Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.
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
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.
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)
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.
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.
...
Totally agreeNobody 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.
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.Are you in a Bf109 which is tasked to fly low level in a "carousel" for self-defense, in antiquated formations
See above... rather than flying at the same height or higher than your enemy, in proper finger-four formation?
Another small point is that the P40 was very poor at altitude where the Me109 was very good at altitude.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.
Dive speed the P40 wins but not controlability whatever that meansRarely, 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)
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.So you see, ceiling doesn't matter much. Strategically yes, tactically no.
Correct and as you agree the Me109 holds all the altitude advantagesIf you start out lower than your enemy, you're already hosed.
Again I agreeThe 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.
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.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.