P-40 vs. Yak-1 vs. Hurricane (1 Viewer)

[CORSNING]

Hi Tomo,
I don't have any of these P-40 charts in my files YET. HOWEVER SIR, I brought
up GOOGLE and punched in P-40 tactical planning characteristics and performance
chart then BOOM! they are all there.

Tomo, always good to here from you sir, Jeff.

 

[tomo pauk]

Hi Tomo,
I don't have any of these P-40 charts in my files YET. HOWEVER SIR, I brought
up GOOGLE and punched in P-40 tactical planning characteristics and performance
chart then BOOM! they are all there.

Seems my Google-fu is weak these days...

 

[CORSNING]

Tomo,
Are you able to bring up any of them? Sorry I can't talk anymore tonight, I have to work
the next 5 days from 5:00 am to 1:30 pm.

 

[tomo pauk]

None so far.

 

[eagledad]

Cornsing and Tomo,

The charts are not from the net but from Maxwell AFB. Attached are the 2 pages on the P-40 from Nov 1943

Eagledad

 

[Juha2]

Hello Corsning, thanks again for the very interesting and informative messages. I have a couple questions.

#126 What is your source for these quotes on Yak-1? I always like to know the sources, the info in your quotes is more or less similar to that I have from Yefrim Gordon's books Soviet Combat Aircraft Vol One SE fighters and Soviet Air Power in World War 2 but more extentive.

#186 The German data gives the max speed for 109G-6/R6 as 502 km/h (312 mph) at SL and 620 km/h at 6 500 m (385 mph at 21 325 ft) and IIRC the British test gave its max speed as 618 km/h at FTH (source one of Eric Brown's articles in RAF Yearbooks, IIRC the year 1976). And German data for 109G-2 523 km/h at SL and 652 km/h at 6 700 m (405 mph at 21 982 ft), The Finnish test data for G-2 (with the fixed long tail-wheel struts) 522 km/h (324 mph) at 10 m (33 ft) and 636 km/h at 6 300 m (395 mph at 20 669 ft). The Finnish speed figures are with compressibility correction, and without it the speeds were 523 and 652 km/h or the same as the German data.

TIA
Juha

 

[CORSNING]

#126 What is your source for these quotes on Yak-1?
Hello there Juha,
Please excuse my manners. I am a great believer in listing resources these days.
The first quote is from 'Soviet Combat Aircraft of the Second World War" by Gordon and Khazanov page 124.
The second is from the same source and can be found on page 125. The third quote came from
"Bf 109E/F vs. Yak-1/7 Eastern Front 1941-42" by Dmitriy Khazanov & Aleksander Medved page 67 & 68.
God bless, Jeff

 

[CORSNING]

#186 The German data gives the max speed for 109G-6/R6 as 502 km/h (312 mph) at SL and 620 km/h at 6 500 m (385 mph at 21 325 ft) and IIRC the British test gave its max speed as 618 km/h at FTH (source one of Eric Brown's articles in RAF Yearbooks, IIRC the year 1976). And German data for 109G-2 523 km/h at SL and 652 km/h at 6 700 m (405 mph at 21 982 ft), The Finnish test data for G-2 (with the fixed long tail-wheel struts) 522 km/h (324 mph) at 10 m (33 ft) and 636 km/h at 6 300 m (395 mph at 20 669 ft). The Finnish speed figures are with compressibility correction, and without it the speeds were 523 and 652 km/h or the same as the German data.

The information for the tropical Bf 109g-6/R-6 came from wwiiaircraftperformance.org. Mr. Mike Williams and
Mr. Neil Stirling have gone to great lengths to put together The best collection of original official
documentation on WW2 aircraft I have ever seen.

The information for the Bf 109G-2 came from www.kurfurst.org and is from the Finish Test Trials. For
information on the Bf 109 using original documentation there is no better site on the web, PERIOD!

