wuzak
Captain
Again, this is comparing a 1943/1944 aircraft with a 1941 aircraft.
The three Qs built were prototypes modified from earlier versions - two were Ks, one was an N.
IIRC, each of the Qs was different.
P-40 vs. Yak-1 vs. Hurricane (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Clay_Allison
- Start date
Again, this is comparing a 1943/1944 aircraft with a 1941 aircraft.
The three Qs built were prototypes modified from earlier versions - two were Ks, one was an N.
IIRC, each of the Qs was different.
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
How about you compare the 109G2 (engine limit 1.30 ata) to a P-40K and the P-40N to a 109G-6 running 1.42 ata?
Germans also ran 109F and 109G "gunboats" in North Africa, not in large numbers? but photos do exist.
I would also note that the USAAF didn't approve WER or WEP ratings until Dec of 1942.
Granted squadrons had been using higher than "book" manifold pressures (at altitudes the supercharger could provide them) for quite some time before, especially the British and AVG, which didn't have to worry about disobeying USAAF orders/regulations.
Just found this:http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php?topic=349117.15
"On the 5th of May 1944, a major bombing action was carried out by 239 Wing in order to breach the hydro-electric dam on the Pescara River. The task-group comprised three dozen aircraft from three separate squadrons: 260 Squadron RAF (flying Mustangs), RAAF 3 Squadron (flying Kittyhawks), and SAAF 5 Squadron (flying Kittyhawks).
It was thought that the German Army intended to open the sluice gates of the Pescara Dam and flood the countryside to impede the advancing Allied troops after the new assault had commenced. Allied Command decided to strike first, prior to starting their advance.
Twelve 3 Squadron Kittyhawks participated, led by the new C.O., Squadron Leader Rex Bayly. The Kittyhawk IVs were armed with one 1,000 lb bomb and 2 x 500 lb. bombs each. It was the first time the Squadron's new Kittyhawks had carried a 2,000 lb bomb load. (Kittyhawk IIIs could only carry loads of 1,000lb.) The result was that the immediate area, containing German supply and troop concentrations, was flooded and one of Italy's main sources of hydro-electric power was temporarily disabled, which helped the Allied advance. The town of Pescara was reported to be under four feet of water. The Squadron's ORB describes the mission as follows"
Copies of the squadron report/s follow. I would note that the distance on the map form the airfield to the likely target area seems to be about 40-50 miles?
Another web site describing the raid: Dam Busting on the Pescara River
Germans also ran 109F and 109G "gunboats" in North Africa, not in large numbers? but photos do exist.
I would also note that the USAAF didn't approve WER or WEP ratings until Dec of 1942.
Granted squadrons had been using higher than "book" manifold pressures (at altitudes the supercharger could provide them) for quite some time before, especially the British and AVG, which didn't have to worry about disobeying USAAF orders/regulations.
Just found this:http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php?topic=349117.15
"On the 5th of May 1944, a major bombing action was carried out by 239 Wing in order to breach the hydro-electric dam on the Pescara River. The task-group comprised three dozen aircraft from three separate squadrons: 260 Squadron RAF (flying Mustangs), RAAF 3 Squadron (flying Kittyhawks), and SAAF 5 Squadron (flying Kittyhawks).
It was thought that the German Army intended to open the sluice gates of the Pescara Dam and flood the countryside to impede the advancing Allied troops after the new assault had commenced. Allied Command decided to strike first, prior to starting their advance.
Twelve 3 Squadron Kittyhawks participated, led by the new C.O., Squadron Leader Rex Bayly. The Kittyhawk IVs were armed with one 1,000 lb bomb and 2 x 500 lb. bombs each. It was the first time the Squadron's new Kittyhawks had carried a 2,000 lb bomb load. (Kittyhawk IIIs could only carry loads of 1,000lb.) The result was that the immediate area, containing German supply and troop concentrations, was flooded and one of Italy's main sources of hydro-electric power was temporarily disabled, which helped the Allied advance. The town of Pescara was reported to be under four feet of water. The Squadron's ORB describes the mission as follows"
Copies of the squadron report/s follow. I would note that the distance on the map form the airfield to the likely target area seems to be about 40-50 miles?
