P-40 vs. Hurricane

[FLYBOYJ]

Now another thing I forgot to add on my last post was the P-40 had a tendancy to turn off the side of the runway because the nose was so high off the ground, the pilot had a bitch of a time seeing the runway, whereas the Hurri didnt have that problem,

That's common on any tail dragger - I could take you up in a Piper Super Cub and you have the same problem and I guarantee you the hurricane had the same problem. Watch old war documentaries - when you see WW2 fighters taxi they turn side-to-side so you could see over the nose. On take off You compensate for that my using peripheral vision, once the tail rises it's no longer a problem - tail dragger pilot 101.

Hod you you think FW-190D pilots flew????

 

[evangilder]

I have sat in the cockpit of the Hurricane. I did not fly it, but I did sit in it. You cannot see over the nose during taxi. The nose issue would be the same on both. Also, the Hurricane and P-40 did not have the same engine. The P-40 had the Allison engine, the Hurricane had the Merlin. They were both V-12s, but they were not the same engine.

The empty weight difference is not that great, 5,500 lbs for the Hurricane, 6,000 for the P-40. Max takeoff weight was considerably higher with the P-40 though, about 7,300 lbs versus about 11,500 lbs.

 

[Udet]

Lancaster Kicks Ass:

Well, I am 20 year old creature myself eh.

I did not throw any insults at you, much less degraded you at all.

 

[102first_hussars]

Now another thing I forgot to add on my last post was the P-40 had a tendancy to turn off the side of the runway because the nose was so high off the ground, the pilot had a bitch of a time seeing the runway, whereas the Hurri didnt have that problem,

That's common on any tail dragger - I could take you up in a Piper Super Cub and you have the same problem and I guarantee you the hurricane had the same problem. Watch old war documentaries - when you see WW2 fighters taxi they turn side-to-side so you could see over the nose. On take off You compensate for that my using peripheral vision, once the tail rises it's no longer a problem - tail dragger pilot 101.

Hod you you think FW-190D pilots flew????

Anyway Regardless the Hurri was in my opinion a better aircraft than the Warhawk

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

Udet you said to me

Why leave the response to Plan_D? Can´t you produce your own thoughts to attempt proving someone wrong?

You sounded like my twin sisters, when we were little children, running to tell my father I just pulled their hair

sounds degrading to me........

 

[evangilder]

Agreed Lanc.

 

[jrk]

i have read a hard back book named german fighters over the mediterranean.some lovely black and white photos of me 109,s fw i90,s he-111 ju-88 and even me-410.

anyhow in the pilots accounts of their adversaries one pilot quoted that a tomahawk(p-40) in the hands of a skilled experianced pilot was more of a handful than a hurricane with experianced pilot.

however one must remember that the hurricane could turn inside of both the me-109 and spitfire.the struggle for the hurricane came in the form of the a6m zero which could also prove a handful for the p-40.

for pure diving speed though the p-40 holds the ace card.i saw a p-40 dive in a mock dogfight with a p-51 mustang at an raf finningley air show and the p-40 left the mustang for dead in the dive.it was only when the mustang got horrizontal that the kittyhawk was clawed back.

conclusion=wouldnt like to say on this one.

 

[CurzonDax]

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!!!!! The Japanese with the Zero and Oscar barley had a 2 to 1 kill ratio over P-39s and P-40s during the peak of their deployment (Go the the thread rising sun warbirds). (quote)

TRUE, TRUE, TRUE!!!!!! In the Pacific the P-40s and the P-39s got bad press because of the lore of the Japanese planes. Many P-40s in the beginning of the war were shot down or damaged because they tried to turn with the Zekes, Zeros, and Oscars, but a pilot tried it only ONCE! Also my theory why the P-39s got such bad press was becuase of the P-400s and even then these planes did a bang up job as close support planes.

:{)

 

[FLYBOYJ]

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!!!!! The Japanese with the Zero and Oscar barley had a 2 to 1 kill ratio over P-39s and P-40s during the peak of their deployment (Go the the thread rising sun warbirds). (quote)

TRUE, TRUE, TRUE!!!!!! In the Pacific the P-40s and the P-39s got bad press because of the lore of the Japanese planes. Many P-40s in the beginning of the war were shot down or damaged because they tried to turn with the Zekes, Zeros, and Oscars, but a pilot tried it only ONCE! Also my theory why the P-39s got such bad press was becuase of the P-400s and even then these planes did a bang up job as close support planes.

:{)

Are you agreeing wit me? I think we're saying the same thing

Go to the thread I posted and then go to the site that shows AAF kills/ losses from Jan 42 through Nov 42 - there were only like 150 P-39s and P-40s lost for 180 Kills (Zeros and Oscars).

