Best World War II Aircraft?

[Civettone]

I thought most P-40s served on the home front by 1944. More were flown by allied countries.

About the 3:1 ratio ... this includes fights with bombers and transport aircraft. Right?

The P-40 was a good fighter in the horizontal but bad in the vertical. It's the latter which I consider of superior importance.
Kris

 

[Colin1]

Although it was inferior to the P-47 and P-51 it seems that it was good enough to continue production at the end of 1944...

It wasn't
by 1942 the P-40 was indeed obsolete. The US Senate hammered this message home in the form of the Truman Committee. Curtiss-Wright were heavily criticised for poor management policies and inferior products, directly accused of 'riding the gravy train' wrt to contracts awarded off the back of their close relationship with the military, taking $4.7 billion out of a defense (US sp) total of $105 billion for the period 01Jun40 through to 01Mar43.

The Airplane Division attracted the heaviest criticism and two products in particular, the P-40 and the SB2C. Curtiss-Wright AND the Army shared the blame for the continuance of the P-40 when it was so clearly obsolete in the face of more advanced designs like the P-47 and P-51. The Army was condemned for failing to recognise the importance of the newer designs and not ordering them into production sooner. Curtiss-Wright themselves actually attracted some credit for making 'a number of modifications' but the wider view of the report attacked the over-zealous sales pitch, by the company, of the P-40.

Balancing this, the Truman Committee failed to recognise that P-47 and P-51 production facilities were not yet up to speed in 1943 in order to maintain a constant flow of hardware to the USAAF combat units. This lack of volume had to be compensated with continued P-40 production and this is where the Truman Committee failed to recognise the delicate balance between quality and quantity. The Army's turn to take some credit, they tried to speed up the process in early 1942 by directing the Airplane Division to end P-40 production and take on P-47 production. This did not go well. There were a multitude of QC issues and only around 300 units had been turned out by the end of the same year. The problem was compounded by the need for aircraft for North Africa and Russia and the P-47 lines were abandoned while Curtiss-Wright returned to P-40 production.

The P-40 was not good enough after 1942, it simply had the good fortune to be around in terms of aircraft and tooling to make more aircraft.

Looking at it by the numbers, the last of the line, the P-40N was capable of 340mph at 15,000ft. Its contemporary, the Nakajima Ki-84 approached 400mph 5,000ft overhead of the N. The Bf109K was capable of 450mph at roughly the same height as the Ki-84. All three aircraft were in production in 1944 and while Curtiss-Wright managed to sell 6,000+ P-40Ns, there appears to be little in the way of confirmation as to how many actually saw combat.

If the P-40N was tasked to intercept the latest bomber, the B-29, it would not be able to fly high enough by some considerable margin and even if it could, it would barely be able to catch it, assuming best speed altitude at the same height as the B-29.

 

[Colin1]

Proof?

Joe
not proof conclusive but certainly compelling, the Curtiss XP-46A; not the clearest picture in the world

Below: The Curtiss XP-46A. Was this the rabbit Dutch Kindleberger carefully put into his P-51 hat? USAF

 

[tail end charlie]

Joe
not proof conclusive but certainly compelling, the Curtiss XP-46A; not the clearest picture in the world

Below: The Curtiss XP-46A. Was this the rabbit Dutch Kindleberger carefully put into his P-51 hat? USAF

from wiki

The Curtiss XP-46 was a 1940s United States prototype fighter aircraft. It was a development of the Curtiss-Wright Corporation in an effort to introduce the best features found in European fighter aircraft in 1939 (particularly the Bf109 eating Avro Anson) into a fighter aircraft which could succeed the Curtiss P-40, then in production.
unquote I must admit the comments in brackets are mine.


more seriously
Design and development
A United States Army Air Corps (USAAC) specification based upon a Curtiss proposal was the basis for an order placed in September 1939 for the XP-46. The requirements called for a single-engine, low-wing aircraft, slightly smaller than the P-40, and with a wide-track, inward-retracting landing gear. The selected powerplant was an 1,150 hp (858 kW) Allison V-1710-39 V-12 engine. The planned armament included two .50 in (12.7 mm) synchronized machine guns in the forward fuselage and provisions for eight .30 in (7.62 mm) wing-mounted guns. The USAAC later added requirements for self-sealing fuel tanks and 65 lb (29 kg) of armor, the weights of which were to adversely affect performance.