Another web site describing the raid: Dam Busting on the Pescara River
Last edited:
GregP
Major
I think I CLEARLY stated that the Bf 109F and later variants were clearly better than the P-40, but I didn't state which P-40 except for a prototype that never saw action. Still, I see Wuzak managed to misinterpret that.
Yes, each of the XP-40Qs were different, and all were better than a Bf 109, at least to me. They rolled better, turned better, were faster in combat, had longer range, and climbed quite well. In some areas, perhaps max climb, the late-model Bf 109 was slightly better, but the XP-40Qs outperformed the Bf 109 in general across the board. Whether or not that was significant has already been answered; the XP-40Qs never saw combat, so it makes NO difference at all. With a population of three, they don't count. I included them simply to state they were good planes, if not selected for production. I thought that was obvious to the casual observer.
So, maybe even MORE clearly. The Bf 109F and later variants were better than ANY P-40 that reached combat status, period. The Bf 109F-1 saw action in 1940, so that pretty much means that the Bf 109s encountered when the P-40 got into combat were better than the P-40s.
Does THAT make it clear enough?
They weren't better at everything and at all altitudes, but they were better combat airplanes in general. It didn't mean they couldn't be shot down or that there weren't rookie Luftwaffe pilots (or rookie US pilots, for that matter ... we had BUNCH, at first). It only means that, overall, the Bf 109 of WWII was generally much better than the P-40 when the Bf 109 was flown properly and not ambushed. NO fighter or pilot, ace or not, is very good when ambushed unexpectedly. Hartmann was shot down and Nishizawa was shot up to the point of scrapping his Zero when it landed while attacking a B-17E! Nishizawa certainly didn't expect THAT from a B-17E, but he got it anyway!
Just goes to show the old saying from the days of knights in shining armor: Some days, the dragon wins!
Even for the top pros.
Yes, each of the XP-40Qs were different, and all were better than a Bf 109, at least to me. They rolled better, turned better, were faster in combat, had longer range, and climbed quite well. In some areas, perhaps max climb, the late-model Bf 109 was slightly better, but the XP-40Qs outperformed the Bf 109 in general across the board. Whether or not that was significant has already been answered; the XP-40Qs never saw combat, so it makes NO difference at all. With a population of three, they don't count. I included them simply to state they were good planes, if not selected for production. I thought that was obvious to the casual observer.
So, maybe even MORE clearly. The Bf 109F and later variants were better than ANY P-40 that reached combat status, period. The Bf 109F-1 saw action in 1940, so that pretty much means that the Bf 109s encountered when the P-40 got into combat were better than the P-40s.
Does THAT make it clear enough?
They weren't better at everything and at all altitudes, but they were better combat airplanes in general. It didn't mean they couldn't be shot down or that there weren't rookie Luftwaffe pilots (or rookie US pilots, for that matter ... we had BUNCH, at first). It only means that, overall, the Bf 109 of WWII was generally much better than the P-40 when the Bf 109 was flown properly and not ambushed. NO fighter or pilot, ace or not, is very good when ambushed unexpectedly. Hartmann was shot down and Nishizawa was shot up to the point of scrapping his Zero when it landed while attacking a B-17E! Nishizawa certainly didn't expect THAT from a B-17E, but he got it anyway!
Just goes to show the old saying from the days of knights in shining armor: Some days, the dragon wins!
Even for the top pros.
Last edited:
wuzak
Captain
You didn't mention later versions of the 109, only the F. At least in the part I quoted.
The F was a 1941 aircraft. The XP-40Q was a 1944 aircraft with a 1944 engine.
The K seems to have been a bit faster than the Qs with or without MW50, climb rate was a bit more also.
