it is clearly stated in the 1st post: The carrier-based aircraft can also compete, but CV suitabiity yields no points in this thread.
Not a mistake, the CV fighters can easily be compared in another thread.
The Zero was also of inferior performance vs. top of the line land-based fighters, from day one further.
As above - if we count in the CV suitability as a requirement, then the Sea Gladiator would've been between 3 best fighters n 1940, and that would've skewed the thread too much, hence me saying the related sentence in the 1st post here.
- Thread starter
- #56
Looking at those numbers, the MiG 3 was very competitive. It sure out-climbs P-40s, though that was not some accomplishment - those carried heavier weapon set-up, with (in 1941) less power. We can see how the weight of structure, protection and weaponry can make the fighter a good climber or not.
Though, I'm not sure why the P-36-based fighters would be doing close to 500 km/h at SL.
Table about the MiG-3, the speed at altitude is spread between 603 and 640 km/h at 7,8 km, and 462 and 495 km/h at SL. The fastest ones should be the pre-war builds? (open it separately)
Last edited:
looking better on HoHun graphs the fighter called P-36A has the engine of C and is heavier of both, so probably actual A is slower but climb better.
continuen and end
sustained turn rate, deg/sec, (at 0, at 4, at 8 km)
Hurri IIB 22/ 16/ 9.5
P-40C 18.5/ 14.5/ 7.5
P-40E 16.5/ 11/ 2.5
MiG-3 17/ 13/ 8
Yak-1 18.5/ 14/ 7
P-36A 22.5/ 14/ 5.5
CW-21 24.5/ 17/ 9.5
M.B.152 20/ 15/ 7
Mohawk IV 24.5/ 17.5/ 10.5
F4F-3 21/ 15/ 9
continuen and end
sustained turn rate, deg/sec, (at 0, at 4, at 8 km)
Hurri IIB 22/ 16/ 9.5
P-40C 18.5/ 14.5/ 7.5
P-40E 16.5/ 11/ 2.5
MiG-3 17/ 13/ 8
Yak-1 18.5/ 14/ 7
P-36A 22.5/ 14/ 5.5
CW-21 24.5/ 17/ 9.5
M.B.152 20/ 15/ 7
Mohawk IV 24.5/ 17.5/ 10.5
F4F-3 21/ 15/ 9
- Thread starter
- #58
A chart for what is, IMO, the best-case scenario. Soviet fighters are pre-war, and will be having a better performance than the examples produced once the shooting started. The Spit V* is the version with 8 Brownings, those are a bit better than nes with 2, let alone with 4 cannons. The thin line for the Spit is my approximation for +12 lbs boost (thick is for +9 lbs), that gives roughly up to 25 mph under the rated altitude. Data for the P-40 is from the wwiiaircraftperformancecom**.
Thin line for the Bf 109F is for over-revving to 2800 rpm, that according to the Kennblatt gives extra 10-15 km/h; only available above the rated altitude.
*Spitfire VA X.4922 (km/h @ m)
542 @ 3000
604 @ 6340
582 @7920
**P-40B A.C. No. 41-5205 (km/h @ m)
567 @4570
513 @1520
Thin line for the Bf 109F is for over-revving to 2800 rpm, that according to the Kennblatt gives extra 10-15 km/h; only available above the rated altitude.
*Spitfire VA X.4922 (km/h @ m)
542 @ 3000
604 @ 6340
582 @7920
**P-40B A.C. No. 41-5205 (km/h @ m)
567 @4570
513 @1520
Shortround6
Major General
Thank you for the work.
A problem we have with some of these fighters is that performance in the field sometimes did not match test performance. The Russian fighters were rather more prone to this than most others but a few of the US fighters seemed to have a credibility problem.
The Mig-3 had several problems that meant that a good example flown by a good (but not great) pilot might be in the top three for certain missions. Unfortunately the handling characteristics of the Mig are rather suspect for rookie pilots. The canopy could NOT be jettisoned in an emergency so most pilots flew with it open or had it removed, slowing the plane by about 30km/h. That is separate from whatever other quality issues there were. The Mig had rather light armament. It also was rather heavy with a small wing. While it was supposed to able to do a 360 turn in the same time as a 109 it's turn radius was about 25% larger.
