Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
You can, of course, prove some of those points?I have had a reconsideration about most over rate fighter during WW2.
That would be the Spitfire!
Reasons.
It was a fragile aircraft compared to the P40.
Did not do well in ground attack
It was hard to build and maintain.
The Merlin's engine got less than half the life time of a Allison.
It's use was rather limited compared to the P40.
As a Defense fighter or Intectptor it was ok.
Range was half that of a P40 which limited its combat effectiveness.
2 cents
Yes...British built the Spitfire like their Merlin's. Slow, expensively and labor intensive. Merlin were improved dramatically with better US bearings. Read up on Yancy who rebuilds those engine. Mechanics called the Merlin a Watchmakers engine. P40 consistently carried more internal fuel,and more ammo. Allowing it to stay in a fight much longer. Spitfires in combat were just not as rugged as the P40 especially not suitable for ground operations. These are all well documented! The narrow track was difficult to land and carrier operations a lot of bent wings. They were withdrawn in Korea. As a point defensive fighter did well. P40 with the 100/130 fuels their performance improved dramatically as did the P51/A36 Mustangs.You can, of course, prove some of those points?
And considering that there were multiple models/versions of P-40s and multiple models/versions of the Spitfire perhaps you could narrow it down a bit as to which versions you are comparing and in what year?
The engine life claim needs some looking at too. Merlins may not have lasted as long as Allisons but less than 1/2? what years, what conditions?
The Range claim also appears suspect. Plane with 123 imp gallons of fuel inside has twice the range of of a plane (that is lighter and more streamlined) with 84 imperial gallons? 50% more range I could easily agree with.
as to your 6th point "As a Defense fighter or Intectptor it was ok." well as a Defensive fighter or interceptor the P-40 was far from OK so where does that leave us?
Yes...British built the Spitfire like their Merlin's. Slow, expensively and labor intensive. Merlin were improved dramatically with better US bearings. Read up on Yancy who rebuilds those engine. Mechanics called the Merlin a Watchmakers engine. P40 consistently carried more internal fuel,and more ammo. Allowing it to stay in a fight much longer. Spitfires in combat were just not as rugged as the P40 especially not suitable for ground operations. These are all well documented! The narrow track was difficult to land and carrier operations a lot of bent wings. They were withdrawn in Korea. As a point defensive fighter did well. P40 with the 100/130 fuels their performance improved dramatically as did the P51/A36 Mustangs.
P40 was just a more versitile Fighter and fought in every theater.
FYI, the A-36 was called the "Apache".P40 with the 100/130 fuels their performance improved dramatically as did the P51/A36 Mustangs.
Grammar aside, the serviceability rate of Seafires in Korea was the same as that of F4Us. The Spitfire was not fragile, it was not slow, it was not undergunned. As far as I can see, the only thing it wasn't was American.The narrow track was difficult to land and carrier operations a lot of bent wings.
Bingo !Grammar aside, the serviceability rate of Seafires in Korea was the same as that of F4Us. The Spitfire was not fragile, it was not slow, it was not undergunned. As far as I can see, the only thing it wasn't was American.
Yeah, what the hell was i thinkingHmmmm, objective... here?..........
I have had a reconsideration about most over rate fighter during WW2.
That would be the Spitfire!
Reasons.
It was a fragile aircraft compared to the P40.
Did not do well in ground attack
It was hard to build and maintain.
The Merlin's engine got less than half the life time of a Allison.
It's use was rather limited compared to the P40.
As a Defense fighter or Intectptor it was ok.
Range was half that of a P40 which limited its combat effectiveness.
2 cents
...Bomb, fuel loads and range get rather complicated. Yes some P-40s operated with larger bomb loads than Spitfires, please note the some. mostly in Italy at very short ranges. The P-40Ns (at least later ones) were rated for three 500lbs which is more than Spitfires but that was in 1943 and it had already been decided that the P-40 would no longer be issued to new fighter squadrons..
Thanks for correction, Dean's bible mentioned only 500 lb centreline bomb and seldom used light bombs under wings and a quick look on Wolf's USAAF Jabos reveals only the same info, but yes, digging out Kinzey's P-40 Warhawk Part 2 (in detail series) reveals than from N-20 onwards three 500 lb was possible bomb load, that means that appr. 3/5 of the P-40Ns were able to carry 1500 lb bomb load.
That said I think we have a double standard. The Mustang isn't my favorite aircraft of the war because it came so late, basically past the tipping point, and I like planes which fought in the more bitterly contested years and months of the war. But a lot of people around here and elsewhere will dismiss the P-51 as a 'mere' escort fighter, while failing to qualify the Spitfire as what it was, basically an interceptor or defensive fighter. Certainly a short range fighter. Similarly we all in the Anglophone world tend to ignore the excellence of the Yak-3, La 5FN and other Soviet types, because they were essentially low altitude fighters. So what? The battlefield in Russia was at low altitude. We dismiss the Zero because it wasn't as dominant in 1944 as it was in 1941. But in 1941, nobody in England, the US, or even Russia or Germany was dismissing that plane.
The Yak-3 didn't show-up until about 5-6 months after the Merlin Mustangs. The First nearly 200 carried 1/2 the armament of a late Spitfire. One 20mm and one 12.7mm machine gun. After that they got a 2nd 12.7mm. Fuel was roughly 100 US gallons/83 Imp gal? later ones got around 3-4 more gallons?
The Yak-3 would have been a great plane at the end of 1942 or during 1943. In 1944, while it was very good at what it did, it was pretty much a one trick pony. A low altitude, short range/endurance dogfighter.