P-40 vs. ME-109 (1 Viewer)

[HoHun]

Hi Claidemore,

>Note that the P40 could pull 5 g at 180mph

Hm, at which weight? The G rate appears to be a bit on the high side - I have the P-40 maximum coefficient of lift as 1.45 (from Peril's data), and that would require a weight of no more than 3180 kg at 200 mph (the upper limit of the range given in your quote).

>while the 109 E was stalling at 3 g at that speed, according to RAE tests.

Hm, if you you refer to the Spitfire-vs.-Me 109 turning diagram dated 19-11-1940, it shows about 3 G at 200 mph TAS, but I believe it would actually have be read at the 200 mph IAS reading for a comparison, and there it gives about 4.5 G for the Emil. The latter figure is also in fairly good agreement with my calculations.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

[kool kitty89]

That's for the Tomahawk I (evquivelant to the P-40 -no letter) wiout armor or self-sealing and only 1x .30 in each wing.
see: Curtiss P-40

Weights were 5376 pounds empty, 6787 pounds gross, and 7215 pounds maximum

 

[Elvis]

From reading the descriptions posted by Kool Kitty, it sounds to me like the LE slats on the earlier versions of the 109 were spring powered, while later versions may have been hydraulically powered.

Would that be a correct assumption?

Interesting posts. Keep it coming, guys.




Elvis

P.S. Kk - Thanks for the link to Peril's.

 

[Soren]

the F's (at least the late F's) and all G and later models slats extended gradually and smoothly with a 'clunk' being heard and felt in the stick when fully extended, no directional changes occured.
These slats were of the same mechanism as on the Me 262 and F-86, and I don't remember any report of jostle/jolt etc occuring durring slat deployment on those a/c.

Exactly, just as explained countless times by now by both the vets and the guys who fly the birds today.

 

[kool kitty89]

Elvis the operated by airpressure, see: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/polls/allied-tests-captured-bf-109-s-12456.html

Quote:
Originally Posted by Soren
Dave Southwood, 109 pilot:
"One interesting feature is the leading edge slats. When these deploy at low speeds or in a turn, a 'clunk' can be heard and felt, but there is no disturbance to the aircraft about any axis. I understand that the Bf109E rolled violently as the slats deployed, and I am curious to know the difference to the Gustav that caused this."
"

109E and early F had the slats operated by wing arms, the late F and all G series had it deployed by bearings, probably hence the much smoother operation noted by Southwood on the G-2. Changes in the K also had the slats made out of steel.

 

[billswagger]

Claidemore,

The P-40s didn't just shoot down fighters - something which is often forgotten when talking kill/loss ratios.

As for the topic; The Bf-109 is the best hands down. Can't think of an area besides roll rate where the 109 wasn't better than the P-40.

I think the only weakness of the P-40 in this match up would be ceiling. The areas of turn, and top speed might go one way or the other but its repeatedly reported that the P-40 was an above average turner.

Even the RAF considered the Tomahawk to be superior to the Hurricane , and Hurricanes could out turn 109s under 10,000ft.

Then take these two examples of when the 109 and P-40 met over Italy in 1943:


"On 1 July 1943, 22 P-40s made a fighter sweep over southern Italy. Forty Bf-109s surprised the checker-tails, engaging them at moderate altitude where the P-40 performed best. After an intense dogfight the Germans lost half their force while only one P-40 failed to come back.

A similar event took place on the 30th of the same month in which 20 P-40s were bounced by thirty-five 109s. The Germans limped home after losing 21 of their own while the checker-tails came through with only one loss. The Germans lost 135 aircraft (ninety-six of which were 109s) to the pilots of the checkered-tail P-40s while shooting down only seventeen of the 325th."
The P-40 Warhawk and the A6M Zero, Patrick Massol.

I think, for whatever reason, the P-40 has a flawed reputation as a fighter. The Japanese also ranked it as their number one advesary in low altitude combat.


I thinks its ability as a high altitude fighter limited its use in the ETO, and perhaps because of this reason the 109 might be the more formidable fighter, however match ups under 20,000ft are more likely to put the contemporaries on even footing, and perhaps lower level dogfights might've even gone in favor of the P-40.




Bill

 

[Glider]

I was able to have a look at Fighters over Tunisia in the Library last week and I couldn't find a US Pilot who didn't think that the P40 was totally outclassed by the Me 109. I don't pretend to have read the whole book just looked at bits that interested me and then concentrated on the conclusions.