From what I know of the 109 it would seem that all P-40s would out-roll any version of the 109. but I don't know about turn rates, though I see several people have said the P-40 was superior in that regard.
Some turning times can be found here:
Results of the Soviet turn times tests
Incl. Hurricane IIB, IIC, IID, several versions of Yak-1, P-40C, E-1-CU, M-5-CU, Bf 109E-4, F-2, F-4, G-2, G-2 with gun gondolas, G-4.
Juha
Also for Hurri IIA, maybe I should boldface the a/c types so they will be easier to notice.
Results of the Soviet turn times tests
Incl. Hurricane IIB, IIC, IID, several versions of Yak-1, P-40C, E-1-CU, M-5-CU, Bf 109E-4, F-2, F-4, G-2, G-2 with gun gondolas, G-4.
Juha
Also for Hurri IIA, maybe I should boldface the a/c types so they will be easier to notice.
Last edited:
CORSNING
Tech Sergeant
Interesting turn of events. The focus has fallen from the Yak and Hurricane to the P-40.
Shortround6 has a great point about the what Bf 109G to compare to what P-40. My library
of WW2 fighter aircraft official document copies and research material fills six file drawers
and I have acquired a few books here and there, but there are many gaps in the information.
I do not have elaborate performance material for the P-40K so lets take the top performer.
The P-40N-1 March 1943, Bf 109G-6/R-6 summer 1943? and Bf 109G-2 April 1942.
The reason for using the G-6/R-6 and the 3 gun version of the G-2 is to show the drastic
difference in performance of the Messerschmitts involved. It should be added that starting
with the P-40N-5 when heavily laden with bombs and external fuel tanks there was an even
more drastic difference in performance. The P-40 could barely reach 330 mph. under those
conditions.
Altitude / Speed
Meters / mph
P-40N-1 / Bf 109G-6/R-6 / Bf 109G-2
S.L.......332 / 304 / 324
1,000..346 / 319 / 339
2,000..360 / 334 / 355
3,000..374 / 342 / 363
4,000..376 / 346 / 366
5,000..373 / 356 / 373
6,000..367 / 371 / 389
7,000..363 / 377 / 381
8,000..354 / 371 / 381
9,000..350 / 359 / 379
10,000..332 / 339 / 343
11,000..299 / 299 / NG.
Altitude / Climb
Meters / fpm
P-40N-1 / Bf 109G-6/R-6 / Bf 109G-2
S.L........3520 / 3150 / 4250
1,000..3600 / 3075 / 4625
2,000..3680 / 3035 / 3936
3,000..3465 / 2780 / 3739
4,000..2965 / 2580 / 3562
5,000..2480 / 2450 / 3267
6,000..2025 / 2265 / 2853
7,000..1635 / 1920 / 2342
8,000..1265 / 1535 / 1830
9,000....940 / 1100 / 1318
10,000....615 / 610 / 413
11,000....290 / 70 / NG.
Full throttle heights: 378 mph/3,215 m / 379 mph/6,420 m / 395 mph/6300 m.
( Bf 109G-1: 403.3 mph/6,400 m.)
Critical Altitude Climb: 3,720 fpm/2,438 m / 3,011 fpm/2,350 m / 4,861 fpm/1,630 m.
Combat Ceiling (ft.): 28,920 / 30,190 / 33,200
Turn times (360 degrees/sec.): 17.5 estimated / 24 estimated / 22.6-22.8
Combat Weight (lb.): 7,413 / 7,187 / 7,133
Armament: 4 x 0.5 in. / 3 x 20 mm + 2 x 13 mm / 1 x 20 mm + 2 x 7.9 mm.
Max. Engine Power (hp.): 1,480 / 1,380 roughly / 1,455
Wing Loading (lb./sq. ft.): 41.42 / 41.47 / 41.16
Power Loading (lb./hp.): 5.009 / ~5.208 / 4.902
Note: The P-40N-1 and Bf 109G-6 were set up to handle tropical conditions, the Bf 109G-2
was not and its performance would have been somewhat less in the sandy dessert of
Africa.
