Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I've never heard of the p40 discribed as having a poor turning radius except by those using the A6m as a yardstick to measure it by. Have read many times they outurned 109s in the desert and I don't think anyone would refer to the Bf109 as having a poor turning radius.
P40s certainly had their issues, largely high altitude performance but was turning radius really one of them?
Just to call a spade a spade, this is NOT the same as out turning the opponent in a max G constant radius level turn. This is a "cheat" that allows a wider turning aircraft to pull lead on a tighter turning opponent if executed and timed correctly. For those of you unfamiliar, here's ACM101: When committing to a turning fight with a tighter turning opponent, a wider turning aircraft may, if energy level allows, pull up into a hard climbing turn in the direction the target is turning. As speed bleeds off, turning radius decreases until the fighter is perched above the target in a steep bank and making a higher rate of turn than the target. Then the fighter can, when the moment is right, pitch down in a diving turn onto the target's tail with a comfortable lead for a rear quarter deflection shot.Love the part where the P40 OUTTURNED the Spitfire and scissored in behind him.
A perfect candidate for the lag scissors described above. High roll rate coupled with high energy due to its weight and acceleration and "hell for stout" so unlikely to be "bent" in high G maneuvering. Now all it needed was pilots with the training and experience to use it properly.The P40's high roll rate allowed it to enter a turn quickly, but it was terribly handicapped in terms of actual sustained turn radius.
Combat 4: P40 uses superior roll rate to scissor behind the SpitfireUh, where does it say the P-40 out turned the Spitfire?
Maybe my reading comprehension has gone to pot as I get older but my take on the 4 combats listed in that report is that essentially the P-40 managed a draw on two of them and got the hell out of Dodge on two of them. This hardly proof the P-40 was superior. It may be proof the P-40 wasn't as bad as some people think.
It doesn't matter how many times this report is posted or how big you make the letters.
combat 1 the fight was practically a stalemate and after both planes descended 9,000ft in 5-7 minutes the KittyHawk pilot dives away breaking contact.
combat 2. after two minutes in which the Spitfire cannot be shaken by the P-40 the P-40 breaks contact by diving away.
combat 3. Kittyhawk starts with height advantage. (how much?) and after 14 minutes the fight had descended by 7,000ft, neither plane could gain the advantage, in other words a stalemate or draw.
Combat 4, Spit starts with the height advantage. in 11 minutes the fight descends 9,000ft, neither plane can really get an advantage, P-40 uses superior speed to break away.
and we are to conclude that the P-40 was the better plane?
I have no idea why the RAAF was limiting the engines to 9lbs of boost at this time. I do know the Merlin 46 made around 70-90 less hp at any altitude up to over 20,000ft than a Merlin 45 which sure didn't help the RAAF Spitfire Vs. compared to the "book" tests in England of Spitfire Vs using Merlin 45s. Merlin 46 did make rated power several thsousnad feet higher than the Merlin 45 so a combat started at 22,000-24,000 would have gone the Spitfires way.
FTH for the Kittyhawk was around 12,000ft and in level flight it was 14,000ft or better. the Merlin 46 had an FTH of 22,000ft and in level flight was even higher.
At 13,000ft the Merlin 46 gave about 1020hp at 9lbs boost if I am reading the chart right.
And the Spitfire, with its savvy veteran pilot uses its superior zoom climb to escape that trap.Combat 4: P40 uses superior roll rate to scissor behind the Spitfire
Correct. And I did use the generic term 'outturn' for the rolling scissors, and I do know the difference between turn circle and roll rate, but you were correct to call that out, some newer folks may not know the difference and it would be confusingAnd the Spitfire, with its savvy veteran pilot uses its superior zoom climb to escape that trap.
It's noteworthy, just how poorly the Zero compares as the years go by. Take a Zero produced in late 1944 or early 1945 to a Spitfire or FW 190 of the same year. The Germans kept updating the Fw 190, keeping it competitive with anything the Allies had. The Spitfire was a 1935 design, first flown in 1936, three years before the Zero, but the latter was soon surpassed. And that's where the Zero design seems to lose in this comparison, in that it could not be upgraded to remain competitive.How good was Zero against famous Spitfire or German FW 190?
Can a Zero beat them any chance at all?
No, Spitfire 21 entered service during WW2, A7M never got past the prototype stage.A Spitfire 21 vs A7M would be a better comparison.
I have forgotten the actual numbers. How many RAAF Spitfires were shot down by the Japanese and how many were lost. (out of fuel or mechanical failure)From this thread, if would seem that ANY CONTEMPORARY Spitfire, should outclass a A6M. A Mk.V with the normal boost settings, and no silly carb filter should be a step ahead of an A6M2 or 3. The oft cited Darwin example, which is a worst case scenario as far as Spitfires is concerned, ended up about even as far as total aircraft destroyed.
The Mk.V's, with Volkes filter, Merlin 46 and lower boost settings, and unserviceable armament at the extreme edge of the supply line is about the low point of the entire Spitfire story.
...not to mention, ETO and DAF experienced pilots who persisted in using inappropriate tactics against the Zero...The Mk.V's, with Volkes filter, Merlin 46 and lower boost settings, and unserviceable armament at the extreme edge of the supply line
Cheers,is about the low point of the entire Spitfire story.
With the pilots of December 1941, quite likely; with mid 1943 pilots, not so much.I am not saying a 1500hp Zero would have dominated the allied planes
There is little doubt the Kinsei engine could have been fitted much sooner, but it would have meant taking out the cowl gun/s and probably less endurance/shorter range.
I am not saying a 1500hp Zero would have dominated the allied planes but it's performance would have been a lot closer.
I have no idea why the RAAF was limiting the engines to 9lbs of boost at this time. I do know the Merlin 46 made around 70-90 less hp at any altitude up to over 20,000ft than a Merlin 45 which sure didn't help the RAAF Spitfire Vs. compared to the "book" tests in England of Spitfire Vs using Merlin 45s. Merlin 46 did make rated power several thsousnad feet higher than the Merlin 45 so a combat started at 22,000-24,000 would have gone the Spitfires way.
FTH for the Kittyhawk was around 12,000ft and in level flight it was 14,000ft or better. the Merlin 46 had an FTH of 22,000ft and in level flight was even higher.
At 13,000ft the Merlin 46 gave about 1020hp at 9lbs boost if I am reading the chart right.