Some quotes I jotted down
a) Page 392 discussing P40 vs Spit V Wing Commander Benham
During mock dogfights I was able to outfly 3 x P40 in a single Spitfire VB

b) Page 403 John Bradley 33rd Fighter Group on P40F
He describes the plane as being obsolete for what it was asked to do (as a fighter)

c) Page 407 Brig Harrison Thyng CO 309 Squadron 31st Fighter group
Preferred the Spitfire to all other Allied fighters and considered the P39/P40 to be no match for the 109 F/G or the 190

d) Page 413 Capt Ron Whittaker 57th Fighter Group P40F
Considered the P40 to be outclassed by the German Fighters.

I must emphasise that I only had the book for about 30 mins and by no means read it all but there was a common theme that the Spit V was considered to be better than the US fighters and the Spit IX to be at least as good as the 190 and better than the Me109.
The only exception being that the P38 was better for range which shouldn't be a suprise.

 

[renrich]

This has been pointed out before but the P40's major drawbacks were it's especially poor rate of climb and poor high altitude performance. In a fight at lower altitudes where it's very good rolling abilities and decent turning characteristics stood out it could be pretty formidable. The fighters it was likely to meet in ACM could mostly all outclimb it which was quite a handicap.

 

[Glider]

All I can say is that wasn't the picture I had from my brief look at the book. I saw no caveats such as at altitude we were in trouble or at low altitude we were able to hold our own. It was always along the lines of the P40 being totally outclassed.

 

[renrich]

Glider, if a fighter has a poor rate of climb and not very good performance above 12000 feet and was in the ETO being flown possibly by low time pilots, then I suspect that it would not have a good record and might be considered a dog. However, according to Dean in AHT, the P40" had few equals among US fighters in maneuvering at altitudes below 15000 feet" and "they were particularly good in roll." The problem was though the Axis fighters would not usually fight where the P40 could use it's advantages. Those same handicaps applied in the PTO especially against the A6M. Even the P40 at lower altitudes could not do well against the A6M in a turning fight.

 

[Glider]

I would love to say that I am going to buy the book but have you seen the second hand prices!! Scary. UNfortunately it was the British Library which is one you cannot take things out on loan from.

Next time I go there I will try and have a better look. To help me narow the search down, is there a unit that was renowned for doing well with the P40. If I concentrate on that first I may well get a more even picture.

Thanks

 

[Wildcat]

Next time I go there I will try and have a better look. To help me narow the search down, is there a unit that was renowned for doing well with the P40. If I concentrate on that first I may well get a more even picture.

3 RAAF and 112 RAF both had around 200 kills each with the P-40, probably the two most prominent in the Desert.

 

[Glider]

Wildcat. Thanks for this, I cannot promise, but I should be able to have another look next Wednesday.

 

[NZTyphoon]

3 RAAF and 112 RAF both had around 200 kills each with the P-40, probably the two most prominent in the Desert.

Hi Wildcat (just listening to Australia thrashing Pakistan in the one day cricket...), Have you got or read Geoffrey Pentland's The P-40 Kittyhawk in Service (Kookaburra 1974)? This has some really solid info on Tomahawks and Kittyhawks in Australian service, in North Africa and the Pacific (from 75 Sqn's defence of Port Moresby to the end of the war) - there is also some information on the USAAF units defending Darwin. It is well worth finding a copy for anyone interested in the RAAF.

 

[Glider]

With a bit of luck the British Library will have a copy of that as well. I will see what I can find.

 

[Wildcat]

I haven't got that book, but it's now on the to get list! Cheers.
For an excellent book on RAAF P-40 pilots and squadrons in North Africa, you can not go past Russell Brown's superb "Desert Warriors". It's a day by day account of all the actions fought by Australian P-40 units in the desert, listing all losses and victories against German and Italian records. truely an excellent book.

 

[billswagger]

Using Google books you can thumb through the great books mentioned above, or at least preview some passages but i think your gonna have to look at more information to make any kind of conclusion. Getting a RAF pilot's interpretation of the P-40 in contrast to his Spitfire is going to be a bit loaded.

In my reading of the P-40b, it seemed to have been more successful in the PTO and CBI.

What i find interesting about the MTO is that the P-40F was used, featuring the Packard Merlin found in the P-51D.
The engine was tested and rated to 55", however in my reading the pilots could and would push it to 65" in emergency situations which allowed them to out run 109s at some altitudes.