Shortround6 has a great point about the what Bf 109G to compare to what P-40. My library
of WW2 fighter aircraft official document copies and research material fills six file drawers
and I have acquired a few books here and there, but there are many gaps in the information.
I do not have elaborate performance material for the P-40K so lets take the top performer.
The P-40N-1 March 1943, Bf 109G-6/R-6 summer 1943? and Bf 109G-2 April 1942.
The reason for using the G-6/R-6 and the 3 gun version of the G-2 is to show the drastic
difference in performance of the Messerschmitts involved. It should be added that starting
with the P-40N-5 when heavily laden with bombs and external fuel tanks there was an even
more drastic difference in performance. The P-40 could barely reach 330 mph. under those
conditions.
Altitude / Speed
Meters / mph
P-40N-1 / Bf 109G-6/R-6 / Bf 109G-2
S.L.......332 / 304 / 324
1,000..346 / 319 / 339
2,000..360 / 334 / 355
3,000..374 / 342 / 363
4,000..376 / 346 / 366
5,000..373 / 356 / 373
6,000..367 / 371 / 389
7,000..363 / 377 / 381
8,000..354 / 371 / 381
9,000..350 / 359 / 379
10,000..332 / 339 / 343
11,000..299 / 299 / NG.
Altitude / Climb
Meters / fpm
P-40N-1 / Bf 109G-6/R-6 / Bf 109G-2
S.L........3520 / 3150 / 4250
1,000..3600 / 3075 / 4625
2,000..3680 / 3035 / 3936
3,000..3465 / 2780 / 3739
4,000..2965 / 2580 / 3562
5,000..2480 / 2450 / 3267
6,000..2025 / 2265 / 2853
7,000..1635 / 1920 / 2342
8,000..1265 / 1535 / 1830
9,000....940 / 1100 / 1318
10,000....615 / 610 / 413
11,000....290 / 70 / NG.
Full throttle heights: 378 mph/3,215 m / 379 mph/6,420 m / 395 mph/6300 m.
( Bf 109G-1: 403.3 mph/6,400 m.)
Critical Altitude Climb: 3,720 fpm/2,438 m / 3,011 fpm/2,350 m / 4,861 fpm/1,630 m.
Combat Ceiling (ft.): 28,920 / 30,190 / 33,200
Turn times (360 degrees/sec.): 17.5 estimated / 24 estimated / 22.6-22.8
Combat Weight (lb.): 7,413 / 7,187 / 7,133
Armament: 4 x 0.5 in. / 3 x 20 mm + 2 x 13 mm / 1 x 20 mm + 2 x 7.9 mm.
Max. Engine Power (hp.): 1,480 / 1,380 roughly / 1,455
Wing Loading (lb./sq. ft.): 41.42 / 41.47 / 41.16
Power Loading (lb./hp.): 5.009 / ~5.208 / 4.902
Note: The P-40N-1 and Bf 109G-6 were set up to handle tropical conditions, the Bf 109G-2
was not and its performance would have been somewhat less in the sandy dessert of
Africa.
CORSNING
Tech Sergeant
It just dawned on me that " The Bf 109G was like a box of chocolates. You never knew
what you were going to get." or be facing in the air. So be prepared for the best and hope
for the worst.
what you were going to get." or be facing in the air. So be prepared for the best and hope
for the worst.
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
I was in error before when I said the P-40 had three different engines from the E on. It had four,
Including the long nose models you had five.
C-15/-33 engine. 8.80 supercharger gears and a reduction gear set that had trouble at high power, it was over boosted at times but often at cost in later flights. this is the 1040hp at 14,300ft engine. same for take-off
The F3R/39 engine used in the P-40E. 8.80 supercharger gear but with stronger/improved parts that allowed for 1150hp st 12,000ft, same for take-off. power once you got to 14-15,000ft and up was the same as the earlier engine for all practical purposes. There was a bit of change back and forth with intake manifolds and backfire screens but those are the basic numbers.
