F4F Wildcat versus P-40E Tomahawk (1 Viewer)

Who was better?

  • P-40 Tomahawk

    Votes: 57 49.1%
  • F4F-3 Wildcat

    Votes: 40 34.5%
  • Both

    Votes: 19 16.4%

  • Total voters
    116

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Originally Posted by HoHun:
I spent some time preparing a performance comparison of the F4F-4, the P-40E and the A6M2. Here it is - the figures speak for themselves ...

Indeed, the figures speak clearly. Nice work.
 
The P-40E obviously had a significant speed advantage at all normal combat altitudes (neither is going to be fighting much above 20,000 ft)

Climb it farly close for both, and turn rate is a bit better for the F4F.

Performance would be a bit better on the lighter F4F-3. (particularly in climb and turn)

But low alt performance of the P-40 would be significantly better with WEP.
(rated for 60" max, with 1,570 hp acheivable at ~5,000 ft with ram)
Above ~5,000 ft (at 3000 rpm) max boost will start to drop gradually up to ~14,000 ft (with ram) where it is down to Mil power. (without ram air, ie in climb, crit alts are ~3,000 ft, and 11,800 ft)
 
Hi Koolkitty,

>What about performance of the P-40E at WEP?

I'm not sure just when higher boost than 44" Hg were cleared ... I've seen data for 57" Hg, but that might be a late-war setting from all I know.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
 
57" Hg was for the high blower ratio engines (9.6:1) of the P-40M/N (and P-51A, P-39N/Q) which resulted in detonation at lower boost levels than the 8.8 blower of the other allison powered P-40's.

The 9.6 resulted in a limitation of 57" Hg with 100 octane fuel, which was faily close to the detonation point. Limiting the engines to 1,480 hp, but allowing this to be acheived at 10,400 ft, due to the higher blower ratio. (giving the P-51A a top speed of 415 mph, P-39Q-10 397 mph, and the P-40N 378 mph)
The 8.8 blower was rated for 60" Hg with the same fuel, giving 1,570 hp with detenoation still a good way off, but limited due to structural concerns. Higher boost levels were used in service sometimes, but risked structural failure, as the engine's gearing wasn't rated for more than 1,600 hp. With 66" Hg resulting in 1,770 Hp at 2,000 ft.

(similar to the AVG's Tomahawks overboosting -and overreving- to well over 1,200 hp on the -33 engines, while the engine itsself was generally strong enough and there was no porblems with detonation, the gearing on these early engines was rated for only 1,100 hp, and thus would tend to strip eventually)



See: Perils P40 Archive Data

http://www.raafwarbirds.org.au/targetvraaf/p40_archive/pdfs/Allison 1710-39 abuse.pdf


The two things the Allison people were concerned about with such overboosting was firstly, the risk of structural failure, and likely at some time after WEP was used, in normal operation which would make a very bad situation, particularly if over enemy territory.
The second, more pronounced concern, was that resetting boost to higher levels on the 8.8 blower engines would result in a bad precedent being set which would result in many failures of the new 9.6 blower (-81, -83, -85, -99) engines as it would result in detonation (that being the primary limit to 57" Hg -1,480 hp at 3,000 rpm and 10,400 ft) and failure quickly folling that.


It should also be noted, that early on the P-40D/E's V-1710-39/F3R engine was rated for 56" WEP (before being cleared for 60" allong with the similar -73/F4R of the P-40K). At that rating 1,470 hp could be acheived at ~7,000 ft with ram air. (~5,000 ft w/out)


http://www.raafwarbirds.org.au/targetvraaf/p40_archive/pdfs/1710-39.pdf

http://www.raafwarbirds.org.au/targetvraaf/p40_archive/pdfs/1710-33.pdf
 
Hi Koolkitty,

Thanks for the information! Here are the graphs again, including performance at 56" Hg boost pressure for the P-40E.

(I noticed that the RAAF's revised table from July 1942 apparently did not include 56" Hg, but the USAAF table from December 1942 did - though why it reads "critical altitude - sea level" for that setting is unclear to me.)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
 

Attachments

  • F4F_Speed_Comparison.png
    F4F_Speed_Comparison.png
    7.4 KB · Views: 167
  • F4F_Climb_Comparison.png
    F4F_Climb_Comparison.png
    6.1 KB · Views: 168
  • F4F_Turn_Comparison.png
    F4F_Turn_Comparison.png
    6.7 KB · Views: 161
According to NACA 868, the P-40 enjoyed a significant roll rate advantage over the F4F-3, ranging roughly from 10 to 28 degrees/second depending on speed.
naca868-rollchart.jpg
 
Hi Ponsford,

>According to NACA 868, the P-40 enjoyed a significant roll rate advantage over the F4F-3, ranging roughly from 10 to 28 degrees/second depending on speed.

