P-40 vs. Yak-1 vs. Hurricane

CORSNING · Jul 4, 2017

[QUOTE="swampyankee, post: 1341421, member: 56136aircraft: if you compare its overall performance with the contemporary Bf109 variants, it's probably roughly equal, especially at lower altitudes.[/QUOTE]

OK, if you think so. You pick the P-40 variant you want compared, and I'll show you its
performance compared to its contemporary Bf 109. Be prepared for the outcome sir.

Glider · Jul 4, 2017

swampyankee said:
The P-40 is probably the poster child for under-valued aircraft: it was much better than its post-war press, and, if you compare its overall performance with the contemporary Bf109 variants, it's probably roughly equal, especially at lower altitudes.

I suggest you read the thread from the beginning and then reconsider

CORSNING · Jul 4, 2017

A very astute suggestion Glider. Swampyankee I suggest you take his
advisement.

Greg Boeser · Jul 8, 2017

I thought we were comparing the Hurricane, Yak 1 and the P-40?
I still like the P-40 best, even recognizing its inherent altitude limitations. I think its record could have been better if the pilots flying them in 1941-42 were better trained and used better tactics. In North Africa, the DAF always ceded the high ground to the Germans, and flew antiquated and tactically impractical formations. In the Pacific, most US pilots were fresh out of flight school when they were thrust into combat with veteran Japanese pilots who were masters of their aircraft.

Glider · Jul 8, 2017

Greg Boeser said:
I thought we were comparing the Hurricane, Yak 1 and the P-40?
I still like the P-40 best, even recognizing its inherent altitude limitations. I think its record could have been better if the pilots flying them in 1941-42 were better trained and used better tactics. In North Africa, the DAF always ceded the high ground to the Germans, and flew antiquated and tactically impractical formations. In the Pacific, most US pilots were fresh out of flight school when they were thrust into combat with veteran Japanese pilots who were masters of their aircraft.

To use one of my fathers comments 'Tosh'

CORSNING · Jul 8, 2017

Greg Boeser said:
I thought we were comparing the Hurricane, Yak 1 and the P-40?
We are Greg. But to do that you must consider the performance of the opposition. That is the
only way you can determine the worth of what you have. If all the battles were at 7,000 m. then
the P-40 would not even be much of a consideration.

I still like the P-40 best, even recognizing its inherent altitude limitations.
Of the three and considering all the combat would be at low and medium altitudes, the P-40
would be my first choice also. I still want a Spitfire though.

I think its record could have been better if the pilots flying them in 1941-42 were better trained and used better tactics.
That is a statement that would apply to ever aircraft in every corner of every theater of the war
at any given moment in time.

In North Africa, the DAF always ceded the high ground to the Germans,
The Desert Air Force ceded (gave up) nothing to the Germans. The Bf 109 had a much higher
combat altitude than the P-40 or Hurricane and that is just the way it was and the DAF just
had to deal with it.

Shortround6 · Jul 8, 2017

The P-40F&L with the Merlin engine was used almost exclusively in North Africa and Italy. It's altitude performance was 3-5,000ft better than the Allison versions but still wasn't good enough.
The DAF used Spitfires as soon as they could get them to fly top cover for the P-40s and Hurricanes.
The US was thinking of delaying the Torch landings if they didn't have enough P-38s. All available P-38s that didn't go to the Pacific went to North Africa/Med from the fall of 1942 until Aug/Sept of 1943 to provide a fighter with altitude performance. The CBI theater and the Pacifrc were running shoestring operations of P-38s with the bulk going to North Africa. Not trying to bring the P-38 into the discussion except to show what the high command thought of the P-40 at the time.

AS noted earlier the 3 planes are NOT really contemporaries. The Hurricane hit it's peak as a fighter in the summer and fall of 1940. A time when the early long nose P-40s were still sorting out initial problems. The P-40E doesn't show up until the Fall/winter of 1941 and the P-40F doesn't show up until the spring/summer of 1942. Yak-1 also goes through at least one engine change and the 1941 versions are way down on performance compared to the 1942/43 versions. Nobody had any illusions that the Hurricane could deal with German fighters in late 1941 or early 1942.

Greg Boeser · Jul 8, 2017

Right. If we are going to compare apples to apples we need to look at where all three fighters were operational at the same time in the same combat environment. That would be on the Russian Front in 1942. So, we're looking at the Hurricane IIB Tropicalized, with the Vokes filter, The H81A-3 Tomahawk and the Yak1, early series. The Hurricane is a non-contender. Hampered by the drag of the sand filter its top speed is just too slow. The Tomahawk is not as fast as the Yak, but compensates by being more robust and it's equipped with two way radios, that gives it a potential tactical advantage over the Yak. Armament goes to the Tomahawk as well, with 4 .30 caliber wing guns with 22-26 seconds of ammo and two .50 caliber guns in the nose with over 30 seconds of ammo. Plus its got significant range/endurance advantages over either the Hurricane or Yak. Better instrumentation and gun sight than the Yak, better visibility.
My pick is still the P-40. If we go to 1943, the balance shifts in favor of the late Yak 1 with the cut down rear deck. Improved horsepower to weight ratio means the Yak's maneuverability puts it on near parity with the Bf 109G. The later P-40s just get heavier, with increased armament.