Neither engine was officially allowed WEP/WER settings although the squadrons in the field did over boost.
The P-40F used the Merlin XX engine as used by Packard and here things get a bit strange. The US apparently never authorized higher than 9lbs boost (48in). The P-40F was the only American plane this engine was used in. I have no idea what the British allowed for boost but most early Packard built Merlins in British service stuck pretty much to those limits with the exception of using higher boost for take-off. Potential for confusion in combat reports?
The P-40K, first Delivered in May of 1942 (1st combat?) used the FR4/-73 engine with 8.80 supercharger gears, stronger parts and perhaps a slightly modified supercharger? at any rate it was allowed 1325hp for take-off and still made 1150hp at 11,800ft (the intake manifold and backfire screen combos may still have been going on). This engine was allowed a WER/WEP rating in Dec of 1942 of 60in (15lbs boost) but the supercharger would only provide that at very low altitudes 1550hp was good to about 2500ft? The Higher boost pressures reported in squadron use were only achievable at VERY low levels and/or by over revving the engine and/or in combination with ram at high speed. One also has to note that in desert temperatures the air is thinner (less dense) and 66in of MAP is not the same number of pounds of air per minute (power) as 66in of MAP at 60-70 degrees F, Most engine specifications being corrected to 59 degrees F or 15 degrees C.
Please note that the FR4/-73 also used 70%water/30% Prestone cooling instead of the early 97-100% Prestone for better cooling.
We finally get to the F-20R-F26R-F31R/-81-99-115 engines used in the P-40M and N series (and as replacements for Merlin in the P_40R) with further improvements, the 9.60 supercharger gear and the 1150hp at 15,000-15,500ft rating. due to the stiffer supercharger gear take-off power is cut to 1200hp and WER/WEP is cut to 1480hp although it can hold it higher than the -73 engine. Allison was very concerned that service units would try over-boosting it like they did the early engines but due to the higher heat rise in the supercharger due to high gear ratio this could lead to detonation at lower pressures than the earlier engines.
Much like the 109, the P-40 was a box of chocolates. What engine and what boost pressure are you comparing ?
edit, correct boost pressure on the Merlin form 58 in to 48 in as pointed out by Grayman and Corsning.
Including the long nose models you had five.
C-15/-33 engine. 8.80 supercharger gears and a reduction gear set that had trouble at high power, it was over boosted at times but often at cost in later flights. this is the 1040hp at 14,300ft engine. same for take-off
The F3R/39 engine used in the P-40E. 8.80 supercharger gear but with stronger/improved parts that allowed for 1150hp st 12,000ft, same for take-off. power once you got to 14-15,000ft and up was the same as the earlier engine for all practical purposes. There was a bit of change back and forth with intake manifolds and backfire screens but those are the basic numbers.
Neither engine was officially allowed WEP/WER settings although the squadrons in the field did over boost.
The P-40F used the Merlin XX engine as used by Packard and here things get a bit strange. The US apparently never authorized higher than 9lbs boost (48in). The P-40F was the only American plane this engine was used in. I have no idea what the British allowed for boost but most early Packard built Merlins in British service stuck pretty much to those limits with the exception of using higher boost for take-off. Potential for confusion in combat reports?
The P-40K, first Delivered in May of 1942 (1st combat?) used the FR4/-73 engine with 8.80 supercharger gears, stronger parts and perhaps a slightly modified supercharger? at any rate it was allowed 1325hp for take-off and still made 1150hp at 11,800ft (the intake manifold and backfire screen combos may still have been going on). This engine was allowed a WER/WEP rating in Dec of 1942 of 60in (15lbs boost) but the supercharger would only provide that at very low altitudes 1550hp was good to about 2500ft? The Higher boost pressures reported in squadron use were only achievable at VERY low levels and/or by over revving the engine and/or in combination with ram at high speed. One also has to note that in desert temperatures the air is thinner (less dense) and 66in of MAP is not the same number of pounds of air per minute (power) as 66in of MAP at 60-70 degrees F, Most engine specifications being corrected to 59 degrees F or 15 degrees C.