A problem we have with some of these fighters is that performance in the field sometimes did not match test performance. The Russian fighters were rather more prone to this than most others but a few of the US fighters seemed to have a credibility problem.
The Mig-3 had several problems that meant that a good example flown by a good (but not great) pilot might be in the top three for certain missions. Unfortunately the handling characteristics of the Mig are rather suspect for rookie pilots. The canopy could NOT be jettisoned in an emergency so most pilots flew with it open or had it removed, slowing the plane by about 30km/h. That is separate from whatever other quality issues there were. The Mig had rather light armament. It also was rather heavy with a small wing. While it was supposed to able to do a 360 turn in the same time as a 109 it's turn radius was about 25% larger.
- Thread starter
- #60
For Soviet aircraft, most of the problems begun once the Germans invaded. The urge was to have more aircraft produced, even if the fit finish were not up to the pre-war standard, meant that performance also dropped. As it can be seen from the table posted in the post #56, the loss of speed was some ~25 km/h (~15 mph) at all altitudes - quite a bit.
The MiG-3 was not only looser, the factory fresh Yaks and Lagg were also slower some 20 km/h )Autum of 1941 vs. SPring of 1941 production). The things went back to shape some times in the winter of 1942/43, the fighters tested in 1943 were better performing than the ones from 1942 (by that time the MiG-3 was out of production, of course).
The P-40s was an offender sometimes (barely exceeding 330 mph, for 6 HMG versions) - the manifold pressure used was 41.5 in Hg in those tests, vs. 44 in Hg recomended by the book'?
One can compare the speed here with the speed from above graph, to see the loss vs. pre-war produced fighters. The values for foreign fighters in the TsAGI graphs can be used with a truckload of salt, however
The Spitfire comes easily ahead (not in the graph, compare with above) between Allied fighters, and should beat the MiG-3 both in RoC and maneuverability easily.
The shaded area (SL to ~4,5 km) is where most of the combat took place, per TsAGI (all pics need to be open separately for hi-res):
The Kennblatt for the Bf-109F-1/F-2 gives up to 18,5 m/s RoC up to 4,2 km, contrary to this:
The armament of the MiG was upgraded with 2 under wing Beresin HMGs, the induced performance loss meant those were often removed in the units. There was also a number produced with 2 synchronized HMGs, with or without the RS-82 launchers. The two BS (S - synchronized) gave 1800 rpm total, vs. 2 BMGs ~1100 (also synchronized), while firing a far better ammo (prior 1943). Granted, not that great, but not that shabby either.
Also a small series (52 pcs) was produced with 2 ShVAKs:
The MiG-3 was not only looser, the factory fresh Yaks and Lagg were also slower some 20 km/h )Autum of 1941 vs. SPring of 1941 production). The things went back to shape some times in the winter of 1942/43, the fighters tested in 1943 were better performing than the ones from 1942 (by that time the MiG-3 was out of production, of course).
The P-40s was an offender sometimes (barely exceeding 330 mph, for 6 HMG versions) - the manifold pressure used was 41.5 in Hg in those tests, vs. 44 in Hg recomended by the book'?
One can compare the speed here with the speed from above graph, to see the loss vs. pre-war produced fighters. The values for foreign fighters in the TsAGI graphs can be used with a truckload of salt, however
The Spitfire comes easily ahead (not in the graph, compare with above) between Allied fighters, and should beat the MiG-3 both in RoC and maneuverability easily.
The shaded area (SL to ~4,5 km) is where most of the combat took place, per TsAGI (all pics need to be open separately for hi-res):
The Kennblatt for the Bf-109F-1/F-2 gives up to 18,5 m/s RoC up to 4,2 km, contrary to this:
The armament of the MiG was upgraded with 2 under wing Beresin HMGs, the induced performance loss meant those were often removed in the units. There was also a number produced with 2 synchronized HMGs, with or without the RS-82 launchers. The two BS (S - synchronized) gave 1800 rpm total, vs. 2 BMGs ~1100 (also synchronized), while firing a far better ammo (prior 1943). Granted, not that great, but not that shabby either.
Also a small series (52 pcs) was produced with 2 ShVAKs:
Last edited:
