F4F Wildcat versus P-40E Tomahawk

[renrich]

I don't believe that a comparison between the F4F3 and the P40B is an open and shut case at all. In Dean, the FM2 which would be roughly equivalent to the F4F3 is the best turning fighter the US had.(the P40 was not rated) The Wildcat would be much superior in rate of climb. The throw weight of the Wildcat guns would be superior if the P40 had two 50s and four 30s and IMO the Wildcat would be much more survivable in a fight. The P40 would be faster and would have a better roll rate. I have read a Wildcat could stay with a 109 in a dive so don't know about that.

 

[HoHun]

Hi Renrich,

>I don't believe that a comparison between the F4F3 and the P40B is an open and shut case at all. In Dean, the FM2 which would be roughly equivalent to the F4F3 is the best turning fighter the US had.

The history of WW2 air fighter development shows that turn rate was the one performance parameter that consistently deteriorated while all other performance parameters were improved.

Obviously, turn rate was of secondary (or tertiary) importance.

The most important performance parameter was speed, and the P-40B holds an large advantage over the F4F-3 in that regard, while the P-40E holds an even larger advantage over the F4F-4.

>The Wildcat would be much superior in rate of climb.

Actually, if you look at the graphs, the F4F-3 has only a slight advantage over the P-40B, and depending on the boost used by the P-40E, the F4F-4 is about equal or much inferior at least at low to medium altitude.

Even for the F4F-3, the slight climb rate advantage over the P-40B is not going to help much - with perhaps 1.5 m/s climb advantage, you can calculate for yourself how long it takes to gain a useful altitude advantage in a fight.

>I have read a Wildcat could stay with a 109 in a dive so don't know about that.

Hm ... the FM-2 manual gives a terminal velocity of 685 km/h indicated airspeed, while the Pilot's Notes for the Tomahawk published by Dan Ford gives 740 km/h indicated for the P-40.

By the way, these Pilot's Notes give the maximum boost pressure permitted for 5 min as 38.9" Hg above 2600 ft and 41" Hg at sea level. My figures for the P-40B are based on 37.2" Hg - obviously, the P-40B would gain some performance if it used the higher boosts.

Of course, it's always possible to find some superior characteristics in an otherwise inferior fighter, but one should not lose sight of the overall picture when one has found these. The question always is, "What are these worth?"

Eric Brown in "Wings of the Navy" points out that the US Navy had learnt from the European combat experience "that speed, climb rate, adequate firepower and armour protection, pilot visibility, and manoeuvrability were primary requirements in *that* order." (Original emphasis.)

With regard to the original question of the F4F-4 vs. the P-40E, the winner is:

1) P-40E
2) P-40E (if it uses 56" Hg)
3) Tie
4) Tie
5) Tie
6) F4F-4

You could argue some of the lower priority points, but I could include diving capability in "manoeuvrability" and argue the least-priority point, too. You could also look at altitudes above 5 km where the P-40E loses the climb advantage, which of course has a tactical impact - this is exactly why I provide these graphs.

However you cut it though, in the end the P-40E has a significant advantage in the highest priority aspect which gives it a considerable headstart over the F4F-4, and the advantages the F4F-4 has are nowhere near as significant in magnitude.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

[renrich]

Not to split hairs but the original question in the poll was F4F3 versus Tomahawk. All Tomahawks would only include H81A-1, H81B, H81A-2, H81B, H81A-3 which is only through P-40C. I don't put a lot of faith in Eric Brown's testimony as he intimates that the Hellcat was superior to the Corsair in ACM which is at odds with every other authority I know of.

 

[drgondog]

Not to split hairs but the original question in the poll was F4F3 versus Tomahawk. All Tomahawks would only include H81A-1, H81B, H81A-2, H81B, H81A-3 which is only through P-40C. I don't put a lot of faith in Eric Brown's testimony as he intimates that the Hellcat was superior to the Corsair in ACM which is at odds with every other authority I know of.

I agree your points

 

[HoHun]

Hi Renrich,

>Not to split hairs but the original question in the poll was F4F3 versus Tomahawk.

It's always crucial to be precise in the designation as every sub-variants tends to have its own set of characteristics ... it's doubly crucial when Pong sets us up for a misunderstanding by asking for the P-40E both in the thread title and his initial post, but not in the poll option itself ...