One pilot describes throwing the throttle forward while evading a 109. He noticed the boost pressure was above 60", and he thought he heard a knocking sound so he throttled it down to 55". He then realized the knocking sound was 20mm cannons exploding into his wing, and throttled it back up over 60".

I can't say much for the P-40s performance over the 109, only that it could turn with it, and dive with it, but more importantly was that it could reach further with the range that it had.

Tactically that means you can climb higher and further, for example, using rough figures:

If a Spitfire must fly under 10,000ft to reach the target area and be able to return, and the P-40 can climb to 20,000ft and still reach the target area, who has the tactical advantage?
I think the match up was more closely drawn in situations under 15,000ft. Tactically the 109s lacked the range of the P-40, meaning attack missions were often lower than what their ceilings suggests. Most people don't even look at range, just speed and climb figures but range is very important in gaining a tactical advantage,

Perhaps on the order of 109 supremacy, the 109s were also met with situations when attacking a middle altitude formation only to have high altitude top cover saddle in on them. The P-40s had a ceiling of 29,000ft but probably could only function decently as a fighter below 20,000ft. This doesn't mean the P-40s weren't capable of using altitude for a tactical advantage,

There are also many P-40 pilots in the PTO who know a well kept secret that it actually out turned a P-38, however, as the war in the Pacific went on the only war bird that could make it to the target areas was a P-38.

I haven't found anything that says the P-40 was outclassed, but i am still reading.


Bill

 

[Njaco]

I would love to say that I am going to buy the book but have you seen the second hand prices!! Scary. UNfortunately it was the British Library which is one you cannot take things out on loan from.

Next time I go there I will try and have a better look. To help me narow the search down, is there a unit that was renowned for doing well with the P40. If I concentrate on that first I may well get a more even picture.

Thanks

I think the 352d FS "Checkertail Clan" did well with the P-40 in the MTO.

 

[Colin1]

If a Spitfire must fly under 10,000ft to reach the target area and be able to return, and the P-40 can climb to 20,000ft and still reach the target area, who has the tactical advantage?

The P-40s had a ceiling of 29,000ft but probably could only function decently as a fighter below 20,000ft.

This doesn't mean the P-40s weren't capable of using altitude for a tactical advantage

I don't think the P-40 was terribly familiar with life at 20,000ft

Make that definitely, I don't think many P-51 pilots looked out of the roof of their canopies to see P-40s 4,000ft above their best altitude; 29,000ft was an if-only from the first P-40 to the last of the line.

Do you have any anecdotal evidence or combat reports to support this view?

 

[billswagger]

I don't think the P-40 was terribly familiar with life at 20,000ft

Make that definitely, I don't think many P-51 pilots looked out of the roof of their canopies to see P-40s 4,000ft above their best altitude; 29,000ft was an if-only from the first P-40 to the last of the line.

Do you have any anecdotal evidence or combat reports to support this view?

P-40 top cover was flown lower than their ceilings, if thats what you thought i was suggesting.

Its merely a demonstration of ability. I doubt a Mustang pilot would look above to see a P-40, instead the P-40 at 28,000ft would look up to see a P-51 at 38,000ft, if the mission required.
The reality of the MTO was having a reliable plane to fly top cover at the ranges required. The P-51 was still found to be somewhat fallible and teething out some engine problems at that time.
There were also situations where the Spitfire was used as top cover if the range permitted.

Much of my reading on the P-40 has been dispersed over a couple months from various sources. There is no one detailed account but a general picture can be gathered. It was also spelled out more specifically in a book about the 57th.

Bare with me, as i don't have the passage readily available, but if its tantamount that you need it, i can probably get it.

I would urge you to read about it more yourself, particular if want to get a better picture of how the plane was used in combat.

I think the age of TnB faded into BnZ tactics where dive characteristics, and roll were seen to be favorable designs.


Then take these two examples of when the 109 and P-40 met over Italy in 1943:


"On 1 July 1943, 22 P-40s made a fighter sweep over southern Italy. Forty Bf-109s surprised the checker-tails, engaging them at moderate altitude where the P-40 performed best. After an intense dogfight the Germans lost half their force while only one P-40 failed to come back.

A similar event took place on the 30th of the same month in which 20 P-40s were bounced by thirty-five 109s. The Germans limped home after losing 21 of their own while the checker-tails came through with only one loss. The Germans lost 135 aircraft (ninety-six of which were 109s) to the pilots of the checkered-tail P-40s while shooting down only seventeen of the 325th."
The P-40 Warhawk and the A6M Zero, Patrick Massol.


Bill