Please note that the FR4/-73 also used 70%water/30% Prestone cooling instead of the early 97-100% Prestone for better cooling.
We finally get to the F-20R-F26R-F31R/-81-99-115 engines used in the P-40M and N series (and as replacements for Merlin in the P_40R) with further improvements, the 9.60 supercharger gear and the 1150hp at 15,000-15,500ft rating. due to the stiffer supercharger gear take-off power is cut to 1200hp and WER/WEP is cut to 1480hp although it can hold it higher than the -73 engine. Allison was very concerned that service units would try over-boosting it like they did the early engines but due to the higher heat rise in the supercharger due to high gear ratio this could lead to detonation at lower pressures than the earlier engines.
Much like the 109, the P-40 was a box of chocolates. What engine and what boost pressure are you comparing ?
edit, correct boost pressure on the Merlin form 58 in to 48 in as pointed out by Grayman and Corsning.
Last edited:
CORSNING
Tech Sergeant
The P-40F used the Merlin XX engine as used by Packard and here things get a bit strange. The US apparently never authorized higher than 9lbs boost (58in). The P-40F was the only American plane this engine was used in. I have no idea what the British allowed for boost but most early Packard built Merlins in British service stuck pretty much to those limits with the exception of using higher boost for take-off.
Shortround, I believe +9 lbs boosting is around 48.3"Hg and the British were boosting their Merlin XX engines in the Hurricane Mk.II to +14 lbs. (~58"Hg) around September 1940. With 100 octane fuel they
later boosted the Merlin XX to +16 lbs. (~62"Hg.) producing 1,490 hp./12,500 ft.
Shortround, I believe +9 lbs boosting is around 48.3"Hg and the British were boosting their Merlin XX engines in the Hurricane Mk.II to +14 lbs. (~58"Hg) around September 1940. With 100 octane fuel they
later boosted the Merlin XX to +16 lbs. (~62"Hg.) producing 1,490 hp./12,500 ft.
CORSNING
Tech Sergeant
Shortround6,
I forgot to ask about the 8.77 gearing in an early Allison engine. I remember reading
about it but do not remember where...?
I forgot to ask about the 8.77 gearing in an early Allison engine. I remember reading
about it but do not remember where...?
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
Thank you, mental math error on the 58in.
I know the British used higher boost pressures on the British built Merlin XX engines. what I don't know is if they used higher boost pressures on the Packard Built Merlin XX engines. also known as the Merlin 28 & 29 and not the Merlin XX. When you get to Packard built Merlin 224s you have different pistons, stronger supercharger drive parts, stronger supercharger clutches and beefed up engine block side panels (and a few other changes).
If I may - 8.77:1 S/C gearing was used on following V-1710s:
-A2 (XV-1710-1 per US Army nomenclature), C1 Build #1 (XV-1710-3), C13 (XV-1710-19), C15 and C15A (V-1710-33)
Per table 9-7, pg. 224 at 'Vee's for victory'.
CORSNING
Tech Sergeant
Nice info Tomo. I thought those gears might be in the early P-40s.
Corsning,
Data for the P-40K (versions 1 to 15) from Tactical Planning Characteristics and Performance Chart, dated 20 November, 1943
Altitude/ Speed/ Climb/ Time
Feet/ Mph/ ft/min/
5,000 / 320/ 2,100/ 2.4
10,000/ 342/ 2,000/ 4.9
15,000/ 362/ 1,650/ 7.5
20,000/ 330/ 1,100/ 11.2
25,000*/ 265/ 350/ 18.5
All numbers at Military power, except time to climb, and speed and climb rate at 25,000 which is Max continuous power.
Weight 8,400 pounds
Engine V-1710-73, take off 1,325 Hp, military 1,150 at 11,800 feet, max continuous, 1,000 Hp at 11,000.
