Advanced French Fighters vs 1942/1943 contemporaries (8 Viewers)

[Shortround6]

Whirlwind was 'medium ranged' by the standards of it's day- it had a range of ~ 800 miles, almost twice the earlier Bf 109, Yaks, LaGG 3 and La 5, Spitfire, Hurricane, MC 202 etc. Because of this it ended up being used over the channel and North Sea quite a bit later in it's sadly all-too-short career.

There seems to be quite a bit of misinformation about the Whirlwind. It held 609 liters of fuel. It had more drag than most of the single engine fighters listed. Expecting twice the range at similar speeds demands a high degree of optimism. Some people in the Air Ministry were not paying attention in physics or didn't have common sense. For a while it seemed to be " it has twin engines, it should be safer to fly over water than a single engine plane."
1. They ignored that the MK Is could not transfer fuel from one side to the other. If an engine went down they only had the fuel on same side as the working engine to get home with while flying in a high drag condition. The Props were not full feathering, how much rudder trim was needed to fly straight?
2. One source (and they vary a lot) claims max range was at 180 ASI ( but height not given). Range at 210mph is 150-200 miles less.
3. Whirlwind had the same radios as the Hurricane and Spitfire and at similar altitudes had the same range, that is not enough at low altitudes.
4, some debate about having a generator on each engine or having dual accessories (air pumps or hydraulic?)
At one point the Whirlwind was 'allowed' to fly about 110miles from shore while the Hurricane and Spitfire were limited to 80 miles (?).
Some early Beaufighters could not maintain height with engine (slow crash). British standards for safety over water were a bit dubious.
The 800 mile range may have been a "paper range", one source claims it includes a 15 minute allowance for take-off and landing.

I like the Whirlwind and the Air Ministry screwed it over. It never got a MK II and even simple things like a cross over valve between the left side fuel tanks and right side were never fitted.

MiG-3, at least the later versions, had exceptionally heavy armament by Soviet standards, 3 x 12.7mm and 2 x 7.62 mm machine guns,

You are basing this on selective basis. The vast majority of Mig-3s had 3 guns, not 5. Yes some got 5 guns, roughly about 1/4, a lot had them removed. it was not popular with the pilots and there was a performance loss. the two wing guns were in underwing pods and the performance loss was enough that the 5 gun planes could not always keep formation with the 3 gun planes, and in soviet fashion they mixed the planes up even in small units.
Planes lost 20-30kph at all altitudes, and maneuver was degraded unacceptably. A lot of planes also had the rear fuel tank reduced in capacity by 80kg of fuel and the center tank by 36kg. Maximum Operational range is given as 720km with the reduced fuel capacity, but speed and height not given.

 

[bada]

In fact, and more to the point, this is also true of the Dewoitine D.520 (strait line range 810-930 miles - with self-sealing fuel tanks and armor mind you), and the MS 406 had a range of 680 miles.

The d520 had this long range(1500km) only when using the wing-tanks (not self-sealing) and those were only used for ferry flight. For all other type of "missions", only the fuselage self sealing tank was used. The wing tanks being placed on the external part of the wing, the plane was a cow in the rolling plane and the CG on the limit when those non self sealing aluminium canisters were filled. Totaly unusable in combat context.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

The d520 had this long range(1500km) only when using the wing-tanks (not self-sealing) and those were only used for ferry flight. For all other type of "missions", only the fuselage self sealing tank was used. The wing tanks being placed on the external part of the wing, the plane was a cow in the rolling plane and the CG on the limit when those non self sealing aluminium canisters were filled. Totaly unusable in combat context.

Many WW2 fighters, notably the P-40 and P-51, had overload tanks in the fuselage which made flying precarious. They were used for missions where they were expected to fly a long distance and were reasonably sure not to be attacked during takeoff and the first leg of the mission. They would burn the fuel in the overload tank first, while taxiing, taking off and climbing to altitude. There are always tradeoffs which come with enhanced capabilities.

 

[Shortround6]

Many WW2 fighters, notably the P-40 and P-51, had overload tanks in the fuselage which made flying precarious. They were used for missions where they were expected to fly a long distance and were reasonably sure not to be attacked during takeoff and the first leg of the mission. They would burn the fuel in the overload tank first, while taxiing, taking off and climbing to altitude. There are always tradeoffs which come with enhanced capabilities.