>I don't put a lot of faith in Eric Brown's testimony as he intimates that the Hellcat was superior to the Corsair in ACM which is at odds with every other authority I know of.

His quote provides the key to assessing fighters: Not all characteristics are of equal importance, and for fighter-vs.-fighter combat the order of importance is universal.

With regard to performance parameters, speed-climb-turn certainly is the order I consider realistic, too - with the importance curve dropping rather steeply.

If you'd come up with another order of importance, that would lead to a different assessment of the considered fighters ... not that every possible order would be equally valid, but we'd have a sensible starting point for a discussion then

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

[Juha]

HoHun
Quote:"With regard to performance parameters, speed-climb-turn certainly is the order I consider realistic, too - with the importance curve dropping rather steeply."

I'm not so sure that the importance curve dropping rather steeply. Faster fighter might well be in trouble with better climber with better turning ability.
In combat the idea is IMHO firstly to try to achieve surprise and secondly to try to force the combat so that one could utilise one's plane strong points against other's plane weak points. Better climber has a possibility to achieve the height advance before the beginning of actual combat. And many times the mission exclude the possibility to disengage when you wish.

 

[renrich]

Henning, I don't argue that some models of the P40 had better performance on paper than some models of the Wildcat. I do believe that performance on paper is not necessarily proof of operational superiority. I also believe, because I have heard experienced military pilots say it, that in WW2 a 15 or 20 mph Vmax difference is not tactically significant. Then you get into what altitude what Vmax is measured. It all makes for interesting discussions but not always to correct conclusions. To make things even more interesting, both the P40 and Wildcat had quite a few different versions since they served throughout the war. In the pacific theatre the F4F had 1408 kills, the P40 had 661. That looks clearly like a big edge for the F4F. The P40 had 741 kills in the CBI which evens things out. It could be that the F4F faced a better grade of fighter and pilot in the pacific than the P40 faced in the CBI. My gut tells me that if the model of Wildcat and P40 were contemporaneous the winner between the two would be based on pilot skill and maybe Lady Luck.

 

[drgondog]

Henning, I don't argue that some models of the P40 had better performance on paper than some models of the Wildcat. I do believe that performance on paper is not necessarily proof of operational superiority. I also believe, because I have heard experienced military pilots say it, that in WW2 a 15 or 20 mph Vmax difference is not tactically significant. Then you get into what altitude what Vmax is measured. It all makes for interesting discussions but not always to correct conclusions. To make things even more interesting, both the P40 and Wildcat had quite a few different versions since they served throughout the war. In the pacific theatre the F4F had 1408 kills, the P40 had 661. That looks clearly like a big edge for the F4F. The P40 had 741 kills in the CBI which evens things out. It could be that the F4F faced a better grade of fighter and pilot in the pacific than the P40 faced in the CBI. My gut tells me that if the model of Wildcat and P40 were contemporaneous the winner between the two would be based on pilot skill and maybe Lady Luck.

Rich - the guys (like 49th FG) flying out of Darwin, then Dobudura and Port Moresby were fighting guys like Saburo Sakai, and other top Japanese aces out of Lae and Salamaua. No evidence that they were lesser talents or odds.

Having said that, New Guinea was also the prime Center of gravity for the USAAF whereas Wildcat was everywhere else until late 1943 as first line USN fighter from Carriers and also land based until replaced by F4U.. and the AF PTO Fighter strength was was also diluted with the Iron Dog, then replaced by the P-38 while facing the Japanese in the Pacific.

I would also suspect the P-40 faced a lot more fighters but don't have much proof for that statement right now.

I don't have a particular preference between the P-40 E and the F4F-4 or 6 but tend to lean to the P-40 based on speed and damn good agility. In my opinion the Zero was a better all around fighter than both of them, but 'less better' than the P-40E

 

[HoHun]

Hi Juha,

>In combat the idea is IMHO firstly to try to achieve surprise and secondly to try to force the combat so that one could utilise one's plane strong points against other's plane weak points.

The problem is that if you're facing faster aircraft, you will have a hard time forcing them to fight so that you can utilize your strengths. And in the end, air combat comes down to a war of attrition ...

>Better climber has a possibility to achieve the height advance before the beginning of actual combat.