 

[CORSNING]

I always like to know the sources, the info in your quotes is more or less similar to that I have from Yefrim Gordon's books Soviet Combat Aircraft Vol One SE fighters and Soviet Air Power in World War 2 but more extentive.
Juha,
The main sources that I used for the Yak-1 in my posts comes originally from Yafim Gordon and Dmitri
Khazanov's Soviet Combat Aircraft of the Second World War with some help from Erik Pilawskii's
Soviet Air Force Fighter Colours 1941-1945. However, the site that made the elaborate display
of performance figures possible must be credited to http://www.rkka.es/aviones/diagrams.

Now with that being said, I have spent the last several years researching WW2 fighter aircraft. I have
come into contact with many knowledgeable individuals that have helped me immensely. Neil Stirling,
Mike Williams, I apologize to all the others that I have not listed here at this time. There was even
a Dago Wop that got me heading in the right direction. Yea, you know who you are.
Many hundreds, no, thousands of hours of research later I put together:
Aircraft Performance - The Great Planes : World War Two Warbirds section on warbirds forum.com.

 

[CORSNING]

All post I have made on this site 'void were prohibited by law or this site'.

 

[Juha2]

Hello Corsning
thanks a lot for your answers
I totally agree with your comments on wwiiaircraftperformance.org, www.kurfurst.org and Aviacion sovietica en la Segunda Guerra Mundial All are excellent sources.

Juha

PS. Took a short look on your threads in the WWII Warbirds Forum, great stuff!

 

[MiTasol]

Again date is relevant. The hydraulic hand pump for the undercarriage was deleted early on in series production .... don't have an exact date to hand, but I'd be surprised if many service Hurricanes retained the system by the outbreak of war.

The undercarriage and flap control is on the RIGHT of the cockpit, the engine controls, throttle control, boost cut out, radiator flap control, propeller controls are all on the LEFT of the cockpit, so changing hands is inevitable for take off and landing, but only to select flaps and undercarriage up. It is a standard British layout with which all pilots would have been familiar.

Cheers

Steve

Canadian Mk II Hurricanes (or at least the one at the Reynolds Museum in Alberta's one) had the hydraulic hand pump and the Canadian production was certainly post 1939.

 

[Shortround6]

The early aircraft were hand pump only. I believe the later aircraft used an engine driven hydraulic pump but kept the hand pump for back-up/emergency use. At least that is what the manual for the MK II from 1944 says.

 

[Glider]

Understandably people have gone for the test figures when comparing aircraft but the following are some quotes from the prople who flew them from the book wings over Tunisia

Wg Cdr Douglas Benham
Undoubttedly I preferred to fly the spitfire, As far as I was concerned it had all the advantages and none of the the disadvantages , It was far superior to all other Allied fighters in Tunisia. During a mock combat I was able to easily outfly three three P40's in a Mark Vb, and the Mk IX was much better.

Dennis Usher
The SPitfire was the best allied fighter as it had good climb, speed and manoeuverability. The Kittyhawk was best used as a fighter bomber adn was very valuble in that role

Harrison Thyng (USAAF)
I felw the SPitfire and preferred this as it was the best allied fighter for air to air combat. The USAAF P39, P40 and P38 were no match for the germans fighter on fighter. The SPitfires were used to escort even our own fighters

Jerry Collingworth (USAAF)
I much preferred the SPitfire over any aircraft in the allies had in Tunisia. The P39 was a miserable fighterfor Tunisia. The Kittyhawk was very little better.

Frank Hill (USAAF)
The operations of the p39 and to a lesser degree the P40 were restricted to air ground operations, most often under the protection of US or UK Spitfires

Ernest Osher (USAAF)
The Kittyhawk was just about outdated when we were using them in Tunisia,

John L Bradley (USAAF)
The P40 was an untried aircraft in Europe and it just didn't have the performance to compete when it did arrive. It was capable of taking damage and making it home and it did have good firepower, However it was obsolete for the job it was asked to perform. I flew a couple of escorts to P39's durng my tour and many of those pilots were afraid of them and figured they didn't have a chance if jumped by enemy aircraft without top cover.
Morale of the American pilots was very high when they came into theatre but after operating underfield conditions and with inferior aircraft it sufferred accordingly.