In the case of the P-40 this is mistaken.
In the case of the P-51 it is somewhat exaggerated.
The P-36 had problems when trying to do combat maneuvers with the overload tank (behind the pilots seat) filled.
The P-40s with the longer, heavier engine/powerplant in the nose had no restrictions on maneuvers with the internal tanks filled. They often tested the planes with reduced fuel capacity but their were no actual flight restrictions in the manuals.
Just for accuracy's sake, The P-40F & L wanted around 25 US gallons in the rear tank and the instruction manual says to burn all fuel in the two forward tanks while leaving some fuel in the rear tank for landing and reserve. The Allison engined P-40s used the forward tank as reserve (partial fill) but their was no caution or restricted maneuvers with all 3 tanks full.
P-40 fuel capacity varied a bit but 148 US gallons is about 560 liters.
P-51s without the rear tank held 180 US gal or 680 liters. No restrictions whatsoever.
Post war manuals for the P-51D want about 35 gallons held in the rear tank for CG reasons (perhaps they had newer/lighter radios?) Yes 85 gallons in the tank had problems but at somewhere around 50-55 gallons the P-51 became neutral.

"reasonably sure not to be attacked during takeoff and the first leg of the mission"
Well this true but somewhat over blown. Climb chart for P-51D when climbing at 46in (normal power, not military) and carrying either two 500lb bombs or two 75 gallon drop tanks says that on a climb to 25,000ft the plane will cover 91 miles in 24 minutes and use 52 gal of fuel. If we say that the start, warm up and take off-take 20 gal (manual says 15) and we take that fuel out of the wing tank as per manual, we are down to 55 gal or a bit less in the rear tank when the plane levels off at 25,000ft. Assuming that the planes circle a bit while forming up and don't start flying towards Belgium or Holland as soon as they leave the runway getting attacked in the first part of a 8th air force bombing escort mission seems to pretty unlikely.
Granted flying in Italy or from bases in France gets a bit iffier but then they don't need to fill the rear tank as much.
Post war manual gives climbs for both military power and normal power for a number of take-off weights. and give distance traveled, time needed and fuel burned at 5,000ft increments.

 

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

Performance Tables of British Service Aircraft, Air Publication 1746, dated August 1939 but data includes 1940/41 aircraft, fuel is 87 octane, 7.5 pounds per imperial gallon.

Maker	Bristol	Westland
Name	Beaufighter I	Whirlwind
Engine Number	2​	2​
Engine Make	Hercules	Peregrine
Engine Cooling	Air	Liquid
Power: Horse Power	1,240​	885​
Power: At Height (feet)	16,000​	15,000​
Span (feet, inches)	58'	45'
Length (feet, inches)	41'	32'
Height (feet, inches)	15' 6"	9' 6"
Wing Area (square feet)	451​	231​
Crew	2​	1​
Armament: Forward Fuselage	4x20mm	4x20mm
Armament: Forward Wings	6x0.303"
Armament: Rounds Per Machine Gun	1,000​
Armament: Rounds Per Cannon	240​	60​
Tare Weight (pounds)	13,918​	8,040​
Normal Weight (pounds)	19,816​	9,980​
Take Off (Over 50 ft) (Yards)	790​	630​
Landing (Over 50 ft) (Yards)	940​	750​
Climb to Height (feet)	15,000​	15,000​
Climb to Height Time (Mins)	8.8​	5.6​
Service Ceiling (Feet)	29,700​	30,500​
Maximum Speed (m.p.h)	323​	356​
Max Speed Height (Feet)	14,400​	15,000​
Endurance (Max Power, hrs)		0.59​
Cruising Speed (m.p.h)	257​	306​
Cruise Speed Height	15,000​	15,000​
Range (15 mins allow.) (miles)	900​	340​
Endurance (15 mins allow.) Hrs	3.49​	1.11​
Fuel (for range, pounds)	2,310​	645​
Fuel (for allowance, pounds)	510​	240​
Fuel (Total, pounds)	2820​	885​
Fuel (Total, Gallons)	376​	118​
Miles per 100 pounds fuel	39​	52.7​
Maximum Fuel Capacity (Gallons)	550​	136​
Overload Weight (pounds) (Max Fuel)	21,120​	10,115​
Take Off (Over 50 ft) (Yards)	940​	580​
Climb to Height (feet)	15,000​
Climb to Height Time (mins)	9.2​
Service Ceiling	29,000​
Speed (m.p.h)	256​	306​
Height (feet)	15,000​	15,000​
Range (15 mins allow.) (miles)	1,400​	410​
Endurance (15 mins allow.) Hrs	5.46​	1.34​
Fuel (for range, pounds)	3,615​	780​
Fuel (for allowance, pounds)	510​	240​
Fuel (Total, pounds)	4125​	1,020​
Fuel (Total, Gallons)	550​	136​
Miles per 100 pounds of fuel	38.7​	52.7​
Speed (m.p.h)	200 - 210	190​
Height (feet)	15,000​	15,000​
Range (15 mins allow.) (miles)	1,620​	590​
Endurance (15 mins allow.) Hrs	7.55​	3.1​
Fuel (for range, pounds)	3,615​	780​
Fuel (for allowance, pounds)	510​	240​
Fuel (Total, pounds)	4125​	1,020​
Fuel (Total, Gallons)	550​	136​
Miles per 100 pounds of fuel	44.8​	75.7​