Think Tanker · Jul 9, 2017

Hey all, I've been away for a bit but I am still invested and interested in this discussion. As I collect evidence to make my case, I was wondering, does anyone have specific numbers and resources on P-40 A-A victories in the MTO vs losses? I remember seeing fromore somewhere around 800 aircraft shot down via P-40s, but I cannot confirm that.

swampyankee · Jul 9, 2017

Think Tanker said:
Hey all, I've been away for a bit but I am still invested and interested in this discussion. As I collect evidence to make my case, I was wondering, does anyone have specific numbers and resources on P-40 A-A victories in the MTO vs losses? I remember seeing fromore somewhere around 800 aircraft shot down via P-40s, but I cannot confirm that.

According to U.S. Army Air Force Resource Center - A Warbirds Resource Group Site, US P-40 (Warhawk variant) achieved 2:1 kill ratio in the Med, but didn't specify how this was calculated.

As I've said elsewhere: the P-40 was better than its post-war reputation. While it wasn't a world-beater, it was maneuverable, robust, and, reputedly, had sweet handling. With inexperienced pilots, that last seems to be a virtue that is frequently deprecated, as an inexperienced pilot will be able to get more performance out of a aircraft with better handling than he would in one with nominally better performance but more challenging handling.

Shortround6 · Jul 9, 2017

swampyankee said:
According to U.S. Army Air Force Resource Center - A Warbirds Resource Group Site, US P-40 (Warhawk variant) achieved 2:1 kill ratio in the Med, but didn't specify how this was calculated.

As I've said elsewhere: the P-40 was better than its post-war reputation. While it wasn't a world-beater, it was maneuverable, robust, and, reputedly, had sweet handling. With inexperienced pilots, that last seems to be a virtue that is frequently deprecated, as an inexperienced pilot will be able to get more performance out of a aircraft with better handling than he would in one with nominally better performance but more challenging handling.

The P-40 was also challenging enough that it was used as an advanced trainer in the later parts of the war. Pilots often doing a short period (15-20 hours?) on P-40s before going on the types of fighters they would fly in combat units.
While the P-40 wasn't a total dog and did perform good service holding the line in 1942 by 1943 it was fading fast as an air superiority fighter.
As to the 3 fighters in this thread compare the Hurricane II to the P-40F as both used about the same engine for all practical purposes.
The Hurricane II, being lighter, turned better, it climbed better, but being higher drag it was slower. The P-40 held more fuel and with the lower drag had more range/radius on internal fuel. Not a lot but there.

CORSNING · Jul 9, 2017

Greg Boeser said:
If we go to 1943, the balance shifts in favor of the late Yak 1 with the cut down rear deck. Improved horsepower to weight ratio means the Yak's maneuverability puts it on near parity with the Bf 109G. The later P-40s just get heavier, with increased armament.

Once again, it all depends on what you are going to use it for. Ground support, the P-40 (any version) wins
hands down because of its durability and much greater ability to absorb ground fire. If you are talking air
superiority, I would say maybe.
You must keep in mind that even the Yak-1b (bubble canopy) was not a Yak-9. The Yak-9 was a more
durable and over all maneuverable aircraft. Climb rates for the Yak-1b are calculated from the performance
curve of the earlier models using the initial climb rate of the M-105PF version (3,650 fpm.). They are not
exact but probably pretty close.
Mid-1943 Yak -1b vs. ( P-40N )
Altitude / Speed / Climb
Meters / mph / fpm
S.L.......330 / 3650 ( 332 / 3520 )
1,000...346 / 3655 ( 346 / 3600 )
2,000...351 / 3655 ( 360 / 3680 )
3,000...358 / 3490 ( 374 / 3465 )
4,000...370 / 3290 ( 376 / 2965 )
5,000...363 / 2840 ( 373 / 2480 )
6,000...351 / 2385 ( 367 / 2025 )
Service Ceiling (ft.): 33,100 ( 38,200 )
Maximum engine power (hp.): 1,260 ( 1,480 )
Wing Loading (lb./sq. ft.): 34.44 ( 41.42 )
Turn time (360 degrees /sec.): 19 {~19 )
Power Loading (lb./hp.): 5.046 ( 5.009 )
Combat Weight (lb.): 6,358 (7,413 )
Internal range (ml.): 434 (750 {P-40N-15}
Armament: 1 x 20 mm./140 rds. + 1 x 12.7 mm. ( 2 x 50 in./265 rpg. + 2 x 50 in/285 rpg. )

For fighter vs. fighter combat the Yak-1b had a slight edge over the P-40N in pure
performance. But keep in mind that you don't want to be on the receiving end with
this aircraft, ever.