 

[Greyman]

J. F. 'Stocky' Edwards:
The cruising speed of the Kittyhawk II was reasonably fast and equal to the Spit.V and the Mk.III was comparable to the Spit.IX. However, the Kittyhawk didn't jump when the throttle was advanced to full power and it didn't climb worth a damn like the Spitfire. It would turn inside the 109 but not as easily as the Spitfire.

When the squadron's tame Me.109 flew with the Kittyhawk, we found in necessary to throttle back to approximately seventy-two percent power to stay in formation. The Me.109's definitely flew at higher cruising speeds when operating with two or four aircraft. ... In order to fully appreciate the outstanding qualities of a Spitfire, pilots should have first been required to do a tour of ops on Kittyhawks.

 

[Venturi]

Nobody is discussing why the reputations of the aircraft came about as they did.

Tactical considerations are key here in this comparison, and to put the historical results in context. Where you find yourself and what your mission parameters are plays the largest part in your fate when you are flying these planes in combat.

Are you in a Bf109 which is tasked to fly low level in a "carousel" for self-defense, in antiquated formations ... rather than flying at the same height or higher than your enemy, in proper finger-four formation? What do you think your fate will be against P40s flying higher than you with mission orders which allow much more tactical variation? A P40 frei-jagd, as it were. I bet the Bf109s don't have a good day from this scenario.

Rarely, were the results of air combat determined by absolute fastest speed. Rather, average combat speed, climb rate, dive speed and controlability, acceleration, durability, and practical maneuverability were the point.

Let's break it down...

Combat speed: Bf109 wins
Climb: Bf109 wins
Acceleration: Bf109 wins
Dive speed and controlability: P40 wins
Durability: P40 wins
Practical maneuverability: P40 wins (especially at high speed where the Bf109 stiffens up)

It's situational.

So you see, ceiling doesn't matter much. Strategically yes, tactically no. If you start out lower than your enemy, you're already hosed.
The circumstances dictate terms, and the factors which allow you to recover from bad circumstances are then what matters. Essentially what these factors are (above) revolve around escape and energy recovery. The energy recovery factors all go to the Bf109, which handily outperforms the P40. This is especially damning considering the tactical situation that the P40s often found themselves in, at an energy disadvantage.

Yes, the P40 was a plane which was below what the Allies were capable of producing. That was because it was designed to fulfill pre-war USAAF contract requirements and philosophies.

That doesn't mean it did not have merits and could give you a very bad day, especially if it started out equal or higher in energy. Alot of Bf109 pilots found this out the hard way.

 

[stona]

That doesn't mean it did not have merits and could give you a very bad day, especially if it started out equal or higher in energy. Alot of Bf109 pilots found this out the hard way.

Are you sure about that? I can't look at the figures now, but I don't think many Bf 109s were lost to P-40s in the MTO. I have no idea about losses in the East.
Cheers
Steve

 

[Shortround6]

Nobody is discussing why the reputations of the aircraft came about as they did.

Tactical considerations are key here in this comparison, and to put the historical results in context. Where you find yourself and what your mission parameters are plays the largest part in your fate when you are flying these planes in combat.


Let's break it down...

Combat speed: Bf109 wins
Climb: Bf109 wins
Acceleration: Bf109 wins
Dive speed and controlability: P40 wins
Durability: P40 wins
Practical maneuverability: P40 wins (especially at high speed where the Bf109 stiffens up)

As to the bolded part. the dive speed is questionable. I believe the the P40 was rated at 480mph? A Bf109E was rated at 466mph?
A 109F or G was ????? once they got the wings to stay on? with ultimate speed so close acceleration in the dive was probably more important and controllablity was even more so.

Yes, the P40 was a plane which was below what the Allies were capable of producing. That was because it was designed to fulfill pre-war USAAF contract requirements and philosophies.

The P-40 was "designed" much more to get something/anything into production (pre-war contracts) than any particular philosophies the USAAC had. Being a re-engined P-36 the production lines already existed and a work force was already trained. The factory would be much expanded and the work force multiplied but production was not started from scratch. Curtiss built 778 P-40s in 1940 and 2248 in 1941, far exceeding all other US fighters put together.