 

[Steamed_Banana]

Nobody ever said that the range of a Whirlwind compared to the range of a Beaufighter.

Regarding fuel tanks on the D.520, there is still a factor of unprotected and / or aerdynamically challenging fuel tanks being a feature on many aircraft, (including the forward tank on the Spitfire and Hurricane which wasn't self-sealing). The F4U-1 and -1A Corsair for example also had unprotected non self-sealing fuel tanks in the outer wings, holding 62 gallons. Also not ideal for maneuvering. But these were not only used for ferry flights, whether they were intended for such or not. It's too useful for operations. They would just follow the usual protocol of using this fuel first.

P-40 pilots did have issues with the rear tank and were wary of it, though I concede the precise details varied by engine and variant. P-51 pilots often complained about the effect of a full rear tank as we well know.

The Armee de L'Air and French Navy didn't just operate in France, incidentally, they had colonies in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia.

It's also not at all inconceivable to me that French aircraft could takeoff from airfields in Central or Western or Southern France and make for longer ranged operational targets within Germany or Italy in a Battle of France scenario. Flight at altitude usually burns less fuel thank takeoff and climb, so that's a good use for the overflow tank.

 

[tomo pauk]

This was an interesting engine. A problem was how to use it. Sticking a 900-1000kg engine into a fighter with about the same wing size as a fighter using a 600kg engine.

Make a bit bigger fighter. Something size of Spitfire/Mustang/I-220 series.

Mig-3 also used about 650L fuel supply instead of the 400-500L of the M-105 powered planes. One result was the rather poor armament of the M-3.

Soviet high command should've mandated that a new-gen fighter carry at least one cannon.
Drop tanks combined would've also worked wonders here, but again there was no doctrine for that, and the bad days of 1941-42 (ditto for the purges in the years before 1942) prevented a lot of things to happen in the Soviet airforce.

When planning purchases/acquisitions it was often 1-2 years before combat use. A-20s were fairly successful but somewhat short supply. P-40s and Hurricanes still needed top cover.
...
And yet in 1941-42 the P-40 could do both. It wasn't the best fighter, but it was good enough.

A fighter that needs top cover is a much worse fighter than the one that does not need it.
The P-40 was such a fighter. It was good enough for the air battles against the Japanese, as well as in the Med if the fight was under 15000 ft. FOr the conditions of ETO, where the Axis was bringing their A team, and the altitudes of combat can easily go to above 20000 ft, the P-40 was not used historically.
As a bombed-up fighter, it will be good.

Bf 109E was not that good.

It was so bad, that it shared the 1st spot for the best fighter in the world between late 1938 and mid-1940 with the Spitrfire.

A nation with several fighter programs could have used different specifications. Building 3 or more different fighters that were all small means the nation actually has restricted options for future developments or needs.

French are making small and even smaller fighters (VG, D.520 & 551), as well as Fw-190-sized Bloch 157. These will cover the cricial role - that of a fighter.
Their bombers, plus whatever the British bring, plus whatever the US is delivering, will cater for the bombing, recon, training, transport, as well as to bring more flavor to the Allied fighter stable.

With France surviving in relatively good shape into 1941 and 42, Allies also have the numerical superiority, while the Germans are even worse with their fuel and trained crewmen situation. Not everything is about a fighter that caries an extra gun, or a bomber that can carry an extra bomb.

Soviet fighters could only carry a small load. French fighters in 1940 lacked power.

True.

