A fun WWII what if...

[Amsel]

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.

The 325FG had two brilliant victories over the Me 109 while equipped with the
P-40. 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.

 

[Vincenzo]

there is some wrongs the 325th flying thousands of combat missions with P-40 not only 128.
41 109s in only 2 day (we need think someones in the other 29 days of julliet) from a only FG i think it's too for the 109s deployed in italy at time (italy deployed 109s lost, all causes, in julliet ~300, if i'm understand the deutsch)

 

[KrazyKraut]

The 325FG had two brilliant victories over the Me 109 while equipped with the
P-40. 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.

I highly doubt this very extreme account. Are these claims cross checked?

 

[Colin1]

What if the P-40 Warhawk had been equipped from day one with a 2-stage supercharger?

...if it were as competitive at high altitudes as it was at low. Perhaps history would be mentioning this tough, forgiving, misunderstood airframe...

I know it's a what-if but it's the 'tough, forgiving, misunderstood airframe' that concerns me; would it actually cut it at high-altitude?

It's heavy and doesn't have a particularly generous wing area (more suited to low-level rolling manoevres) with even that being interrupted mid-span by the unusual undercart arrangement.

I think it's fair to say the P40 was a design of its day, with all its limitations by 1942 and as such you might well ask the what-if of a two-stage supercharger fitted to a Sopwith Camel.

Then maybe I'm just not taking this in the true spirit of the what-if...

 

[Clay_Allison]

I know it's a what-if but it's the 'tough, forgiving, misunderstood airframe' that concerns me; would it actually cut it at high-altitude?

It's heavy and doesn't have a particularly generous wing area (more suited to low-level rolling manoevres) with even that being interrupted mid-span by the unusual undercart arrangement.

I think it's fair to say the P40 was a design of its day, with all its limitations by 1942 and as such you might well ask the what-if of a two-stage supercharger fitted to a Sopwith Camel.

Then maybe I'm just not taking this in the true spirit of the what-if...

You have to understand that in no way would I believe it could remain competitive into 1943. It would absolutely have to be replaced by the P-51 as soon as P-51Bs became available.

 

[Amsel]

The importance of including the altitude along with top speed of
any aircraft is illustrated as follows. The Spite Mark 1A's top
speed was 362 mph at 18,200 feet, But its top speed at S/L was only
280 mph.

The Me 109E-3 top speed was 355 mph at 16,400 feet, although its
top speed was 305 mph at S/L. Therefore the Me was slower at
15,000.

Another illustration was the P-51D that arrived in service in 1944,
had a top speed of 437 mph at 25,000 feet. This same P-51's top
speed at 5,000 was only 315 mph. The P-40 could actually exceed
this speed at 5,000 feet. The P-40 with the same supercharged
engine would have exceeded the P-51' speed of 437 at 25,000 feet.

To compare the top speed of any A/C with another, the altitude at
which it is obtained has to be given, otherwise you are comparing
apples and oranges.

This is why I specified 15,000 feet.

Written by Erik Schilling

 

[Marshall_Stack]

Written by Erik Schilling

This is a little hard to believe. When the P-51A was in operation, I think it was like 40 mph faster (I don't have any figures in front of me) than the P-40. The P-51 had laminar wings and additional thrust due to the scoop exit. The P-51's frame and construction was more streamlined than the P-40.

 

[Amsel]

The P-51D performance numbers seem right to me as does the P-40's. I guess the question is what performance boost a supercharged P-40 would gain.

 

[Marshall_Stack]

This is the specs for the P-51A that I have found...

Performance Maximum speed was 340 mph at 5000 feet, 360 mph at 10,000 feet, 380 mph at 15,000 feet, and 390 mph at 20,000 feet.

For the P-40E....

Maximum speed was 335 mph at 5000 feet, 345 mph at 10,000 feet, and 362 mph at 15,000 feet.

My point is that I don't think that a two-stage Merlin P-40 would outperform a P-51D since it couldn't outperform it with the same Allison engine.

 

[Amsel]

I have never flown either a/c and depend on those who have for this info.
P-51D
Max speed straight and level at 10,000ft 348kts TAS or 643 km/h
Max speed straight and level at 25,000ft 380kts TAS or 703 km/h
Max IAS/Mach all altitudes 438 kts IAS/Mach 0.77



I tend to believe Erik Schilling when he says that the P-40 could exceed the P-51D's speed at 5,000ft.

 

[Marshall_Stack]

I have never flown either a/c and depend on those who have for this info.
P-51D
Max speed straight and level at 10,000ft 348kts TAS or 643 km/h
Max speed straight and level at 25,000ft 380kts TAS or 703 km/h
Max IAS/Mach all altitudes 438 kts IAS/Mach 0.77



I tend to believe Erik Schilling when he says that the P-40 could exceed the P-51D's speed at 5,000ft.