Testing
Two prototype aircraft were delivered, designated XP-46A, with first flight occurring on 15 February 1941. However, the USAAC decided in July 1940 (while the XP-46s were under construction) to replace the XP-46 procurement effort with an upgraded P-40 which would use the planned XP-46 engine. In this manner, a serious disruption of the Curtiss production line would be avoided.

Subsequently, the performance during trials of the XP-46 was found inferior to the upgraded P-40 (designated P-40D).

A myth surrounding the origins of the P-51 Mustang is linked to the North American Aviation (NAA) purchase of test data on the P-40 and P-46. NAA paid $56,000 to Curtiss for technical aerodynamic data on the XP-46 and although there are certain design similarities in the radiator/oil-cooler configuration, the new NA-73X (the company designation for the future P-51) even in preliminary design had already progressed beyond the XP-46 [1]. In addition, after the war, NAA engineers revealed that they had learned of a European study (before the US entry into World War II) which indicated the value of a well-designed embedded radiator, and were eager to apply that knowledge to a new design.

 

[renrich]

The arguments being used to define the P40 as WW2s best aircraft actually fit the F4F Wildcat better. Overall, it had much greater impact on the war's outcome than the P40 and it had a better record against the A6M than did the P40. I still would have to vote for the C47.

 

[P-40K-5]

The arguments being used to define the P40 as WW2s best aircraft actually fit the F4F Wildcat better. Overall, it had much greater impact on the war's outcome than the P40 and it had a better record against the A6M than did the P40.

Wildcat is a very good plane. P-40 had a very good record against the am6 also. but the F4F wasn't in
China/Burma/India, nor North Africa. Imagine if the P-40's were not there in the begining of the
war. I can't. they kept the JAAF in check until re-inforcments arrived.

Now this needs repeating. In N.Africa the P-40's main foe was the Bf/Me 109F/G's on paper, a vastly
superior plane, flown by German aces. Yet the P-40's had a 3:1 k/r against them IF you believe the
lowest numbers. alot has to do with pilots flying them, and the strengths of the P-40 took
advatages of the 109's weaknesses.. smartly. specifically when it came to turning and rolls, which
the P-40 outclassed the 109.

so by best.. that was just my opinion. it held the lines for almost 3 years. and flown right to the
end. had a very impressive record against some of the best machines out there. considering
the P-40 was obselete according to some at the beggining of the war, thats a hell of an
accomplishment. obselete? I think not. thanks for reading

~Greg

 

[tail end charlie]

In N.Africa the P-40's main foe was the Bf/Me 109F/G's on paper, a vastly
superior plane, flown by German aces.

The P-40 was just a poor mans Avro Anson

There at the start, there at the finish bagged a few Bf109s and a couple of 1000 bomber raids then carried on into peace time is there anything the Anson couldnt do?

 

[Colin1]

P-40 had a very good record against the A6M...


but the F4F wasn't in China/Burma/India

It did?


Neither was the A6M at least, not in the same part of the CBI as the P-40, at the same time. By the time 'our' war had started, the A6M had been largely withdrawn from China; the principal opponents faced by the AVG were the Ki-27 (Nate) and the Ki-43 (Oscar).

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Joe
not proof conclusive but certainly compelling, the Curtiss XP-46A; not the clearest picture in the world

Below: The Curtiss XP-46A. Was this the rabbit Dutch Kindleberger carefully put into his P-51 hat? USAF

Maybe or it showed incompetence on Curtiss' part.

 

[Glider]

Re the performance of the P40 against the Me 109 there was a thread on this and the following are some notes I made at the time. All these details are as published in Fighters Over Tunisia.

Some time ago I was able to have a look at Fighters over Tunisia in the Library and I couldn't find a US Pilot who didn't think that the P40 was totally outclassed by the Me 109.

General Quotes
Some quotes I jotted down
a) Page 392 discussing P40 vs Spit V Wing Commander Benham
During mock dogfights I was able to outfly 3 x P40 in a single Spitfire VB

b) Page 403 John Bradley 33rd Fighter Group on P40F
He describes the plane as being obsolete for what it was asked to do (as a fighter)

c) Page 407 Brig Harrison Thyng CO 309 Squadron 31st Fighter group
Preferred the Spitfire to all other Allied fighters and considered the P39/P40 to be no match for the 109 F/G or the 190

d) Page 413 Capt Ron Whittaker 57th Fighter Group P40F
Considered the P40 to be outclassed by the German Fighters.