In 1941-42 they have better power but the French were going for even smaller wings, 150 sq ft instead of 170-180sqft aside from the Bloch series.

No problem what so ever. Keep the fighters specialized for their prime task by keeping the size, drag and hopefully weight under control.

Having good fighters helps, but if you don't have good mud movers (either fighter bombers or light bombers) and light bombers designed to hold eight-ten 50kg bombs are not really good mud movers in 1942, then the good fighters only go so far, more defense than offensive.

Have the designers of the bombers do their part of the job, too. Just like it was expected from the designers of the fighters, tanks, guns, small arms etc.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

Tomo, he idea that P-40s were usually relying on top cover (or that it was necessary) is basically a myth.

And this is relevant because (as far as I know) all the French fighters available in May-June 1940 also had engines with single speed superchargers.

• In the Pacific P-40s were often either the only or the best fighter available, and even when P-38s showed up by late 1942, they were needed for other things in most cases. When they did attempt to fly top cover in the Solomons or around New Guinea they usually missed rendezvous. See the other thread on the real operational history of air combat in New Guinea through March 1943 for details on that. Even in the fighting later in 1943, P-40 equipped units in the Solomons like the 44th FS were fighting in the same battles / in conjunction with F4Us an P-38s, but were flying into battle and fighting on their own and there typically was no "top cover" arrangement. They also took considerably fewer losses than either the P-38s or F4Us. Of course, some of the P-40s in the Pacific in these battles were Merlin XX engined P-40F/L. with a much higher effective ceiling. Others were P-40M or N with higher rated single speed superchargers. By the time P-47s and P-51s showed up in numbers in the South Pacific, P-40s were being phased out or replaced.
• In the CBI, P-40s were on their own right into late 1944 and early 1945, when they were finally replaced with P-47s and then P-51s. In theory Spitfire Mk VIIIs or P-38s could have flown top cover but this did not seem to happen. P-40s had the majority of victory claims of any Allied type in the CBI.
• In the Med P-40s had no option that could in theory provide top cover through mid 1942. After 1942 when Spitfires started arriving they sometimes did take this role to protect older (P-40D/E) types, it was rarely done due to the limited range of the Spitfire V. P-38 units initially had trouble in the Theater and ended up being used to escort long range heavy bomber strikes into Italy. P-40s, mainly the 16 US fighter squadrons (and 2 British) equipped with P-40F/L with Merlin XX engines, took the lead in the offensive fighter role in the Theater through 1943 and into early 1944. They rarely if ever had top cover, except in a few cases such as the landings at Anzio. JG 27, JG 51, JG 2, JG 54, and JG 77 were all active in North Africa and the Mediterranean at various points between 1941-1944. These were not "second best" units. Nor were the Italian units flying MC 202 or 205s, the former being their most common fighter type from 1942.

The altitude that a fighter needs to be able to operate in a given time and place is dictated by the altitude that the bombers are operating. In the 1930s, theory said that bombers could destroy targets from level bombing attacks performed at 20-25,000 ft, with or without gyrostabilized bomb-sights. With the exception of the US daylight Strategic Bomber campaign which was historically unique, during most of the war, bombers were rarely operating at these altitudes. Over battlefields like the on the Russian Front or in the Mediterranean, for the simple fact that bombers could not hit anything of tactical or operational significance unless they went lower, and the best and most accurate bombers (in terms of destroying ground targets) were dive bombers which dropped down to a few thousand feet. The same was true of course in naval combat.

The Battle of Brtiain is an aberration in this sense, as it was a strategic / operational bombing campaign in which the German ground forces could not engage the British. But an extended war in France would not necessarily follow that model. At least to a significant extent, the air war would have to follow the ground war - the most important targets would be tanks, bridges, artillery positions, supply dumps, and convoys of vehicles, more than factories or the terror bombing of cities. Even to the extent that there was strategic bombing per the BoB, German bombers in 1940 or 41 did not fly at 25 -30,000 ft.

Japanese Bombers did fly at 25,000' over Darwin in 1942, but by using specially developed tactics, the 49th FG flying P-40 variants with the worst altitude rating of the type (P-40Es rated for 12,000 ft) were able to inflict enough losses on Japanese raids coming in at altitude as to force the first bombing campaign against that city and surrounding ports an airfields to stop. P-40F/L, or even B/C or M/N would have done much better. As would, very likely, Dewoitine D.520 or VG 33.

