How good a plane was the P-40, really? (2 Viewers)

[tomo pauk]

Attached are the range specifications for a typical P-47C, ranging from the C-1 to C-15 sub-blocks. On internal fuel, the aircraft is loaded with 305 US Gallons at a take-off weight of approximately 13,500-lbs. This provides the following:
P-47C: 305 US Gallons internal, 13,500-lbs take-off weight, 650-miles range at Maximum Cruise power, or 400-miles at Maximum Continuous power (325-miles at low altitude).

Thank you for the tables.
As a side note, the P-47D razorbacks were also with just 305 US gals of fuel in the internal tanks. The P-47D bubbletops received the bigger (taller) main tank, with 270 gals now, for the total of 370 gals per aircraft.

 

[pbehn]

While I understand the push-back on that terminology, I believe a it's fair phrase to apply, though undoubtedly the language is slightly hyperbolic in the case of the Spitfire. Attached are the range specifications for a typical P-47C, ranging from the C-1 to C-15 sub-blocks. On internal fuel, the aircraft is loaded with 305 US Gallons at a take-off weight of approximately 13,500-lbs. This provides the following:
P-47C: 305 US Gallons internal, 13,500-lbs take-off weight, 650-miles range at Maximum Cruise power, or 400-miles at Maximum Continuous power (325-miles at low altitude).
View attachment 806484

If we compare to the contemporary P-40 series (excluding the P-40L and P-40N-1, since both are assuredly inferior in range due to their ~20% reduction in internal fuel capacity). we have the following information:

P-40F: 157 US Gallons internal, 8,850-lbs take-off weight, 600-mile range at Maximum Cruise power, 425-miles at Maximum Continuous power (375-miles at low-altitude).
P-40K: 157 US Gallons internal, 8,800-lbs take-off weight, 600-miles range at Maximum Cruise power, 350-miles at low-altitude Maximum Continuous (no data-point for high-altitude)
P-40M: 157 US Gallons internal, 8,800-lbs take-off weight, 550-miles range at Maximum Cruise power, 475-miles at Maximum Continuous power (325-miles at low-altitude).
View attachment 806486

Yes, there is subject to fine interpretation with each of these individual values, but I believe it does relay my position of "about on-par" adequately. While reasonable minds can disagree on where the line is for "about on-par", or what meets that metric, in my perception of the ranges of both aircraft are within a fairly narrow margin of difference--before later P-47 models are introduced, and become prolific in their carriage of large underwing tanks.

Information comes from the tactical planning charts for each aircraft type, unfortunately no data was present for the later P-40N models, otherwise I would've included them as well.

I have seen this discussion many times before. It is based on the ultimate calling and ue of a single engined allied fighter was to escort bombers into Germany. No escort fighter was ever ordered or designed in the period. The P-47 performed its first missions in Europe in March April 1943. That is three years after the battle of France and Britain. The P-47 was designed as an interceptor but was never charged with intercepting anything in England because that duty was left to a plane that was better at the role, the Spitfire. The first USAAF bombing missions were in 1942 and escorted by the Spitfire because it was there and the others werent. The British had the Spitfire and were developing a longer range fighter in conjunction with a company called North American Aviation, it was found that when a Merlin engine was fitted in this plane called a Mustang that it was exceptional in the role of "escort fighter". The Hurricane was undoubtedly inferior to all other marques, that came later and werent there. Its role was frequently taken over by the Spitfire which served also in roles it wasnt designed for until the later planes that werent there became there. The whole point of the strategic bombing offensive was to weaken Germany and especially its Luftwaffe prior to D-Day but the P-47 couldnt reach deep into Germany until around D-Day, which was also around the start of the jet age.

 

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

180-190 mph is about 300 km/h, and we know that going slow is greatly benefiting the range. See here for Bf 110C doing 1040 km at ~520 km/h with full internal tankage.

Thanks for that, interesting how an aside gains a life of its own, but alongside the C-2 doing 1,040 km is the C-1 doing 780 km, with a lower fuel load, yet there were few changes between the two. Also the speed quoted is almost the reported top speed of the type, which should give an economic cruise well beyond the 1,500 km mark on internal fuel. My German is not good enough to deal with the font and abbreviations to clarify things.

The RAF calculated fighter ranges by deducting the fuel needed to run the engine at full power for 15 minutes, the rest being available for cruise, result being Spitfire official economic cruise ranges at 15,000 feet were I 575 miles, II 530 miles, V 480 miles, IX 434 miles.