 

[jrk]

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!!!!! The Japanese with the Zero and Oscar barley had a 2 to 1 kill ratio over P-39s and P-40s during the peak of their deployment (Go the the thread rising sun warbirds). (quote)

TRUE, TRUE, TRUE!!!!!! In the Pacific the P-40s and the P-39s got bad press because of the lore of the Japanese planes. Many P-40s in the beginning of the war were shot down or damaged because they tried to turn with the Zekes, Zeros, and Oscars, but a pilot tried it only ONCE! Also my theory why the P-39s got such bad press was becuase of the P-400s and even then these planes did a bang up job as close support planes.

:{)

i take it you didnt read my full post?you only read the bit about the warhawk against the zero!

 

[FLYBOYJ]

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!!!!! The Japanese with the Zero and Oscar barley had a 2 to 1 kill ratio over P-39s and P-40s during the peak of their deployment (Go the the thread rising sun warbirds). (quote)

TRUE, TRUE, TRUE!!!!!! In the Pacific the P-40s and the P-39s got bad press because of the lore of the Japanese planes. Many P-40s in the beginning of the war were shot down or damaged because they tried to turn with the Zekes, Zeros, and Oscars, but a pilot tried it only ONCE! Also my theory why the P-39s got such bad press was becuase of the P-400s and even then these planes did a bang up job as close support planes.

:{)

i take it you didnt read my full post?you only read the bit about the warhawk against the zero!

Oh I read it JRK and agree - in the thread Rising Sun Warbirds I posted information where a USAAF squadron of P-40s twice decimated a flight of -109s with hardly any losses - You're very correct!

 

[CurzonDax]

Are you agreeing wit me? I think we're saying the same thing

Yes I am agreeing with you. I just get tired of lets bash the American built plane.

:{)

 

[CurzonDax]

Oh I read it JRK and agree - in the thread Rising Sun Warbirds I posted information where a USAAF squadron of P-40s twice decimated a flight of -109s with hardly any losses - You're very correct![/quote]

I was reading a Luftwaffe's ace bio, and I want to say it was Hartmann's but I am not sure. But, the first time he met a P-40 he had heard all the bad press about it, and on top of that he had learned some bad combat manner while flying aganst the Red airforce in 41-42. So he attacks this RAF P-40 and promptly gets his butt shot out of the sky.

:{)

 

[lesofprimus]

Dont think Hartmann got shot down by a P-40....

 

[Udet]

I will not doubt the P-40 was a good plane.

However, the records of I./JG 27 upon its arrival to North Africa show the P-40s got scythed down by the 109´s.

 

[lesofprimus]

I agree Udet... Just about every account and pilot bio/story I read about the Luftwaffe in Afrika say the same thing... Tomahawks dropping outta the sky..... It may have been due to tactics and not flight performance, but there were a sh*tload of P-40 kills....

 

[FLYBOYJ]

YEP!!!!!!!

 

[jrk]

and youre talking about 20mm cannon and 7.9mm mgs vs .50 cal mgs.yes p-40s did suffer against the emils cannon fire and tactics but and i say but she took a lot of cannon shells and still managed to get home.the warhawk was ruggedly built and took a lot of punishment.if you want an example read about clive "killer" caldwell.another point of comparisson the p-40 was a hell of a lot easier to bale out off compared to an emil.the emil was far too cramped and clostraphobic.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

A repost - but nails home the point!!!

"Records of success in combat like these were not isolated to the Pacific Theater. In Italy the 325 Fighter Group, commonly know as "The Checker-Tailed Clan" amassed one of the best kill to loss ratios of any fighter group in the European Theater. With a yellow and black checkerboard adorning the tail of their P-40s (and later P-47s and P-51s), they flew many sorties against more numerous German forces, and won most of the time. In 1943 the 325th won two major engagements. On July 1, 22 checker-tailed P-40s were making a fighter sweep over southern Italy when they were jumped by 40 Bf-109s. After an intense air battle, the result was half of the German aircraft shot down for the loss of a single P-40. There was a similar situation on the 30th of July, again over Italy, when 35 Bf-109s ambushed 20 P-40s. On this occasion, 21 German fighters were shot down, again for the loss of a single P-40. Because the pilots of the 325th were trained to maximize the P-40's strengths and minimize its weaknesses, it became a lethal opponent for the German fighters. The final record of "The Checker-Tailed Clan's" P-40s was 135 Axis planes shot down (96 were Bf-109s), for only 17 P-40s lost in combat."

The P-40 took its lumps - it sure gave it out as well....

 

[plan_D]

That is amazing and really has turned around my view of the P-40; in the hands of a decent pilot it was lethal. The Hurricane did achieve a decent kill rate against the Luftwaffe as well though ...and it was always out-numbered by a lot! (...something that a lot of people forget...)