 

[tomo pauk]

Tomo, he idea that P-40s were usually relying on top cover (or that it was necessary) is basically a myth.

Too many times it was pointed out to, in this forum. Granted, usually with MTO being the combat area, and Spitfires flying the top cover. I'll bow to the superior information, though.

And this is relevant because (as far as I know) all the French fighters available in May-June 1940 also had engines with single speed superchargers.

So did the British fighters, until Hurricane gotten the Merlin XX. However, sometimes an engine with a 1-speed S/C is better at altitude than the other engine of similar nominal power and with 2-speed S/C, or even if the competing engine has a S/C drive with - theoretically - the infinite number of speeds.

There is another factor in the play - that the P-40 will not be doing much of the fighting in 1940, being too late to matter for Europe. For early 1941 and on, French should be having engines of similar if not better altitude power than the V-1710 of the day, powering the fighters that are both lighter and sleeker than the P-40.

The Battle of Brtiain is an aberration in this sense, as it was a strategic / operational bombing campaign in which the German ground forces could not engage the British. But an extended war in France would not necessarily follow that model. At least to a significant extent, the air war would have to follow the ground war - the most important targets would be tanks, bridges, artillery positions, supply dumps, and convoys of vehicles, more than factories or the terror bombing of cities. Even to the extent that there was strategic bombing per the BoB, German bombers in 1940 or 41 did not fly at 25 -30,000 ft.

Cruising altitude of the escort fighters is a thing here, too. If the escorts concede the, say, 18-23 kft altitude band to the possible defenders, they put themselves into a bad position. Altitude disadvantage is/was a big deal, and that can be quickly transformed into a speed disadvantage.

Putting the He 111s into the tactical job in 1941-42 will make them juicy targets to the Allied AA guns, that by 1941 should have both numbers and quality fixed.

Japanese Bombers did fly at 25,000' over Darwin in 1942, but by using specially developed tactics, the 49th FG flying P-40 variants with the worst altitude rating of the type (P-40Es rated for 12,000 ft) were able to inflict enough losses on Japanese raids coming in at altitude as to force the first bombing campaign against that city and surrounding ports an airfields to stop.

Spitfires have had a say there, too, despite the problems that ranged between these of technical altitude and the problems of (mis)use of them.
Let me repeat again that RAF was not willing to use the P-40s from the UK, ditto for the USAAF.

P-40F/L, or even B/C or M/N would have done much better. As would, very likely, Dewoitine D.520 or VG 33.

I agree that the D. and VG. fighters should've been just fine, again provided they get the heart transplantation we're talking last 30 pages here. Ditto for the Bloch with the 14R engine.
P-40F will be surely a welcome addtion, regardless of it's speed and climb disadvantage vs. the Axis best, and it's not the best timing.
The P-40B and C should be better than the P-40E, due to the lighter weight; the engine power was about the same as what the P-40E had.
P-40M/N will be close to the P-40F, but the timing is worse than that of the P-40F.

IMO - the earlier the P-40 gets protection from small arms and it is bombed-up, the better.

 

[Bretoal2]

It's also not at all inconceivable to me that French aircraft could takeoff from airfields in Central or Western or Southern France and make for longer ranged operational targets within Germany or Italy in a Battle of France scenario. Flight at altitude usually burns less fuel thank takeoff and climb, so that's a good use for the overflow tank.

Not only is France far smaller than the Pacific Ocean, but—more importantly—the Armée de l'Air doctrine dictated that units be stationed as close to the front line as possible.

This proved to be a complicating factor during the Battle of France, as pilots and aircraft spent their time constantly relocating to stay ahead of the German advance, resulting in nightmarish logistical challenges.

At least, however, this approach meant that the issue of operational range was relegated to a secondary concern !

Conversely, during the collapse of late June 1940, the decision was made to send many aircraft to North Africa, but Bloch 152 could not, given their limited range. After the armistice, an attempt to fit them with larger fuel tanks—so they could be flown to safety away from the Germans—was discovered by the occupying forces and, naturally, cancelled.

It is worth noting that, in 1939–1940, the French Air Force did not possess external fuel tanks for any of its aircraft.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

Too many times it was pointed out to, in this forum. Granted, usually with MTO being the combat area, and Spitfires flying the top cover. I'll bow to the superior information, though.

