wuzak
Captain
P-40B didn't fly until 1941.
So for the time frame you would be stuck with P-40/Tomahawk I.
So for the time frame you would be stuck with P-40/Tomahawk I.
March until October of 1940: fighters' ranking
- Thread starter tomo pauk
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
"The early P-40's had zero protection "Check the fine print.
Also cross reference with the P-40B documents.
Check the normal gross weight.
The gross weight at which the performance numbers were obtained.
Now the early P-40s had zero protection.
They also had two .50 cal guns with 200rpg and two .30 cal guns (one in each wing) with 500rpg.
The Allison engine was not quite ready for prime time (although it might have been as good or better than some other countries engines) and was limited to 2770rpm and not the full 3000rpm and it was restricted to 950hp ( Vee's for Victory). The first 277 engines (of the US engines) were sent back to Allison for rework.
The P-40B ballooned to gross weight of 7326lbs but still only carried 120 gal of fuel.
P-40B performance was measures/estimated on 6833lbs vs the 6787lbs of the P-40.
The P-40B had 93lbs of armor, crude self sealing tanks, two extra .30 cal guns, more ammo for the .50 cal guns.
One wonders what was left in the plane to get to the weight where the P-40B was rated at?
less than 30 US gallons of fuel if all the ammo was still in the boxes/bins?
The British Squadrons flying the Tomahawks in the beginning of their career could not get the .50 cal guns to work at all reliably and figured the effective fire power was the four .303 guns.
There was a report by Army Air Corp Lt Hubert Zemke in England at the time dated July 28th 1941 that went through 3 main areas of the Tomahawk.
In speed, climb and maneuverability the Tomahawk was found to be superior to the Hurricane MK I up to about 20,000ft.
At 20,000ft the Hurricane would out climb the Tomahawk. At 18,000ft the Tomahawk was 20mph faster than the Hurricane and it was 30mph faster at 13,000ft.
The Tomahawk only had a slight edge in maneuverability.
a lot may depend on the reliability/dependability of the .50 cal guns and the expected life of the Allison engine.
Mike Williams
Senior Airman
- 572
- Oct 19, 2006
Looks like top speed dropped 22 mph from 357 mph at 15,000' with 1,090 hp/3,000 rpm to 335 mph at 15,000' with 950 hp/2,770 rpm. Memorandum Report on Pursuit 1-Engine P-40, A.C. No. 39-165. Not in the top tier with its contemporaries.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
The P-40 never gets no respect.
Mike Williams
Senior Airman
- 572
- Oct 19, 2006
The RAF seems to have been a bit ahead of others regarding pilot protection. We've preciously discussed how the 109s were rather late in adopting pilot protection equivalent to what the British had, so the P-40 doesn't really fall much behind the 109 or Zero (small numbers that there were) in that respect. Opinions On This Article I Found About The Zero
Shortround6
Major General
True, but,
Same engine and aerodynamics.
A bit different weight.
If they were having problems with the guns in spring and summer of 1941 what were they like in the Fall of 1940?
A question is how many of the "P-40s" actually made it overseas.
The French and ex-French contract aircraft (Tomahawk 81-A/81A-1) are supposed to have four wing guns and thus would be a bit heavier (and have a bit more drag) than the US Army P-40s. Only a few MPH and FPS.
Still have Zero protection
What anybody want's to do with the engine problem I don't know.
The Army wanted the engines to last through a 150 hour type test. Most of the problems were in the last 50 hours. Most of the European (and Russian) engines were lucky they made 100 hours so how the Allison gets factored in I don't know.
There were other evaluations between the British fighters and the Tomahawks and reports to the US as early as Feb 1941 on how they were doing. But they were non-operational aircraft (I.E. lacking some operational equipment). Again they were rated as being better than the Hurricane I and in some regards as good or better than the Spitfire but altitudes are not given.
Of course both British planes would have (should have had?) armor and BP glass at this time and some sort of Fuel tank protection even if rudimentary compared to a P-40C (but that level of protection was about 250lbs)
So the caparison should be the early P-40/Tomahawk 81-A and not the later types and balance the performance against the lack of protection and the questionable firepower.
Why the British took months (around 9 months? or more? ) to sort out the .50 cal guns I have no idea, if the US was using the guns successfully?
Or perhaps the the US Army was also also having trouble with them?
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Virtually all American fighter aircraft (USAAC/USN) through 1940 did not have armor of self-sealing tanks...