I have never flown either aircraft and my input is based on what I have read. My input is only for discussion and I no way imply that I am an expert.

If the P-40 is faster than the P-51 at 5,000 feet, I would speculate that it may have to do with the Merlin engine being heavier (and further speculate that the weight difference is less at altitude). If this speculation is correct, the P-40 would also be heavier with the Merlin.

Just my $0.02....

 

[Geedee]

Have been following this topic with some interest but not sure whether I should post this or not as it does say 'A fun what if...''

This form of powerplant does have distinct advantages in the weight / moving parts side of things, but I imagine flicking it over with your fingers would prove an interesting experience !

It also explains the huge intakes under the prop boss for cooling !

 

[Clay_Allison]

So, I just found out that the P-40F DIDN'T have a two stage supercharger, it had a single stage two speed supercharger, so its mediocre performance doesn't really answer my question.

 

[MikeGazdik]

That is the way I understand it. A true Mustang / Spitfire engine was not installed in the P-40F. Alot of confusion in my opinion is from books made long ago. The term supercharging and turbocharging are sometimes confused or combined into one. Let alone two speeds and two stages. Also many of the older books seem to have limited knowledge on engines themselves. This technically incorrect info is then re-used again when others research for thier books.

The fact of the matter is the Air Corps dropped the ball. They did not see reason for the 2 speed / 2 stage supercharger on the Allison. They had the low altitude version for what they thought would be the next war. They had turbocharging for the P-38 for bomber interception. If the Air Corps would have said they wanted it, Allison , GE or whomever would have made it happen.

 

[Clay_Allison]

That is the way I understand it. A true Mustang / Spitfire engine was not installed in the P-40F. Alot of confusion in my opinion is from books made long ago. The term supercharging and turbocharging are sometimes confused or combined into one. Let alone two speeds and two stages. Also many of the older books seem to have limited knowledge on engines themselves. This technically incorrect info is then re-used again when others research for thier books.

The fact of the matter is the Air Corps dropped the ball. They did not see reason for the 2 speed / 2 stage supercharger on the Allison. They had the low altitude version for what they thought would be the next war. They had turbocharging for the P-38 for bomber interception. If the Air Corps would have said they wanted it, Allison , GE or whomever would have made it happen.

absolutely, and I think that the P-40 would have been remembered as a GREAT fighter, in-between the Spitfire and the Hurricane. It's sad that so many people think it's a dog.

 

[MikeGazdik]

Lets see if this works. I didn't work tonight, so I played on the computer. I think we would have liked to see this:

 

[drgondog]

Lets see if this works. I didn't work tonight, so I played on the computer. I think we would have liked to see this:

You know the radiator design was by Curtiss who sold the rights to NAA for the 51?

Bud Anderson would puke at the thought.

 

[drgondog]

Written by Erik SchillingThe importance of including the altitude along with top speed of
any aircraft is illustrated as follows. The Spite Mark 1A's top
speed was 362 mph at 18,200 feet, But its top speed at S/L was only
280 mph.

The Me 109E-3 top speed was 355 mph at 16,400 feet, although its
top speed was 305 mph at S/L. Therefore the Me was slower at
15,000.

Another illustration was the P-51D that arrived in service in 1944,
had a top speed of 437 mph at 25,000 feet. This same P-51's top
speed at 5,000 was only 315 mph. The P-40 could actually exceed
this speed at 5,000 feet. The P-40 with the same supercharged
engine would have exceeded the P-51' speed of 437 at 25,000 feet.

To compare the top speed of any A/C with another, the altitude at
which it is obtained has to be given, otherwise you are comparing
apples and oranges.

This is why I specified 15,000 feet.

P-51 Mustang Performance

None of that is substantiated in the flight tests for either the P-51B or D. These show flight test speed for D-15 in June 45 th attain speeds ranging from 370+ at SL at medium weights and only 67" boost (not using 150 fuel).

Where Schilling got his figures would be interesting?

 

[Venganza]

Lets see if this works. I didn't work tonight, so I played on the computer. I think we would have liked to see this:

Nice! So what do we call it - Kittystang or Musthawk? (I think I knew a Kittystang at one of the gentlemen's clubs I frequented in my younger and wealthier days.)

Venganza

 

[Clay_Allison]

Lets see if this works. I didn't work tonight, so I played on the computer. I think we would have liked to see this:

that looks awesome. It could never have range like the Mustang but it would be a fast, tough defensive fighter. Like a cross between a Spitfire and a Hurricane.