Spitfires didn't arrive in the North African Theater until mid 1942, those that did arrive (initially Spit V only) lacked the range for many of the bombing missions except immediately over the battlefield. By that time the first P-40Fs had arrived with the 57th FG and these (so far as I know) never flew with top cover. Spit VIII with a bit more range did not arrive until the second quarter of 1943, by which time there were five fighter groups flying P-40F/L and, these the first of started converting to P-47s in late 1943.

By which time the North African campaign was over, and the fighting was now in Italy.

So did the British fighters, until Hurricane gotten the Merlin XX. However, sometimes an engine with a 1-speed S/C is better at altitude than the other engine of similar nominal power and with 2-speed S/C, or even if the competing engine has a S/C drive with - theoretically - the infinite number of speeds.

True, lighter planes have better altitude performance even with single speed s/c, the A6M2 for example.

There is another factor in the play - that the P-40 will not be doing much of the fighting in 1940, being too late to matter for Europe. For early 1941 and on, French should be having engines of similar if not better altitude power than the V-1710 of the day, powering the fighters that are both lighter and sleeker than the P-40.

I definitely agree, they might have had Hawk-81 / Tomahawk / P-40B/C type some time in 1941 but definitely not in 1940.

V-1710 was a good bit heavier than HS 12Y

Cruising altitude of the escort fighters is a thing here, too. If the escorts concede the, say, 18-23 kft altitude band to the possible defenders, they put themselves into a bad position. Altitude disadvantage is/was a big deal, and that can be quickly transformed into a speed disadvantage.

Very true but it is only one of a set of possible advantages and disadvantages. When there are bombers to escort (or attack) fighting comes down to the level of the bombers eventually, or else the bombers are going to be destroyed or protected by the side that will.

P-38s operating in the Med had a higher critical altitude than Bf 109s or Fw 190s but didn't do so well against them for a variety of other reasons.

During the Korean War the MiG 15 had a considerable altitude advantage but F-86s held their own against them and maybe a bit more.

Putting the He 111s into the tactical job in 1941-42 will make them juicy targets to the Allied AA guns, that by 1941 should have both numbers and quality fixed.

They had to phase them out pretty early in North Africa. They were replaced by Ju 87s and Ju 88s with heavy fighter escort (and some jabos) which worked for a while but started to run into problems by late 1942 for the reasons mentioned above - i.e. Luftwaffe fighters were reluctant to come down to the level of the bombers and get into sustained dogfights with enemy fighters.

Spitfires have had a say there, too, despite the problems that ranged between these of technical altitude and the problems of (mis)use of them.

The US 49th FG (flying P-40E) led the first defense of Darwin in 1942, and was successful albeit at a cost; the RAAF then took over with the Spit V mainly in 1943, and had a bit more trouble (and lost about twice as many fighters) though they were ultimately successful as well.

Let me repeat again that RAF was not willing to use the P-40s from the UK, ditto for the USAAF.

The P-40 was not available in time for the BoB. It was totally unsuitable for escorting US heavy bombers.

I agree that the D. and VG. fighters should've been just fine, again provided they get the heart transplantation we're talking last 30 pages here. Ditto for the Bloch with the 14R engine.

It's worth keeping in mind that the 1940 vintage D.520 did fairly well against British fighters over Syria and Lebanon in 1941 and against the USN and RAF during Torch in Nov 1942, and then yet again as a defensive fighter for Italy and Bulgaria in 1943. Even with the original engine. So yeah with an improved design (and some other improvements) I think it or a derivation of it would have been quite competitive.

P-40F will be surely a welcome addtion, regardless of it's speed and climb disadvantage vs. the Axis best, and it's not the best timing.

No it wouldn't be available until mid 1942 at the earliest. It was slightly slower than tropicalized Bf 109F or G2, or MC 202 (P-40F at about 370 mph vs 375 or 380 for tropicialized F4 or 385 for G2), and notably inferior in climb, but had superior roll, turn, and dive.

The P-40B and C should be better than the P-40E, due to the lighter weight; the engine power was about the same as what the P-40E had.

The Hawk 81 / Tomahawk P-40B and C also had a supercharger tuned for a critical altitude of about 17,000 ft, vs 12,000ft for the Hawk 87 / Kittyhawk I and Ia / P-40D and E. Same for the K incidentally. So for the French in hypothetical fighting in 1941 they'd probably better off with Tomahawk types.

P-40M/N will be close to the P-40F, but the timing is worse than that of the P-40F.

Of course.

IMO - the earlier the P-40 gets protection from small arms and it is bombed-up, the better.