Thanks for the information! :) It seems to be hard to find anything at all that the F4F-4 can do better than the P-40E, except maybe flying from a boat ;)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
 
Hi Koolkitty,

>And take more engine damage.

Often claimed, never proven ;)

But I've tackled questions like the B-17 vs. B-24 survivability issue or the Me 109 vs. Fw 190 landing accident question with WW2 data, so I feel there might be meaningful data on the engine survivability issue too if we look hard enough. I've suggested one possible source in the current engine survivability thread - maybe some RAF expert can help us out over there?

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/engines/engine-survivability-13581.html

>And take more engine damage.

Back on topic ... I'd say that if we accept the radial's greater durability, it still is the question if this can be turned into a decisive advantage. If the performance of the F4F-4 and the P-40E was close, durability could tilt the scales, but with the measure of superiority enjoyed by the P-40, I don't think it would have too much impact on the final result.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
 
From my perspective engine 'durability' has two components - abusing it in WEP, and small caliber fire near the deck while flying CAS or strafing.

In the latter case there is more to the equation than engine durability - one has to also account for coolant system vulnerability for in-line engines.
 
That's what I was refferring to, including the cooling system of the inline.

Though taking out the oil cooler on any of these engines will kill it fast. (though, in the P-40, if the oil cooler gets hit, chances are the radiator has as well due to the location, not that it woud matter too much as the engine is going out either way)
 
Hi Koolkitty,

>That's what I was refferring to, including the cooling system of the inline.

Roger that, but as I said - often claimed, never proven. If it's a worthwhile advantage, it shouldn't be so hard to find numbers to verify it ...

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
 
To all from a newbie, after reading all posts and my own references regarding this question, it seems that although the P40 seems to have an advantage on paper, in real combat it actually came down to the pilot his knowledge of both the advantages weakness of his arcraft
 
Hmm. To add my $.02 about this.

The F4F was the underdog of the two, thats obvious. I personally like the P-40 better for its superior ammo arrangement (more of it and tighter gun config) and its a sexy aircraft, P-40B/C esspecially. Both made a HUGE impact on the pacific theatre, the P-40 even took on BF109s and Italian planes in the MTO. The F4F had a slightly bigger impact with its use with Carriers. Like others said it comes down to the pilot, you can put a newbie pilot in a Me262 and Erich Hartmann in a P-11 and Bubi will prolly win 98% of the time. The Wildcat fought against the Many zeros and oscars and still came out on top most of the time.

Sum it up. The P-40 is a better aircraft, and better looking. But the F4f had a bigger impact on the war.
 
Actually (as I demonstrated earlier) the 4x gunned F4F (and FM) had more ammo than the 6x gunned P-40, but not by a whole lot. (but the F4F was certainly better in almost every case with the 4x arangement than the 6 as I discussed earlier)

I don't know about the 4x .50 armed P-40D (which may have had a larger capacity). Though the later 4x gunned models (lightend versions, mostly the early P-40N, and modified Sovied a/c) had the smaller capacity of 282 rpg.
 
Hmm. To add my $.02 about this.

Sum it up. The P-40 is a better aircraft, and better looking. But the F4f had a bigger impact on the war.

I would tend to disagree - the P-40 flew for all the Allied Air Forces through 1944 and did a pretty good job. My perspective is that the F4F was huge in 1942 in context of Midway, Guadalcanal and Santa Cruz so it was crucial to Naval and USMC in 1942.. it also performed well early on in ETO/MTO naval ops at the same thime the P-40 was in the same area..

but the P-40 was fighting in China, Russia, North Africa/MTO, PTO (until P-38s started replacing for USAAF-but still in RAAF and RNZAF) and still in front line service in early to mid 1944 when all the F4F's were long out of active USN combat ops.

The P-40 might have been the only USAAF with the only air to air ratio less than 1:1 against both the LW and IJN Zeros. I haven't been able to prove it was less than 1:1 against the Zero but I believe JoeB has a good perspective on it.

It clearly was not as good as the Fw 190 or Me 109 either and when they were fighting each other in 1942-1943, the LW had a huge edge in experience.
 
The P40 and F4F in many ways may be for the US the two most underappreciated major players as far as fighters are concerned in WW2. They both took losses on the first day of the war for the US(the F4F by 'friendly" fire) and they were both still operational on the last day, I think.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back