There was a common theme that the Spit V was considered to be better than the US fighters and the Spit IX to be at least as good as the 190 and better than the Me109.
The only exception being that the P38 was better for range which shouldn't be a suprise.
I also tracked all the combats for two units RAF 112 squadron and 68th Fighter Squadron of the 33rd Fighter Group. These units were chosen because they were the most experienced units I could identify.

RAF 112 Squadron
The following are the list of combats that RAF 112 squadron had in Tunisia which should give a fair indication as to how well the P40 did against the Me109. All details from Fighters Over Tunisia

23rd Dec 2 x P40 lost 2 x P40 belly landed 1 x Me109 claimed
11th Jan 1 x P40 lost and 1 x P40 belly landed
5th Feb 1 x P40 l1 x P40 lost and 1 x P40 belly landed, 1 x Me109 claimed
27th Feb 1 x P40 lost. 1 x Me109 Probable claimed
7th March 1 x P40 Badly damaged
8th March 7 x P40 lost (1 pilot returned) 2 x Me109 1 x Ju87 claimed
22nd March 1 x Me109 as a probable claimed
19 April 1 x Me109 claimed
20 April 1 x Ju88 claimed

68th Fighter Squadron of 33rd Fighter Group
12th Dec - 1 German claimed no type given
19th Dec - 1 x He111 claimed
21st Jan - 1 x P40 lost
3rd Jan - 2 x P40 lost
4th Jan - 3 x P40 lost 1 x P40 damaged
8th Jan - 1 x Me109 and 2 x Fw190 claimed (1 German actually lost and 1 Damaged), 2 x P40 lost
11th Jan - 1 x P40 lost 1 x Me109 claimed (but no actual losses recorded)
12th Jan - 1 x Ju88 1 x Me109 claimed
13th Jan - 1 x Beaufighter shot down, 2 x Ju88 shot down (note these were seperate incidents)
15th Jan - 1 x P40 lost
17th Jan - 1 x P40 lost
30th Jan - 1 x P40 lost on GA mission
24th Mar - 5 x P40 lost 5 x Me109 claimed but only one Me109 (Richard Wolfmier) actually lost
29th Mar - 3 x Me109 claimed plus 3 x Me109 claimed by 60th FS. 4 x Me109 actually lost for 1 x P40 lost from 58th FS
31st Mar - 1 x P40 lost and 1 x P40 damaged, 7 x Me109 claimed but none lost
4th Apr - 2 x P40 lost 2 x Me109 claimed but none lost
5th Apr - 1 x P40 lost, 1 x Mc202 and 1 x Me109 claimed
7th Apr - 1 x P40 lost on GA mission
10th Apr - 4 x Mc 202 claimed
23rd Apr - 1 x P40 lost on GA mission
4th May - 2 x P40 claimed 2 x Me109 claimed but no losses to either side
7th May - 1 x p40 lost to AA fire.


According to German Records
Total German Claims 965

Total German Losses
Combat - 182 (Note this is all types)
Accident -68
AA fire - 23
own AA fire - 3
Own Fighter - 2
Total 278

Generally speaking there is little here to say that the P40 could hold its own in combat against the Me109 and based on this snapshot even 3 - 1 claim ratios must be considered doubtful

 

[evangilder]

so by best.. that was just my opinion. it held the lines for almost 3 years. and flown right to the
end. had a very impressive record against some of the best machines out there. considering
the P-40 was obselete according to some at the beggining of the war, thats a hell of an
accomplishment. obselete? I think not. thanks for reading

~Greg

If you are going to apply a standard of holding the line for the duration of the war, the Bf-109 was in service longer, and continued to be in service well into the 1960s if you include the Spanish built units.

The P-40 was a good airplane, but not a great airplane for it's time.

Fighters are essential to establish control of the air, which is important, but what about getting food and supplies to the troops, and getting the wounded out? Fighters and bombers are sexy, but when it comes down to it, the transports are the ones that win wars.

I stick with my original vote, the C-47 Skytrain. Not only that,but I still consider the C-47/DC-3 to be the greatest airplane ever built.

 

[Colin1]

from wiki

Wiki's there
if I really can't be bothered to get my lazy ass out of my chair and take a walk over to my bookshelf


Earlier in September 1939, work had begun of a smaller fighter at Curtiss. It had Air Corps designation XP-46 and two examples were built to meet an Air Corps' specification that apparently grew from the desire of Hap Arnold to obtain a lighter, smaller fighter aircraft than those in inventory or under development. Arnold had been impressed by the performance of a French racing plane, the Caudron C-460, flown by Michael Detroyat to decisive victories in both the Greve and Thompson Trophy races at Cleveland in 1936 and had sent Ben Kelsey, his Fighter Projects Officer, to inspect the Caudron.