Please note the following taken from page 1 of the chart:
"Data contained herein are not to be considered guaranteed performance or optimal performance as established by test flight but are to be considered official "Practical" characteristics and performance to be used for planning purpose for the average pilot"
One further warning from page 1 (verbatim, all caps in oringinal):
WARNING
THESE CHARTS CONTAIN CONSERVATIVE AVERAGES FOR TACTICAL PLANNING AND ARE NOT SUITABLE FOR AERODYNAMIC ANALYSIS.
Perhaps, this gives us an idea how the aircraft performed in day to day conditions, Tactical planning data is not available for the P-40N-1
Eagledad
Data for the P-40K (versions 1 to 15) from Tactical Planning Characteristics and Performance Chart, dated 20 November, 1943
Altitude/ Speed/ Climb/ Time
Feet/ Mph/ ft/min/
5,000 / 320/ 2,100/ 2.4
10,000/ 342/ 2,000/ 4.9
15,000/ 362/ 1,650/ 7.5
20,000/ 330/ 1,100/ 11.2
25,000*/ 265/ 350/ 18.5
All numbers at Military power, except time to climb, and speed and climb rate at 25,000 which is Max continuous power.
Weight 8,400 pounds
Engine V-1710-73, take off 1,325 Hp, military 1,150 at 11,800 feet, max continuous, 1,000 Hp at 11,000.
Please note the following taken from page 1 of the chart:
"Data contained herein are not to be considered guaranteed performance or optimal performance as established by test flight but are to be considered official "Practical" characteristics and performance to be used for planning purpose for the average pilot"
One further warning from page 1 (verbatim, all caps in oringinal):
WARNING
THESE CHARTS CONTAIN CONSERVATIVE AVERAGES FOR TACTICAL PLANNING AND ARE NOT SUITABLE FOR AERODYNAMIC ANALYSIS.
Perhaps, this gives us an idea how the aircraft performed in day to day conditions, Tactical planning data is not available for the P-40N-1
Eagledad
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
Sorry about the mistake on the 8.77 gears but it is minor. Impeller in supercharger is turning 26310rpm at crankshaft 3000rpm. The 8.80 gears drove the impeller at 26400rpm. switching to 9.60 gears makes the impeller spin 2880rpm.
wuzak
Captain
You mean 28,800rpm.
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
yep, did it again 
Corsning,
Data for the P-40N-1 from Tactical Planning Characteristics and Performance Chart, dated 20 November, 1943.
Altitude/ Speed/ Climb/ Time
Feet/ Mph/ ft/min/
5,000 / 325/ 2,425/ 2.1
10,000/ 345/ 2,525/ 4.1
15,000/ 362/ 2,400/ 6.7
20,000/ 365/ 1,850/ 9.1
25,000/ 357/ 1,225/ 12.4
All numbers at Military power. There was no war emergency rating listed..
Weight 7,725 pounds
Engine V-1710-81, take off 1,200 Hp, military 1,125 at 14,600 feet, max continuous, 1,000 Hp at 13,800.
My previous statement about no P-40N-1 was in error. Interesting to compare these numbers with the flight test.
Eaagledad
Data for the P-40N-1 from Tactical Planning Characteristics and Performance Chart, dated 20 November, 1943.
Altitude/ Speed/ Climb/ Time
Feet/ Mph/ ft/min/
5,000 / 325/ 2,425/ 2.1
10,000/ 345/ 2,525/ 4.1
15,000/ 362/ 2,400/ 6.7
20,000/ 365/ 1,850/ 9.1
25,000/ 357/ 1,225/ 12.4
All numbers at Military power. There was no war emergency rating listed..
Weight 7,725 pounds
Engine V-1710-81, take off 1,200 Hp, military 1,125 at 14,600 feet, max continuous, 1,000 Hp at 13,800.
My previous statement about no P-40N-1 was in error. Interesting to compare these numbers with the flight test.
Eaagledad
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