Only the late Tomahawk IIB / P-40C had the capacity for carrying bombs, I believe. And subsequent Kittyhawk types as well.

 

[Shortround6]

Nobody ever said that the range of a Whirlwind compared to the range of a Beaufighter.

problem I had was claiming that the Whirlwind had significantly longer range than a Spitfire. Now define significantly
quick check on some figures. Whirlwind needed 1770hp to go 356-360mph at 15,000ft. Spitfire II needed 1175hp to do 357mph at 17,000ft (?). Obviously, the Whirlwind has a lot more drag. Whirlwind has about 50% more fuel than Spitfire. Yet with more drag it is supposed to go over 60% further at similar lower speeds? The math ain't mathing.
The numbers provided by Mr Sinclair would seem much closer to the truth. Maybe a 20% gain in range at low speed.

egarding fuel tanks on the D.520, there is still a factor of unprotected and / or aerdynamically challenging fuel tanks being a feature on many aircraft, (including the forward tank on the Spitfire and Hurricane which wasn't self-sealing). The F4U-1 and -1A Corsair for example also had unprotected non self-sealing fuel tanks in the outer wings, holding 62 gallons. Also not ideal for maneuvering.

Yes the British were late to the self seal tank party. The USN had been trapped by the type of construction selected by some manufacturers. Integral tanks were difficult (impossible?) to make self-sealing. Also see P-35, P-43 and Italian cousins. Keeping the wing fuel tanks in the Corsair was a mistake but due the size of the Corsair the larger wing tanks may not have caused any more problems than the D 520. A lot depends on internal baffling and the aileron control/authority. Manual for the Corsair says the pilot should try to equalize the weight in the tanks by using them alternately for roughly equal times. There were no fuel gauges for the wing tanks and ideally they wanted more fuel left in the right tank than left due to the plane having a tendency to left wing heaviness when landing with power on. One of those helpful/not helpful tips. This is what we want you to do but we are not going to tell you how to do it or give you any gauges or aids to do it. On the other hand the Corsair's fuselage tank help only 13 gal less than the F6F and both held 50-63 US gallons more than a Typhoon.

P-40 pilots did have issues with the rear tank and were wary of it, though I concede the precise details varied by engine and variant.

You have read more combat accounts but I have seen nothing about problems with the P-40s. Not helped by fuel capacities of
P-40..................180gal
P-40B................160gal
P-40C................135 gal
P-40D&E..........148-149gal
P-40F.................157 gal
P-40K.................157 gal
P-40L.................120 gal (forward tank taken out)
P-40M...............157 gal
P-40N-1............120 gal (forward tank taken out)
P-40N-5
and up..............161 gal.
Now adding changes in armor, BP glass, radios and other accessories and 2-3 different types of self sealing/protected tanks varying from 171lbs (unprotected P-40s) through 234lbs (p-40B) to 420-437lb for most P-40s with 3 tanks and then 366lbs for the P-40N-5 and up and there is quite a bit change that can affect the CG and trying to compensate for it.
Manuals for the P-40F and L specifically state to use a different order of tank usage.

 

[Frog]

It's worth keeping in mind that the 1940 vintage D.520 did fairly well against British fighters over Syria and Lebanon in 1941 and against the USN and RAF during Torch in Nov 1942,

The Vichy Air Force performance ought a lot to a core of experienced pilots and ground crews with the combat experience they acquired in 1940. By the way the Vichy Air force had 80 000 men on april 1942, who turned to be a real bonus for the Allied side once requipped with US and British types.

This had to be somehow tampered by the restrictions of the limited flying time (up to only 4 hours per month) because of the fuel restriction and spare parts availability.

Furthermore, the D-520 was a non compromizing plane to master and the conversion from a much more docile MS-406 was surprizing for most pilots.

It could have been better in 1940 had the pilots cumulating enough flying time before action.

About what the Germans thought about the D-520, this an excerp from the german Wikipedia :

"So trafen am 9. Juni 1940 die deutsche II./JG 27 mit ihren Bf 109 E und ein Teil der französischen GC I/3 mit ihren D.520s aufeinander.
Es wurden 6 deutsche Jäger (Bf 109) abgeschossen – und eine D.520, die eine geglückte Bauchlandung machte.
Deutsche Autoren wie Z. B. Ring und Girbig (Buch Jagdgeschwader 27) sowie Jochen Prien in seiner Buchreihe über die deutschen Jagdfliegerverbände (Band 3, hauptsächlich über den Westfeldzug; undatiert, ca. 2000 erschienen) bestätigen ihrerseits diese hohen Verluste gegen die D.520."