Shortround6
Major General
Trying to compare rates of climb or climb to 20,000ft (or pick another altitude) gets really hard.
The US for instance rated the plane at full military power for 5 minutes and the cuts the power at the end of 5 minutes so the Allison drops to 2600rpm and at 15,000ft the climb dropped to about 2080fps from the earlier 3080fpm.
Time to 20,000ft with reduced power from just under 15,000 is 8.16 minutes.
The A6M2 Zero was supposed to do just over 7 minutes to 20,000ft? power limit not given
Spitfire I was supposed to take 7.7 minutes to 20,000ft but using at 2600rpm and 6.4lbs of boost for the entire climb.
A Spitfire II was supposed to hit 20,000ft in 7.0 minutes using 2850rpm and 8.8lbs of boost.
Ist squadron (No 611) was fully equipped in Aug of 1940.
The US for instance rated the plane at full military power for 5 minutes and the cuts the power at the end of 5 minutes so the Allison drops to 2600rpm and at 15,000ft the climb dropped to about 2080fps from the earlier 3080fpm.
Time to 20,000ft with reduced power from just under 15,000 is 8.16 minutes.
The A6M2 Zero was supposed to do just over 7 minutes to 20,000ft? power limit not given
Spitfire I was supposed to take 7.7 minutes to 20,000ft but using at 2600rpm and 6.4lbs of boost for the entire climb.
A Spitfire II was supposed to hit 20,000ft in 7.0 minutes using 2850rpm and 8.8lbs of boost.
Ist squadron (No 611) was fully equipped in Aug of 1940.
special ed
2nd Lieutenant
- 5,716
- May 13, 2018
Just how were they protected from Zeros?"The early P-40's had zero protection "
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
I know, right? There's so many responses one can make.
They would, but they would have been beaten in a short time. It was a huge effort just to cope with the later Fw 190 tip and run raids. There were some standing patrols at times during the BoB in the Thames estuary/London docks area. RADAR (RDF) gave Park and Dowding the possibility to mount patrols only where needed usually as a screen to cover possibilities as a raid progressed. it also prevented the LW from destroying the RAF on the ground.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
John Vasco
Senior Airman
But was that the case in active use?
Thumpalumpacus
Major
The boys at North American apparently didn't get that memo.
Thumpalumpacus
Major
It was a journeyman and not a thoroughbred. But the world needs journeymen as well, and the -40 filled that role damned well.
Clayton Magnet
Staff Sergeant
- 903
- Feb 16, 2013
I think the P-40 was a perfectly capable fighter, at least equal to best in the world, on paper, in 1939-40.
But by the time it was properly sorted out as a combat aircraft, it was 1941, and it spent the rest of its career as a second tier fighter. Luckily it was mostly employed in places where it mostly faced other second tier fighters, and did quite well for itself.
Thumpalumpacus
Major
Right. Hence my use of the term "journeyman". And even against first-line fighters it wasn't useless in the hands of a good pilot.
Shortround6
Major General
Going a bit off topic the P-40F & L used the same engine as the Hurricane II.
The P-40F was probably a more effective use of the engine.
The P-40F was probably a more effective use of the engine.
- Thread starter
- #479
The 1st thing required, so the escort fighter materializes, is that idea of an escort fighter appears in the heads of people that were calling the shots.
Then we have a thing of LR fighter not needing to carry the bomber-busting firepower (that adds drag and weight) the defensive fighter needs. A LR fighter can be made with only two HMGs in late 1930s and still be very effective against defending fighters, while the defensive fighter will require 4, or even six to beat the bombers. LR fighter force can be concentrated, the SR fighter less so (the fighters from Stuttgart, Frankfurt or Berlin will have a really hard time to influence air battle over Hamburg; fighters from South England will suffer the same vs. raids coming from Netherlands or Norway).
A long-range fighter force will not get in the enemy airspace alone, either.
I just posted it as a "aside" to add to the discussion, part of my background was in ultrasonics which is the same technology as far as spurious signals go, so I find such things interesting. I always understood that Chain Home just viewed outwards to sea, in fact if you read The Radar Pages Radar Pages Home page it "looked" mainly out to sea but also generated signals behind the masts, this presented an additional problem to the RDF operators. To answer your question literally, it was always the case because the operators first task was to establish whether the signal they were looking at was from in front or behind the transmitters. If you havnt read it, it is a great read and explains a lot about the problems of Fighter Command during the BoB especially in October.