This doesn't mean that it will always have the height advantage though - it just means that it has a chance to outclimb the opponent if he is spotted in time. Much of the initial height separation is determined by the initial mission setup. (Though of course some missions - like the interceptor's - are actually based on the type's climb rate.)

>And many times the mission exclude the possibility to disengage when you wish.

Modern air combat terminology actually discriminates "disengaging" and "extending", and extending means just to create enough separation that the fight can be re-entered immediately.

Additionally, mission planning had to take into account the strengths of the fighter aircraft, too. That is one reason Galland demanded "a squadron of Spitfires" from Göring - the Me 109's strengths were not suited for close escort, where they'd get attacked by the more manoeuvrable Spitfires. The Me 109 could only achieve its mission goal - protection of the bombers - if it was given some freedom to play its strengths by seeking out the RAF formations before they attacked. (And that would not have been much different if Galland had gotten his "squadron of Spitfires" - they would just have reduced his losses a bit if dived upon.)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

[renrich]

If memory serves, the P40 and Wildcat flew escort missions together during the Guadalcananl campaign in late 42 and early 43, before the Corsair arrived to relieve the Wildcat. What I meant when talking about lesser pilots and AC was that the Japanese Army pilots and AC might have met that definition in the CBI. The P40 certainly went against the cream of the crop at PH, the Philipines, and the campaigns around Java, Australia, New Guinea and in the Solomons. However, the P40 did not have a lot of success during this period of the war. The various models of the Wildcat held it's own, including the F4F4. The F4F4 was the doggiest Wildcat. I repeat that some of the Navy pilots said it flew like a loaded torpedo plane. Not exactly high praise. The F4F3 and FM2 had more sprightly performance.

 

[Soren]

The Spitfire Bf-109 were equally maneuverable, so that wasn't the reason behind the losses (Which were still fewer than RAF fighters). The reason behind the losses was that the Spitfires were allowed to dive down upon the entire bomber stream without any escorts facing them up there. The Bf-109 should've been sued as high escort instead of flying alongside the bombers, a big mistake.

 

[B-17engineer]

I am going to go with the P-40e. Very good plane it was fast for its time. Good armament and was rugged

 

[HoHun]

Hi Renrich,

>I also believe, because I have heard experienced military pilots say it, that in WW2 a 15 or 20 mph Vmax difference is not tactically significant.

Oh well - that's probably a psychology thing. If you have read "The Right Stuff", you'll be aware that the mindset of the successful pilot requries the awareness of having everything under control. "It's the man, not the machine" could really be the fighter pilots' motto.

However, in reality every technological difference is significant. Even Chuck Yeager, who is famous his "It's the man, not the machine", had his F-86F engine tuned by the crew chief to exceed the redline temperature in order to yield a little bit more trust and make him more competitive (against his USAF buddies - this was in cold-war Germany).

>Then you get into what altitude what Vmax is measured.

Hm, that's actually clearly indicated in the graphs.

>My gut tells me that if the model of Wildcat and P40 were contemporaneous the winner between the two would be based on pilot skill and maybe Lady Luck.

If you're thinking of a a traditional staged co-altitude duel, passing each other once before commencing to turn, that might be right - the faster aircraft usually doesn't look good in this kind of comparison. As Galland reported, the Heinkel He 51 easily won such a duel against the Me 109 prototype. However, there should be little doubt that the Me 109 was a far superior fighter anyway ...

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

[renrich]

Once again the P40E was not a Tomahawk. I believe that the fighter pilot that said that was referring to the fact that ACM is seldom fought at Vmax. Henning, If you have not had the pleasure yet of reading Lundstrom, I surely hope you get to someday. Would that a writer would do the same for the AAF in the Pacific during the same period. I know you are weary of hearing this but one big advantage the Wildcat would have was the visibility to allow full deflection shooting. If I remember correctly, in the escort missions jointly flown by P40s and Wildcats in the Cactus force, the Wildcat was assigned the high cover because it had superior high altitude performance with it's two speed, two stage supercharger. An interesting aside which shows the importance of gunnery practise and deflection shooting. I was watching on the military or history channel a feature on Dick Bong. He was flying the P38 which had good visibility over the nose. On his first tour he said he could only execute firing runs from either the six o clock or head on positions. When sent back to the states (I think for war bonds duty) he had a lot of instruction in deflection shooting and he came back in theater a much better and more effective gunner.