The P-40 was actually contrary to the USAAC fighter philosophy as evidenced by the P-38, the XP-39 with turbo, the P-43/P47 but it was what the USAAC could actual get (take delivery on) while it waited for the planes that did match it's philosophy. The P-39 without turbo fell into the P-40 catagory. What they could get vrs what they wanted.

 

[tomo pauk]

Nobody is discussing why the reputations of the aircraft came about as they did.

Tactical considerations are key here in this comparison, and to put the historical results in context. Where you find yourself and what your mission parameters are plays the largest part in your fate when you are flying these planes in combat.

Are you in a Bf109 which is tasked to fly low level in a "carousel" for self-defense, in antiquated formations ... rather than flying at the same height or higher than your enemy, in proper finger-four formation? What do you think your fate will be against P40s flying higher than you with mission orders which allow much more tactical variation? A P40 frei-jagd, as it were. I bet the Bf109s don't have a good day from this scenario.

Rarely, were the results of air combat determined by absolute fastest speed. Rather, average combat speed, climb rate, dive speed and controlability, acceleration, durability, and practical maneuverability were the point.
...

The Bf-109s flying against the better judgement, against doctrine and against the training - that is counting on the enemy being outright dumb. In other words, not the best planing. Whether we like it or not, the Bf 109 was to the P-40 what Merlin Mustang was to the Fw 190 - better, sometimes much better fighter in aggregate.

 

[Glider]

Nobody is discussing why the reputations of the aircraft came about as they did.

Tactical considerations are key here in this comparison, and to put the historical results in context. Where you find yourself and what your mission parameters are plays the largest part in your fate when you are flying these planes in combat.

Totally agree

Are you in a Bf109 which is tasked to fly low level in a "carousel" for self-defense, in antiquated formations

The idea of the Luftwaffe not flying in finger four formation is almost unthinkable as they learnt this tactic in Spain and used it from day 1 of the war. The allies played catch up at great cost.
Next point the Me109's never tasked fighters to 'carousel' at low altitude check the BOB, Battle of France, Fighting over Tunisia, it was almost an athema for them.

... rather than flying at the same height or higher than your enemy, in proper finger-four formation?

See above

What do you think your fate will be against P40s flying higher than you with mission orders which allow much more tactical variation? A P40 frei-jagd, as it were. I bet the Bf109s don't have a good day from this scenario.

Another small point is that the P40 was very poor at altitude where the Me109 was very good at altitude.

Rarely, were the results of air combat determined by absolute fastest speed. Rather, average combat speed, climb rate, dive speed and controlability, acceleration, durability, and practical maneuverability were the point.

Let's break it down...

Combat speed: Bf109 wins
Climb: Bf109 wins
Acceleration: Bf109 wins
Dive speed and controlability: P40 wins
Durability: P40 wins
Practical maneuverability: P40 wins (especially at high speed where the Bf109 stiffens up)

Dive speed the P40 wins but not controlability whatever that means

So you see, ceiling doesn't matter much. Strategically yes, tactically no.

I would appreciate any example of any millitry leader, of any nation, at any time (way back to Romans if you like) in land, sea or air who agrees with your belief that having a srategic advantage doesn't relate to having a tactical advantage.

If you start out lower than your enemy, you're already hosed.

Correct and as you agree the Me109 holds all the altitude advantages

The circumstances dictate terms, and the factors which allow you to recover from bad circumstances are then what matters. Essentially what these factors are (above) revolve around escape and energy recovery. The energy recovery factors all go to the Bf109, which handily outperforms the P40. This is especially damning considering the tactical situation that the P40s often found themselves in, at an energy disadvantage.

Yes, the P40 was a plane which was below what the Allies were capable of producing. That was because it was designed to fulfill pre-war USAAF contract requirements and philosophies.

Again I agree

That doesn't mean it did not have merits and could give you a very bad day, especially if it started out equal or higher in energy. Alot of Bf109 pilots found this out the hard way.

Relatively few 109 pilots found out the hard way. Most pilots of all sides were shot down by people they didn't see and in those situations it didn't really matter what the attacker was flying. That said the 109 had a mch better chance of being the aggressor as they had the advantage of altitude.