Kelsey of course, had reported to Arnold that, by the time such a craft was transformed into a useful fighter, it would no longer be as small or as light in weight. It seems apparent however that Arnold never did completely accept the fact that he couldn't have such a machine if only Wright Field and US planemakers would just try a little harder.

The Curtiss XP-46, which obviously had a great deal of P-40 in it, ended up with an empty weight 100lbs heavier than the P-40. It had ten guns, armour plate, self-sealing fuel tanks, Handley-Page wing slats and a top speed of 410mph fitted with the V-1710-39. It first flew on 15Feb41. Just what its performance might have been at altitude with, say, a two-stage Merlin, we'll never know.

Or maybe we do. Here's how Kelsey relates it:

"Early in 1940, the British Purchasing Commission wanted to buy more P-40s. Well, they had some on order, but the balloon went up and they asked us how many we could build per day. Arnold was at Dayton one day, talking to Gen Echols and Echols told him if we could just hold off building P-40s for a while and not try to build it up, we could rush the P-46 through and substitute the P-46 for the P-40 in the build-up, and then we should have the aircraft that we should have and not the one that was locked into the 1936 procurement which was an aircraft four years old.

Echols and Arnold walked down the hall together. Arnold was impressed and said he would check it out in Washington and let us know.

The next day, or the day after, he called back and said 'We're committing to a training programme with a great many pilots; to a deployment programme that involves the creation and commissioning of new groups, etc'

Arnold never did tell anyone why he made certain decisions and this is all the detail he went into. So, the stage was set, every P-40 we could get out of that plant was already obligated. The Brits wanted as many as they could get. My understanding of it is that Echols made a suggestion to the British saying if they could find a manufacturer that wasn't already bogged down in high-priority stuff, that we would make available all the data we had on the P-46 to help them build a new fighter. This was kind of a secret in our talk in the halls about getting P-46s in place of the P-40, to find some way of getting around the problem.

I don't know how the Brits got hold of Dutch Kindleberger. I know the way it came back to me was that the British found that NAA could do it. Some say that NAA bought P-40 data. I don't know what it was for certain, I never saw it but the rest of the quid pro quo was that three of the very first evaluation aircraft would come to us for that purpose.

Bill Ballhouse, Dutch Kindleberger and Lee Atwood did an absolutely superb job on the P-51 but the wing area, the placement of the underwing radiator and the weight - almost everything except the drag, which they cleaned up and a few other structural details, was like the original P-46. This gave NAA a whole start. They didn't have to make a whole bunch of preliminary design studies. They were able to put in their own match angles and their own desires as to where to cut the parts for production and they were able to determine how much weight went into the armament. They knew what all the equipment specifications were.

The 120-day wonder makes sense now. You take a 3-view drawing and just refine it to match your own situation.

Meanwhile, we still wanted the P-46 to replace the P-40. This had nothing to do with the P-51. We were working out our own problems but there were two things, time and money, that killed the P-46.

Now these things don't come out. Everybody who's working on this kind of thing is sure he has all the answers. I don't have all the answers, all I know is the part we had..

Perhaps we should add that one of Mr Kindleberger's oft-repeated axioms was 'You can't pull a rabbit out of a hat unless you carefully put a rabbit into the hat beforehand' Was that a P-46 rabbit you carefully put into the P-51 hat, Mr Kindleberger?"

 

[tail end charlie]

Wiki's there
if I really can't be bothered to get my lazy ass out of my chair and take a walk over to my bookshelf


[/I]

I am not responding to remarks started like this. Have a great weekend.

 

[Shortround6]

"Was that a P-46 rabbit you carefully put into the P-51 hat, Mr Kindleberger?"

Maybe and maybe not. The P-46 that did 410mph was the second prototype that was rushed through to completion ahead of the first airframe. It had no armor, no self sealing tanks, no guns and perhaps some other things missing. When the first airframe was tested with all the things necessary for combat it proved to be capable of only 355mph. One account claims Curtiss was penalized over 14,000 dollars for failing to meet contract specifications.
One would think that facing such a loss the Curtiss people would have fiddled with the plane to make sure the engine was performing properly, the finish was as good as possible and what ever other little tweeks they could come up with because part of the penalty was based on so many dollars for each and every MPH the airplane failed to meet it's guaranteed speed by.

