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.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
"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.
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.
Now the early P-40s had zero protection.
P-40B didn't fly until 1941.
So for the time frame you would be stuck with P-40/Tomahawk I.
Just how were they protected from Zeros?"The early P-40's had zero protection "
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.I was thinking that they would have to have standing patrols.
Best defense is a good offense.Just how were they protected from Zeros?
But was that the case in active use?Chain Home actually did see "backwards" inland but not very far, the first thing an operator had to do was determine which side of the transmitters the signal was from.
You need superior technology to build a long range fighter that can defeat short ranged interceptors. Fancy superchargers give you performance at a wider range of altitudes.
In WWII, it just so happens that American bombers and their escort fighters had two stage superchargers, allowing them to fly at altitudes above anything the Germans and Japanese were effective at. This is not something you should rely on. The general rule of thumb is that well designed long range fighters will not have the performance of well designed short range fighers.
The P-40 never gets no respect.
I think the P-40 was a perfectly capable fighter, at least equal to best in the world, on paper, in 1939-40.It was a journeyman and not a thoroughbred. But the world needs journeymen as well, and the -40 filled that role damned well.
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.
You need superior technology to build a long range fighter that can defeat short ranged interceptors. Fancy superchargers give you performance at a wider range of altitudes.
In WWII, it just so happens that American bombers and their escort fighters had two stage superchargers, allowing them to fly at altitudes above anything the Germans and Japanese were effective at. This is not something you should rely on. The general rule of thumb is that well designed long range fighters will not have the performance of well designed short range fighers.
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.But was that the case in active use?