"On 9 June 1940, the German II./JG 27 with its Bf 109 E and part of the French GC I/3 with its D.520s met.
Six German fighters (Bf 109) were shot down – and one D.520, which made a successful belly landing.
German authors such as Ring and Girbig (book Jagdgeschwader 27) as well as Jochen Prien in his book series on the German fighter units (Volume 3, mainly on the Western Campaign; undated, published around 2000) confirm these high losses against the D.520."

 

[Shortround6]

Make a bit bigger fighter. Something size of Spitfire/Mustang/I-220 series.

At a minimum. Problem is that the M-35 started with a weight of 780kg (single stage Griffon) and went to 880kg and higher. The M-39 and later (1944 engines? at best) were heading for over 1000kg and into Sabre weight.

Soviet high command should've mandated that a new-gen fighter carry at least one cannon.

Soviet high command can mandate all sorts of things. Repealing the laws of physics might not actually work. A number of Soviet fighters had somewhat questionable CG issues.
Installing cannon and cannon ammo into already overweight aircraft was a problem. Remember that many Mig-3s flew without canopies. Freezing cold and a loss of speed was judged worth the better vision and the of bailing out if need be. Many soviet parts were substandard and required work arounds.

Drop tanks combined would've also worked wonders here, but again there was no doctrine for that, and the bad days of 1941-42 (ditto for the purges in the years before 1942) prevented a lot of things to happen in the Soviet airforce.

You also need to manufacture the tanks and distribute them. Not an easy task in 1941-42. There were supposedly some tanks available for the I-16 and the Lagg-3. number actually available? worked at all altitudes or only low) blocked carriage of bombs or rockets? Pair of 22 Imp gal tanks was not what was needed?

A fighter that needs top cover is a much worse fighter than the one that does not need it.

True but are 20 high and 20 low altitude fighters better than 40 low altitude fighters? yes 40 high altitude fighters would be best.

It was so bad, that it shared the 1st spot for the best fighter in the world between late 1938 and mid-1940 with the Spitrfire.

True but it needed that large overhaul in late 1940 and an improved engine and a new main gun, all to make it into mid 1941.

French are making small and even smaller fighters (VG, D.520 & 551), as well as Fw-190-sized Bloch 157. These will cover the cricial role - that of a fighter.
Their bombers, plus whatever the British bring, plus whatever the US is delivering, will cater for the bombing, recon, training, transport, as well as to bring more flavor to the Allied fighter stable.

Making a virtue out of a necessity only works for so long.
And we have 20/20 hindsight. We know that the Germans FAILED to develop better/more modern bombers in a rather spectacular fashion. Lack of good armament might have been a mistake if the Germans had developed better bomber/s sooner or at all. Germans tried using basically the same engines in 33,000lb heavy bomber (Do 217E) as the Americans, French and British were using in a 22,000lb light bomber (A-20). Doesn't need to be a German B-17F/G. Do 217 was not quite fast enough and was too poorly armed. It really needed escorts in daylight. Depending on your enemies to make mistakes is not good planning. The VG series may have been a dead end. Perhaps they could have been redesigned to use aluminum instead of wood?

No problem what so ever. Keep the fighters specialized for their prime task by keeping the size, drag and hopefully weight under control

Trouble is that the French seemed to concentrate on size to help control drag. A low drag plane could have been larger for the same drag and offered better opportunities.
P-40 had a different set of troubles. No P-51 but it was fairly low drag for it's size and weight. It's main problem was an engine that stagnated for 2 years. A P-40K of late 1942 had about the same power at 18-20,000ft as the P-40B had in the fall of 1940. Power got a lot better down low but the US screwed up by adding about 14% weight for no added power over 14-15,000ft.
French were increasing power (not enough?). French may not need to build Zero fighters but abandoning maneuver for speed and climb only might have bitten them in ass.

Have the designers of the bombers do their part of the job, too. Just like it was expected from the designers of the fighters, tanks, guns, small arms etc.

If you want the bomber designers to do their jobs you have to give them good engines. You want a French Mosquito you can't use HS 12Y engines.
You want a French B-25 you can't use a pair of 1200hp radials.
French tried to compensate for low power with small size.