Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The 325FG had two brilliant victories over the Me 109 while equipped with theThe 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.
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...
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.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...
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.
Written by Erik Schilling
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.
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.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.
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:
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.
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:
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: