renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
According to my source, "The Great Book of WW2 Airplanes," the first Hamps were encountered by the Allies in October, 1942, over the Solomon Islands. The AVG had essentially ceased to exist in July, 1942.
Bf-109 vs P-40
- Thread starter beaupower32
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
- Status
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
A couple of comments about the P40. In reading a recent book about the AVG, I believe it was stated that the AVG pilots, new to the P40, wrecked quite a few before getting used to its less than outstanding landing characteristics. From a delightful read, "Flying Through Time" by James Doyle. A pilot who flew the P40, Lt. Robert C Hansen, "The P40 was a rotten little airplane. I did not like the plane and nobody I never knew liked the plane." Just one man's opinion and probably had someting to do with those landing characteristics.
Another book I just finished, "Escape From Davao," by John Lukacs is about a group of American servicemen who escaped from a Japanese prison camp on Mindanao about a year after being captured. One of the leaders of the escapers was Ed Dyess, USAAF. He flew a P40E named KIBOSH off of an airfield on Bataan. I believe it was the last operational P40 still flying toward the end and the surrender. They had rigged up a way for it to carry a 500 pound bomb and he took off at night and bombed Japanese vessels in Subic Bay. Dyess Air force Base in Abilene, Texas is named for him. A really good read.
Another book I just finished, "Escape From Davao," by John Lukacs is about a group of American servicemen who escaped from a Japanese prison camp on Mindanao about a year after being captured. One of the leaders of the escapers was Ed Dyess, USAAF. He flew a P40E named KIBOSH off of an airfield on Bataan. I believe it was the last operational P40 still flying toward the end and the surrender. They had rigged up a way for it to carry a 500 pound bomb and he took off at night and bombed Japanese vessels in Subic Bay. Dyess Air force Base in Abilene, Texas is named for him. A really good read.
I think you're confusing the Hollywood version of Pearl Harbor with what really happened. P-40 pilots Lts. Welch- 4, and Taylor- 2, but only one of those claims was for a Zero.
I think the AVG still referred to the type 96 and 97 as Zeros since they resembled the same carrier based version the A5M claude.
They also encountered ki-44 and 43.
The bulk of their kills appear to be Oscars, Nates and Sallys.
I wonder what Erich Schillings rather descriptive encounters with "Zeros" refers to.
They also encountered ki-44 and 43.
The bulk of their kills appear to be Oscars, Nates and Sallys.
I wonder what Erich Schillings rather descriptive encounters with "Zeros" refers to.
Think about it. How the hell does one pilot having success with an aircraft prove that the aircraft was better. A few Finnish pilots had great success with the Buffalo. Does that it make it a better aircraft than the Bf 109?
Again, think about it...
Of course you have to take into account all factors including pilots. My point was being that both you and Nxthanos keep throwing out single pilots, and their achievements, and in the end it proves nothing. In the end it is nothing more than bickering. I think several people have tried to explain this to both of you.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Encounters with the Zero in the post AVG days.
FlyboyJ I thought the Zero went Model 11, 21, 32, 22, 52, etc. The first number the airframe/anciliaries mod, second one the engine mod.
Initial A6M2 then Model 11 no carrier gear about 50 made for service trials.
Model 21 was fitted with carrier gear, that's the airframe modification for the new model designation. Several hundred built and initial carrier version.
Model 32 cut the wingtips (just a removal of the folding tips), lowered internal tankage (for balance) and upgraded the engine, they were meant for land based operation but kept carrier gear. Both numbers changed.
At the end of 43 fields in Rabaul were putting the wing tips back on their Model 32 so making them Model 22, also a Hamp.
I've heard it said directly the Hamp was intended as a land based Zero specific to operations like the Solomons (not necessarily that one specifically but for stations like that and as a quick and easy land based navy interceptor ready for production). That would infer the first dedicated update of the Zero specifically for carrier operations was the Model 52, which actually isn't a bad plane once they introduced armour and water injection in 1944 production, but it should have had those in 43 and suffered the operational range hit for better mission survivability.
Initial A6M2 then Model 11 no carrier gear about 50 made for service trials.
Model 21 was fitted with carrier gear, that's the airframe modification for the new model designation. Several hundred built and initial carrier version.
Model 32 cut the wingtips (just a removal of the folding tips), lowered internal tankage (for balance) and upgraded the engine, they were meant for land based operation but kept carrier gear. Both numbers changed.
At the end of 43 fields in Rabaul were putting the wing tips back on their Model 32 so making them Model 22, also a Hamp.
I've heard it said directly the Hamp was intended as a land based Zero specific to operations like the Solomons (not necessarily that one specifically but for stations like that and as a quick and easy land based navy interceptor ready for production). That would infer the first dedicated update of the Zero specifically for carrier operations was the Model 52, which actually isn't a bad plane once they introduced armour and water injection in 1944 production, but it should have had those in 43 and suffered the operational range hit for better mission survivability.
Last edited:
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
All points taken and you're probably right. My point here was the AVG DID NOT capture a "Hamp", DID NOT engage Zeros and DID NOT do penetration raids over Hong Kong.
Alright I did think about....
Take the P-40M-15-CU (last version used in Europe)
~ six .50's
~ Allison V-1710-81 - 1,200hp
~ max speed 360mph @ 15,000ft
~ cruise speed 290mph
~ rate of climb 2,050ft/min
~ ceiling 30,000
~ combat range 700 miles
~ wing loading of 36lb/sqft
compare it to the Standard Me 109G-6
~ 2xMG 131 machine guns one 2cm or 3cm engine mounted cannon
~ DB 605ABM - 1,475ps
~ max speed 390mph @ 16,000ft
~ cruise speed 340mph
~ rate of climb 2,850ft/min
~ ceiling of 36,000ft
~ combat range 550 miles
~ wing loading of 40lb/sqft
Nevermind the G-5/AS or G-6/AS which was considerably faster w/ greater rates of climb. These 109's were up at 25,000ft engaging B-17/24 when the P-40M was for the most part ground strafing and bombing soft targets.. hence its 'other' nickname the B-40. You can compare the 109G-2/4 to the P-40K, the 109F to the P-40F/E (timeline wise) with simular results. Yah the P-40 did alright in N.Africa, but came up short to its rival. Seems the only advantage the P-40 had in the desert was when it met the 109, the Luftwaffe was usually outnumbered. The P-40 was a great handling a/c that could out turn a 109 at slower speeds.. but the 109 had the speed advantage. Speed = Life.
Much better to compare aircraft that way...
Besides it is better than the "He Said, She Said" crap that you and Nxanthos keep throwing out. To say the P-40 or the Bf 109 were better than the other because of what a few pilots did is absurd (which is what everyone has been telling you guys), because in the end it becomes nothing more than bickering.
Agreed, the 109G was the first to make the P-40 seem dated, otherwise the P-40 stood up well in the areas it confronted the 109.
The reason for the G superiority would be the higher FTH, which usually correlates with higher top speed.
As always, forums like these reveal the ratings the Allison used to come to their climb rates and top speeds.
+/-2000ft per minute was achieved at max continuous settings and 1200hp was often the military rating.
You could easily attribute differences in top speed to instrument errors.
As already shown in the D 520 vs 109 test.
In my reading, the P-40 was never designed to fly higher than 15,000ft.
Quite often pilots admit it was used in situations it wasn't designed for, aka, taking on A6M or 109s from 27,000ft.
The reason for the G superiority would be the higher FTH, which usually correlates with higher top speed.
As always, forums like these reveal the ratings the Allison used to come to their climb rates and top speeds.
+/-2000ft per minute was achieved at max continuous settings and 1200hp was often the military rating.
You could easily attribute differences in top speed to instrument errors.
As already shown in the D 520 vs 109 test.
In my reading, the P-40 was never designed to fly higher than 15,000ft.
Quite often pilots admit it was used in situations it wasn't designed for, aka, taking on A6M or 109s from 27,000ft.
Last edited:
Where are you getting that?
I read the radiator at the front of the plane was a higher drag location than the rear scoop position.
In part because it disrupts the boundary layer over the wing, multiplying drag.
This was based on a 1976 publishing.
fastmongrel
1st Sergeant
Surely no aircraft company would design a fighter to only operate below 15,000ft. Ground attack wasnt really considered in the mid 30s what was considered was attacking bombers and the US must have known new designs of bomber were coming that would be flying well over 20,000ft, they after all were designing them. When compared to mid/late 30s design contemporaries the P40 wasnt noticeably worse at altitude.
Only if the A6M or Me 109's were 17,000ft below the P-40.
I think looking at climb to height and top speed are different than what becomes apparent when reading about the P-40.
Think of design height. It has a wing loading and shape that favors a certain altitude range.
It might fly up to its cieling, but what could it do beyond a diving pass?
Above that range makes for unfavorable performance characteristics.
One of those often mentioned by pilots was a mushing effect in turns, particularly because of weight.
This causes the bleeding of speed in turns and loss of sustained turn ability. Nevermind climb....
I'd be guessing, but that range was probably above 20,000ft for the P-40, but looking at performance it probably started closer to around 16000ft.
You can look at parallel development of the Fw-190 and it had similar problems despite increases in power, though probably more capable above 20,000ft.
It needed to be reengined and re-winged to compete, but they called that a Dora, otherwise it held well against most allied fighters in the same altitude range as the P-40.
Similar developments along the P-40 line reveal the P-40K prototypes that lead to the P-60 and the P-40Q both reorganizing the wing and engine placement for better altitude performance.
I should mention the P-39 here, and even though it was considered a minor improvement beyond the P-40 it had the same issues up high.
Using 2nd gear supercharger out of the question for that reason??
Think of design height. It has a wing loading and shape that favors a certain altitude range.
It might fly up to its cieling, but what could it do beyond a diving pass?
Above that range makes for unfavorable performance characteristics.
One of those often mentioned by pilots was a mushing effect in turns, particularly because of weight.
This causes the bleeding of speed in turns and loss of sustained turn ability. Nevermind climb....
I'd be guessing, but that range was probably above 20,000ft for the P-40, but looking at performance it probably started closer to around 16000ft.
You can look at parallel development of the Fw-190 and it had similar problems despite increases in power, though probably more capable above 20,000ft.
It needed to be reengined and re-winged to compete, but they called that a Dora, otherwise it held well against most allied fighters in the same altitude range as the P-40.
Similar developments along the P-40 line reveal the P-40K prototypes that lead to the P-60 and the P-40Q both reorganizing the wing and engine placement for better altitude performance.
I should mention the P-39 here, and even though it was considered a minor improvement beyond the P-40 it had the same issues up high.
Using 2nd gear supercharger out of the question for that reason??
The P-39, -40 -51 have had about equal wing loading, so at the end it was all about the capability of the engine to produce more power at high altitude. The P-51 received it, and became one of the top planes from 20-35K. Never happened to the 39 40.
billswagger
Airman 1st Class
- 256
- Mar 12, 2009
If it was only about output they would've just installed 2nd stage/geared superchargers, no?
Aside from wing loading, the wing has other factors that contribute to performance characteristics, aspect ratio and lift to drag to name a couple.
More power is usually the way to circumvent an inadequate wing design.
- Status