 

[HoHun]

Hi Renrich,

>Once again the P40E was not a Tomahawk.

Well, the comments in my previous post were quite independend of the actual subvariant.

However, I feel obliged to point out that Pong, who started the thread, referred to:

- "P-40E Tomahawk" in the thread title
- "P-40E" in his original post
- "P-40 Tomahawk" in the poll option.

That's enough for me to consider the P-40E "on topic" here.

>I believe that the fighter pilot that said that was referring to the fact that ACM is seldom fought at Vmax.

Well, that might be a misconception. Here is a revealing comment by the British aerodynamicist Sir Morien Morgan:

"Looking back, I think that the greatest problem at the end of the 1930s was that it was extremely difficult to visualise what combat would be like in the new monoplane fighters; the only air fighting experts we had were from the First World War and that had been twenty years ealier. I think we all paid too much attention to the behaviour of an aerplane flying on a calm sunny day and harmonising the controls so that they could do nice aerobatic displays; we seemed to miss the importance of handling at speeds around the maximum permissable, in fast dives. Before the war, I remember, people thought that it was rather an academic exercise to scream downhill at one's maximum permissable speed.

The war soon brought us face to face with reality: once our fighter pilots started to mix it with the enemy they found that their main adversary, the Messerschmitt 109 which was less manoeuverable than the Spitfire, simply refused to dogfight in the manner expected; any German pilot who tried it did not live very long. Frequently the fight would develop into a diving race, either trying to 'bounce' the other fellow from out of the sun, or else trying to get away after being 'bounced'. And with the early Spitfires as one neared 400 mph the ailerons became heavier and heavier, until at 430 mph the pilot needed all the strength of both hands to get about on tenth aileron movement. In an air combat this was a crippling defect: if one was diving on an enemy the idea was to fire at him on the way down, and the poor aileron control made this very difficult."

(From Alfred Price, "Spitfire - a Complete Fighting History", p. 93 f)

To sum it up, the lesson learned by the RAF in WW2 was that "ACM" routinely took place even beyond the top speeds of the aircraft involved.

A top speed advantage is just what you need when it comes to "refusing to dogfight in the manner expected".

>I know you are weary of hearing this but one big advantage the Wildcat would have was the visibility to allow full deflection shooting.

Well, what kind of visibility did the F4F actually offer? From a diagram in Frederick A. Johnsen's "Republic P-47 Thunderbolt" (Warbird Tech Series Volume 23), the P-40N had a visibility angle of 50 mil below the gunsight line.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

[renrich]

I believe that I will not ignore the statement of a career USN pilot, squadron commander, aeronautical engineer, test pilot and combat pilot. There are imnumerable examples in WW2 where AC with a Vmax disadvantage were more effective in combat than those with higher Vmaxs, the most obvious of those being the Zero versus P40s and Spitfires. I don't have much data regarding ACM between Spitfires and Zeros but in reading the posts on this forum, I gather the Spitfire did not enjoy any marked statistical advantage over the Zero. I know these are different times and I cannot discuss this with any veracity but the FA18 is supposed to be a premier ACM fighter. It is substantially slower than it's predecessor and slower than most of the "enemy" fighters it would be likely to encounter. Apparently a Vmax advantage is no longer much of an "advantage." To me, going back to the P40E V FM2 question, a 40 mph Vmax advantage could be tactically significant but a 1000 FPM climb advantage for the Wildcat could be also, as well as an AC less susceptible to battle damage and one having a significant advantage in turning. It all goes back to my original statement which is that the advantage the P40 might have is not necessarily clear. Here is a quote from Eric Brown on his opinion of a fight between two fighters with somewhat similar performance characteristics as our two. The Fw190A4 had a speed advantage over the F6F3 but was at a disadvatage in climb. "This was a contest so finely balanced that the skill of the pilot would probably be the deciding factor." In a contest between a F6F3 V BF109G6, the German had both a speed and climb advantage. "The Hellcat had a distinct advantage over the BF but would not be able to overcome it without a lot of pilot sweat." Finally, BF109F V Wildcat, "The BF was 60 mph faster than the Wildcat and although the Wildcat was superior as a dogfighter, the initiative lay with the BF because of superior performance. At low altitudes the BF had the advantage but not by much." The significance of this is that I don't believe the record indicates the P40 was anywhere near as good as the BF in ACM. LOL, I know, Eric Brown may not have much credibility with me or you!

 

[HoHun]

Hi Renrich,

>I believe that I will not ignore the statement of a career USN pilot, squadron commander, aeronautical engineer, test pilot and combat pilot.

But you're happily ignoring the statement of a career FAA pilot, test pilot and combat pilot along with the statement of a knighted aerodynamicist, president of the Royal Aeronautical Society, director of the RAE Farnborough?

>There are imnumerable examples in WW2 where AC with a Vmax disadvantage were more effective in combat than those with higher Vmaxs

Don't fall into the trap of thinking that the success in a certain campaign means that this success is owed to the quality of the aircraft. It can as easily have been the men as the machines - and with better machines, they might have gotten even better results.

That's why Robert Shaw, author of "Fighter Combat - Tactics and Maneuvering", relied on engineering analysis of fighter performance data. (In case you do not know the book: It has been called the fighter pilots' bible - by fighter pilots.)

>I know these are different times

Indeed, and just how many fractions of a Mach a modern jet fighter can achieve above or below Mach 2 is not relevant to our discussion.

However, the idea of looking at a general trend in fighter design is in fact a good one - and you will notice that the universal trend in WW2 was towards larger, heavier, less manoeuvrable, but faster fighters. Obviously, the air forces that procured the fighters had decided the speed was the most important criterion of them all.

>To me, going back to the P40E V FM2 question, a 40 mph Vmax advantage could be tactically significant but a 1000 FPM climb advantage for the Wildcat could be also

Hm, here a couple of graphs showing P-40E vs. FM-2 performance. I used 7431 lbs as the FM-2 take-off weight, and the engine power graph for MIL (no water injection) from the FM-2 manual. I also assumed the FM-2 to have slightly better aerodynamics than the F4F due to the relocation of the oil cooler. If you have different data, I could plug that into the calculation, too.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

[renrich]

I have Shaw's book and have read it. I don't understand why a difference of Mach 2.4 and 1.8 is not significant. My source says that the P40 E had a rate of climb at sea level of 2000 fpm and the FM2's was more than 3000 fpm. I don't understand why that is not significant. As a matter of act, at mil power my source shows the Vmax of the P40E at 20000 feet to be 330 MPH where as the FM2 at 20000 feet has a Vmax of 320 mph. I don't regard that as tactically significant. I don't do calculations. I gave that up a long time ago. As a matter of fact, I seem to remember in Shaw's book that he showed situations where angles tactics could be used to defeat energy tactics.

 

[HoHun]

Hi Renrich,

>I don't understand why a difference of Mach 2.4 and 1.8 is not significant.

What I said is that it is "not relevant to our discussion". Both the technology and the order of magnitude of the characteristic values in jet combat have changed so much that it is difficult to transfer the concepts to WW2 air combat.

>My source says that the P40 E had a rate of climb at sea level of 2000 fpm and the FM2's was more than 3000 fpm.

Quite possible - but you have to take the specific operating conditions into account. As Koolkitty pointed out earlier in this thread, the P-40E was rated for 56" Hg:

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

If you look at the graphs I provided for the 44" Hg MIL power setting, you'll see that it results in a climb rate close to the 2000 fpm you quote. However, this was not the highest possible power setting for the P-40E.

Regarding the FM-2, my calculations show a 2900 fpm climb rate already. However, the graphs I posted are for the R-1820-56 without water injection, and water injection would give the FM-2 an increased climb rate below 3000 ft - probably even greater than the 3000 rpm you quoted. I don't have any data for the R-1820-56W with water injection, though.

>As a matter of act, at mil power my source shows the Vmax of the P40E at 20000 feet to be 330 MPH where as the FM2 at 20000 feet has a Vmax of 320 mph.

Well, quite possible - data tends to vary between different sources. The combination of high altitude and high speed doesn't seem to fit the FM-2's engine characteristics really well, though. What's your source for the FM-2 data?

>As a matter of fact, I seem to remember in Shaw's book that he showed situations where angles tactics could be used to defeat energy tactics.

Speed is just a tool, it doesn't automatically win a dogfight for you.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

[renrich]

Actually, in looking at the chronology of the two Ac, a comparison of the F4F3 and P40E makes more sense. The performance of the F4F3 is pretty similar to the FM2. The performance charts I have are based on military power for both.