Putting an airplane into your hat that couldn't out run a P-40 using the same engine and pulling out the P-51 seems like there was something extra in the hat.

 

[Shortround6]

Looking at it by the numbers, the last of the line, the P-40N was capable of 340mph at 15,000ft. Its contemporary, the Nakajima Ki-84 approached 400mph 5,000ft overhead of the N. The Bf109K was capable of 450mph at roughly the same height as the Ki-84. All three aircraft were in production in 1944 and while Curtiss-Wright managed to sell 6,000+ P-40Ns, there appears to be little in the way of confirmation as to how many actually saw combat.

At some point in 1943 it was decided that NO new US fighter groups would be issued P-40s for over seas use.

P-40s would be supplied to US allies and would continue to be supplied to advanced training units in the continental US. They may have been used by some groups as initial equipment as they worked up in the US before transferring overseas and being re-equipped.

By the start of 1944 the US was under no illusion that the P-40 was a world class fighter. A useful ground attack plane or fighter bomber perhaps but not a true fighter plane.

 

[Civettone]

In N.Africa the P-40's main foe was the Bf/Me 109F/G's on paper, a vastly
superior plane, flown by German aces. Yet the P-40's had a 3:1 k/r against them IF you believe the
lowest numbers.

Greg, I took you seriously up to now. But if you have studied this for 25+ years and you come up with this BS ...

Kris

 

[renrich]

I have a really hard time believing that the P40 had a positive kill ratio against BF109s in any theatre in the war. The P40 actually faced the A6M very little. Without the P40, the Allies would have lost all of SE Asia just like they did anyway. Brewsters, Hurricanes, P39s and all the other types would have sufficed to have gotten shot down also. The AVG did some good work against Japanese Army aircraft during the first six months of the war but those were mostly obsolete types.

My numbers show that the P40 in Europe flew 67059 sorties with 553 losses.
Altogether the P40 had 1994 kills in all theatres.
P40 had 661 kills in the PTO
P40 had 741 kills in the CBI
P40 had 592 kills in the Med.

Altogether the F4F had 1436 kills in all theatres
F4F had 1408 kills in the PTO
F4F had 26 kills in the Med.
F4F had 2 kills in the ETO

Based on those figures, I have to believe that the F4F types had a much bigger impact against the Japanese than the P40 and if deployed in any numbers in the ETO or Med it would have done better than the P40.

 

[Colin1]

At some point in 1943 it was decided that NO new US fighter groups would be issued P-40s for over seas use.

P-40s would be supplied to US allies and would continue to be supplied to advanced training units in the continental US. They may have been used by some groups as initial equipment as they worked up in the US before transferring overseas and being re-equipped.

By the start of 1944 the US was under no illusion that the P-40 was a world class fighter. A useful ground attack plane or fighter bomber perhaps but not a true fighter plane.

Oh absolutely
but it reveals nothing new, the Army if you recall, were instructing Curtiss to cease P-40 production back in 1942 albeit with limited success, what isn't addressed here is why they were still being produced in 1944 in the face of the P-40's acknowledged performance shortfalls.

Just how many of the Ns were going overseas to the Soviet Union in 1944, with Lavochkin and Illyushin production now in full swing? North Africa? A total export figure of 458 to be precise, that's P-40N-1 to P-40N-35 inclusive.

Continental US training units? 6,000+ Ns? TP-40s hadn't been needed since 1940 but suddenly in 1944 they were needed?

 

[Shortround6]

Continental US training units? 6,000+ Ns? TP-40s hadn't been needed since 1940 but suddenly in 1944 they were needed?

A case may be made that the US should have keep making P-40s until the end of 1942 to make up numbers.

It should have stopped at some point in 1943. While some new aircraft would be needed as trainers after 1940 (students being rather hard on airplanes) to keep making them in 1944 was truly a waste of resources.

 

[Njaco]

Coming late to the party but wanna make 2 points used by P-40K-5:

1) RE: "Palm Sunday Massacre" - made against Me 323 Gigants with sparse fighter cover. While the few 109s there were mixed it with the firts flight of RAF fighters, the rest tore into the fat Gigants loaded with fuel. Really don't know how that example can be used to show how the P-40 bested the 109. Don't take a knife to a gunfight.

2) RE: "God is My Co-Pilot" - 'Boom Zoom ' WERE the tactics IIRC that the AVG used against Zeros. One pass and high-tail to base unless unescorted Bettys. That is what I remember from the book. Don't know what other tactics the AVG used that P-40K referenced.