Kevin J · Aug 27, 2018

Clay_Allison said:
The Yak-1 was obsolete. The Yak-3 and Yak-9 were clearly not.

The Yak-1 was superior to the Bf 109E, inferior to the Bf 109F, the Yak-1b was able to counter the the Bf 109G, each aircraft having its own superior attributes to the other.

Kevin J · Aug 28, 2018

pbehn said:
Something that is sometimes lost on the forum discussing fighter performance is that fighter versus fighter for its own sake is a completely useless activity and rarely happened in WW2 or at any other time. The Bf109 may have been superior to the Hurricane and P40 as a fighter but the Allies had other planes to do the fighting while even the Hurricane soldiered on. The final variant (Mk V not put into production) of the Hurricane powered by a 1700 BHP Merlin 32 and 50% heavier but approximately the same in top speed as the Mk I which shows how the Hurricane was developed.

That's not strictly true, the Hurricane V did 327 mph at 2000 feet, the Spitfire IX, 326 mph at sea level, the Bf 109G-6, 306 mph at sea level. So its performance is comparable...

Kevin J · Aug 28, 2018

GregP said:
I think the Bf 109F was the pinnacle of the 109 series. I only think that because Erich Hartmann so stated. That said, it should handily out-climb and out-accelerate any P-40 with the exception of the XP-40Qs, of which 3 were built and never saw overseas service, much less combat. I'd think the P-40 retained it's advantage in both roll and turn down at it's best altitudes, but the Bf 109F was rarely down there in the ETO. It was mostly fighting on the Russian Front where they tried to stay high but were forced down by the Il-2s hitting German troops. It was either come down or watch the Il-2s kill troops ...

Down under 15,000 feet, the P-40E and onward were pretty good versus a Bf 109E; I'd still rather have the Bf 109, myself, given a choice. Pilots rarely had a choice; they flew what their side was flying. Once the Bf 109 hit the F and onward, the advantage was rather clearly on the side of the Bf 109, and even the Bf 109E was a far better plane above the mid-teens in altitude, which it usually WAS in the ETO. Perhaps not in the Med. The P-40 was easier to work on than the Bf 109 and I KNOW the Allison held a tune a LOT longer. But there was NOTHING wrong with a good-running DB-600 series engine. It was reliable, powerful, fuel-injected and was never a detriment to any airframe until it needed work. Much the same can be said of the Merlin ... if it wasn't running, it wasn't of much help. But if it WAS running, it was a good, nee' GREAT engine. Same for DB 600 series. They didn't "give up" in mid-fight unless battle-damage was the cause. My bet is the old Luftwaffe pilots swear by the DB as the old British pilots swear by the Merlin.

The P-40 achieved a good combat record despite being pitted against many opponents who were technically better on paper. Much of that was due to the planning and tactics used by the P-40 pilots. Though it wasn't the best fighter used in most of the theaters where it saw action, it was all we had when the war started and soldiered on until it became relegated to minor theater status late in the war. That's what happens when performance development stagnates while the enemy gets better. Ask any late-war A6M Zero pilot about that one! They knew what it meant to have been the best and then have the enemy move past them in performance. Were they still dangerous? Yes. But not overly, unless the pilot was good. Then ANY fighter is dangerous. Put Erich Hartmann in a P-40N sometime in April 1945. and I'd bet on him versus anyone flying anything available (at the time). But on average, the P-40 was near the bottom of the heap if going by performance numbers alone, after 1942. That didn't mean it wasn't useful in a LOT of places and for a lot of missions.

This is what the Australians reckoned you could get out of the P-40 for top speed and climb rate.The P-40E is certainly not sluggish low down and remember these planes had tropical / dust filters.

Kevin J · Aug 29, 2018

Clay_Allison said:
We have a lot of threads uselessly comparing the P-40 to the Spitfire and Mustang. On the other hand, in my opinion, the proper comparison is with the other "obsolete" fighters that were thrust into the gap in the early war and fought on till the end in lower priority roles.

So, say you need fighters and these three designs are on your desk. Which do you want?