P-47C: 305 US Gallons internal, 13,500-lbs take-off weight, 650-miles range at Maximum Cruise power, or 400-miles at Maximum Continuous power (325-milesat low altitude)
If we compare to the contemporary P-40 series (excluding the P-40L and P-40N-1, since both are assuredly inferior in range due to their ~20% reduction in internal fuel capacity). we have the following information-40F: 157 US Gallons internal, 8,850-lbs take-off weight, 600-mile range at Maximum Cruise power, 425-miles at Maximum Continuous power (375-miles at low-altitude).
P-40K: 157 US Gallons internal, 8,800-lbs take-off weight, 600-miles range at Maximum Cruise power, 350-miles at low-altitude Maximum Continuous (no data-point for high-altitude)
P-40M: 157 US Gallons internal, 8,800-lbs take-off weight, 550-miles range at Maximum Cruise power, 475-miles at Maximum Continuous power (325-miles at low-altitude).

Thanks for the range charts, firstly it is interesting how the economic cruise ranges of the various P-40 were compared to the Spitfire I. Staying with economic cruise how Francis Dean picked up on the gap between the P-47 and P-40 range, if the aircraft were in the Pacific this is the key range. Moving to the European Theatre the maximum cruise power would be more appropriate, with the P-47 having a 50 to 100 mile advantage, then comes maximum continuous power, the P-47 being equal worst.

It says something about the engines that the P-47 has a big range advantage at economic cruise, still an advantage at maximum cruise but is equal worst at maximum continuous power. While the Merlin was as good as the Allison but faster at economic cruise, gap closing at maximum cruise, and slightly better at maximum continuous at about the same speed.

Finally dividing the range by endurance throws up some interesting results, P-40M 10,000 feet economic cruise 700 miles at 195 mph, 25,000 feet maximum cruise 550 miles at 205 mph. I suspect a few of the numbers.

For "contemporary" the major theatre where the P-40 and Spitfire served together was in the Mediterranean, as of end December 1943 the RAF in theatre had 25 Spitfire mark I, 1,718 V, 6 VI, 398 VIII, 764 IX, 43 PR.IV, 51 PR.XI along with 153 Kittyhawk I, 155 IA, 165 IIA, 217 III and 135 IV, end June 1944 it was 18 Spitfire mark I, 1,347 V, 5 VI, 262 VIII, 879 IX, 32 PR.IV, 76 PR.XI along with 56 Kittyhawk I, 91 IA, 123 IIA, 158 III and 360 IV. The 456 Kittyhawk IV allocated to the RAF were 56 N-1, 150 N-5, 50 N-15 and 200 N-20. So as of 1943 the majority of Kittyhawk IV were short ranged, by the looks of things the 100 P-40L/mark II had been removed from inventory. It is really easy to choose say Spitfire VIII versus P-40N-1, Spitfire longer range, or Spitfire IX versus P-40M, P-40 longer range.

In numbers terms the P-40L and N-1 were about 8% of production, while the Spitfire IX was around 29% but from the second half of 1944 more internal tankage was fitted, deducting these leaves say 15% of Spitfire production, throw in Seafires and it becomes 13%. If we are to ignore the shorter range P-40 versions we can ignore the shorter range Spitfire versions for comparison purposes. Types like the P-40 and Spitfire came in a large number of versions with different capabilities, selecting which versions to compare therefore tends to say more about the author than the aircraft. Similar for what conditions.

Yes, there is subject to fine interpretation with each of these individual values, but I believe it does relay my position of "about on-par" adequately. While reasonable minds can disagree on where the line is for "about on-par", or what meets that metric, in my perception of the ranges of both aircraft are within a fairly narrow margin of difference--

To conclude "about on par" requires operations run at maximum continuous power as that is where the P-40 and P-47 ranges converge or the P-40 is superior, going to maximum cruise the P-47 range is 50 to 100 miles longer, economic cruise over 100 miles more, which means at economic cruise the Spitfire I range is "about on par" to the P-40 at 125 miles shorter. How many fighter missions were run at maximum continuous power versus at maximum and economic cruise?

before later P-47 models are introduced, and become prolific in their carriage of large underwing tanks.

More the extra 25% or so internal fuel.

Still interested in the MTO fighter bomber operations using 1,000 pound bombs, the P-38 units regularly used them.