Having read through this entire thread, I feel the wrong comparisons are being made, we should have :-

Interception / Patrol: Lightning vs Beaufighter
Counter Air: P-40 vs Whirlwind vs P-39 vs Allison Mustang vs Tempest
High altitude interceptor: Spitfire V vs MiG-3
Bomber Interceptor / ground attack: Hurricane vs LaGG-3 vs Yak-7
Interception / Air Superiority: La-5/7 vs Spitfire IX vs Thunderbolt
Escort : Merlin Mustang vs Yak-9

CORSNING · Aug 29, 2018

Kevin J said:
Having read through this entire thread, I feel the wrong comparisons are being made, we should have :-

Interception / Patrol: Lightning vs Beaufighter
Counter Air: P-40 vs Whirlwind vs P-39 vs Allison Mustang vs Tempest
High altitude interceptor: Spitfire V vs MiG-3
Bomber Interceptor / ground attack: Hurricane vs LaGG-3 vs Yak-7
Interception / Air Superiority: La-5/7 vs Spitfire IX vs Thunderbolt
Escort : Merlin Mustang vs Yak-9

Hi Kevin,
I am going to enjoy studying your last few post before I do any
comprehensive answering. However the above comparisons,
while being provocative and would be fun discussing, they do
not belong on this thread. I believe sir, it is time you should start
some threads for discussion.
, Jeff

CORSNING · Aug 29, 2018

Kevin J said:
That's not strictly true, the Hurricane V did 327 mph at 2000 feet, the Spitfire IX, 326 mph at sea level, the Bf 109G-6, 306 mph at sea level. So its performance is comparable...

Hi Kevin,
The Hurricane V with its 1,620 hp. at take-off and 1,640 hp. at 3,000 rpm
at 2,000 ft. Merlin 32 using +18 psi boost was capable of 326 mph. at 500 ft.
The first flight of this model was on 3 April 1943. The L.F Mk. IX Spitfire
was fully operational on 1 March 1943. Its top speed at 500 ft. was 338 mph.
The Bf 109G2 which became operational in April 1942 as capable of 329 mph
at 500 ft. The very maximum velocity of the Hurricane V was 326 mph at
500 -(2000 ft.). The maximum velocity of the Spitfire was 407 mph. at 22,000 ft.
The maximum velocity of the Bf 109G-2 was 414 mph at 23,000 ft.
Kevin, I just don't see the Hurricane V as being equal in any way.

One other note needs to be made. The Merlin 32 tended to overheat. The two
Hurricane Mk.IVs that were converted to Mk.Vs were converted back to Mk.IVs.

, Jeff

Kevin J · Aug 29, 2018

CORSNING said:
Hi Kevin,
The Hurricane V with its 1,620 hp. at take-off and 1,640 hp. at 3,000 rpm
at 2,000 ft. Merlin 32 using +18 psi boost was capable of 326 mph. at 500 ft.
The first flight of this model was on 3 April 1943. The L.F Mk. IX Spitfire
was fully operational on 1 March 1943. Its top speed at 500 ft. was 338 mph.
The Bf 109G2 which became operational in April 1942 as capable of 329 mph
at 500 ft. The very maximum velocity of the Hurricane V was 326 mph at
500 -(2000 ft.). The maximum velocity of the Spitfire was 407 mph. at 22,000 ft.
The maximum velocity of the Bf 109G-2 was 414 mph at 23,000 ft.
Kevin, I just don't see the Hurricane V as being equal in any way.

One other note needs to be made. The Merlin 32 tended to overheat. The two
Hurricane Mk.IVs that were converted to Mk.Vs were converted back to Mk.IVs.

, Jeff

The point that I am making is that there isn't a lot of speed difference at low altitude. In the field there may not be any. The Sea Hurricane IIc had the same performance as a Hurricane IIa or a Seafire IIc with four cannon, arrestor hook and catapult spools. So clearly the Sea Hurricane IIc had been cleaned up enough to give it an extra 13 mph. Perhaps 6/7 mph from the individual exhaust stubs and another 6/7 mph from something else. Meanwhile the Spitfire was having more and more kit added to it which reduced its top speed. The G-2 of 1943 with a fully rated engine no doubt did 329 mph, but the G-2/Trop of 1942 only did 306 mph at sea level. My assumption here is 327 mph for Hurricane V from about 500 to 2000 feet at which altitude tropical filters didn't have much effect. Maybe if you put a Merlin 66 into a Hurricane you would get the same performance as a Hellcat?

Venturi · Aug 29, 2018

Kevin J said:
View attachment 507551
This is what the Australians reckoned you could get out of the P-40 for top speed and climb rate.The P-40E is certainly not sluggish low down and remember these planes had tropical / dust filters.
View attachment 507551 View attachment 507552

And the charts don't account for the (officially unapproved) additional boost that pilots reportedly used on the P-40E's down low.

P-40 vs. Yak-1 vs. Hurricane

Tech Sergeant

Captain

Tech Sergeant

2nd Lieutenant

Captain

Tech Sergeant

Major General

2nd Lieutenant

Airman

Chief Master Sergeant

Major General

Tech Sergeant

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Tech Sergeant

Tech Sergeant

Banned

Airman

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads