P-40 vs. Yak-1 vs. Hurricane

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

OK then, since no one (especially Clay_Allison) has not given any parameters for
the comparison, I guess its only logical that the date would have to be when all
the aircraft mentioned in the title are actually operational. So waiting for the late
comer Yak-1, the first date possible is February 1941. All I can do is throw the
numbers out there. No specific mission has been set so I guess we have to go
with air superiority. Since there are three aircraft involve I will separate speed,
and climb figures

Altitude / Speed
Meters / mph
P-40B / Yak-1 / HH Mk.IIc
S.L.......302 / 298 / 273
1,000..313 / 313 / 275
2,000..324 / 329 / 299
3,000..335 / 344 / 307
4,000..346 / 350 / 305
5,000..351 / 357 / 309
6,000..348 / 352 / 323
7,000..340 / 345 / 319
8,000..329 / 332 / 308
9,000..313 / NG. / 295
10,000..NG. /NG. / 254

Engine Max Power: 1,090 / 1,100 / 1,320
Test Weights (lb.): 6,835 / 6,269 / 7,560
Combat Ceiling (1,000 fpm)(ft.): 24,250 / 27,170 / 26,800
Wing Loading (lb./sq. ft.): 28.97 / 33.96 / 29.36
Power Loading (lb./hp.)/: 6.271 / 5.699 / 5.727
Turn time 1,000 m. (sec. R-L): 18 / 20-21 / 19-20
Armament: 2 x 0.5 + 4 x 0.5 / 1 x 20 mm + 2 x 7.62 / 4 x 20 mm.
Range (internal fuel - ml.): 855 / 434 / 460

Climb rates (fpm)

S.L........2900 / 3280 / 2530
1.000..2955 / 3190 / 2495
2,000..3011 / 3095 / 2460
3,000..3067 / 2930 / 2457
4,000..2780 / 2735 / 2050
5,000..1970 / 2560 / 1975
6,000..1570 / 2065 / 1730
7,000..1175 / 1645 / 1385
8,000....780 / 1130 / 1045
9,000....450 / /............725
10,000../ /.....................390
Time to 5,000 m.(minutes): 5.88 / 5.7 / 6.9
The P-40B probably had the fastest roll rate of all the contestants at a maximum of
136 degrees/sec. at 360 mph. It was 116 degrees/sec. at 300 mph.
 
Last edited:
All of the Yak fighters were not similar in their performance. The following statements
apply to the Yak-1:
" By early 1942 the Yak-1 had proved to be the best Soviet fighter with regard to overall
performance, but it was still bettered in combat by the Messerschmitt Bf 109F. When the
Bf 109F-2 was replaced by the 'F-4' (by the summer of 1942) with a more powerful, high
altitude engine and improved armour and armament, the discrepancy was even more
noticeable." "Its (Bf 109F-4) superiority over the Yak-1 in climb rate became more impressive,
and Manoeuverability was of the same order."
" A simulated combat between a Yak-1 M-105PF (September 1942) and a Bf 109F (sub-
variant not given) at the NII VVS revealed that the Bf had only marginally superior maneuverability
at 1,000 m., though the German fighter could gain substantial advantage over the Yak-1 within
four or five nose-to-tail turns, At 3,000 m. the capabilities of both fighters were nearly equal,
combat essentially being reduced to head-on attacks. As the Yak-1 was more maneuverable at
altitudes over 5,000m. " "...the 'F-4' with the more powerful DB601E engine...completely out-
performed the Yak-1 M-105PF."
" The dogfights with enemy aircraft over Stalingrad were desperate, and the VVS-KA suffered
great losses, especially in August and September. The reasons for this were the still-inferior flying
characteristics of the Yak-1 against the Bf 109F-4 and the new Bf 109G-2, and the high vulnerability
of the Soviet fighter, which quickly caught fire when explosive rounds hit the fuel tanks or cockpit
area. Compared with the all-metal enemy aircraft, the Yak-1 had little protection for its large wing
fuel tanks. And because of the poor view from the cockpit, and the risk of the windscreen being
sprayed with oil, pilots preferred to have the canopy open during combat sorties."
" The primary reason why the VVS-KA suffered such horrendous losses, however, was the
inadequate training given to replacement pilots."
 
As I noted, the performance numbers for the Yak-1 relate to the very first Yak-1s produced
at Plant 301. These were powered by the Kimov M-105P. These aircraft were built
with great detail given to workmanship. This was a time before the Germans invaded
Russia. The 2nd major production run was at Plant 292 in Saratov I believe. These were
powered by the M-105PA engine which was suppose to allow the boosting of the engine
to be raised from 910 mm. Hg. to 1050 mm. Hg. However, overheating required the
engine rpms to be reduced from 2,700 to 2,400 - 2,500 so there was no realization
of performance increase of any kind. In fact the lower standards of manufacture brought
about higher combat weights (6,348 - 6,368 lb.) and slightly lower performance. Top speed
had dropped to 291 mph. at S.L. and 348 mph. at 15,750 ft. Climb rate equally suffered falling
to 3,010 fpm./S.L. and taking 6.3 minutes to 5,000 m.
 
Last edited:
Again we are looking at when and what But I think I would go with the P-40 in the Spring of 1941 for P-40Fs in the spring of 1942.

Cheating just a bit bit but the P-40D/E had been ordered in the summer of 1940 so drawings/plans would be well in hand by Feb/March of 1941 (first delivery was in May of 1941) and design work on the P-40F may be a bit iffy? First flight of prototype was June 30th 1941, 4-5 months after the Feb date but drawings of the conversion began when? and all those Merlins Packard was going to build after signing the deal in Sept 1940 had to go into something, same engine as the Hurricane II has been using for 6 months in Feb 1941 so not an unknown quantity. Granted they won't show up until the Spring of 1942 but then no matter what hypothetical aircraft/engine you pick it won't see production form a new factory for over a year.
 
OK then, is there another time period you would like covered? The first combat of the
Kittyhawk IA (P-40E-1) was 1 January 1942 in North Africa. The first combat for the P-40F
was 31 July 1942 in Palestine. The Hurricane climb performance pretty much peaked with
the light weight, 8-gun Mk.I using +12 lb. boost. Speed increased with the 8-gun Mk.II. The
Yak-1's M-105PA 1st stage supercharger rpms were increased allowing 1,150 hp. to be
reached for short periods of time starting in January 1942 with the 5th major operational
version. Speed was brought up a little, but there was a good increase in low altitude climb
allowing about 3,400 fpm./S.L. and 5,000 m./5.9 min. Turn time was also decreased to
19 seconds, though it was a larger turn radius at faster speeds than the Hurricane.
The Yak-1 remained the most fragile of the group throughout its production run.
 
The Yak-1 performance peaked with the 8th and last operation version being delivered to
the 32nd Guards Fighter Air Regiment (32 GIAP) starting in December 1942. This one was
armed with 1 x 20 mm. ShVAK + 1 x 12.7 UBS. It was powered by the M-105PF and speed
was maxed out at 330 mph./S.L. and 368 mph./13,500 ft. Climb rate had reached its best at
3,650 fpm./S.L. and 5,000 m./5.4 minutes. The P-40M was also delivered at this time. Three
months later the P-40N-1 would be unleashed with a sea level speed of 332 mph. and 378 mph.
at 10,550 ft. The little known fact here is that it was also the fastest climber of all WW2
operational P-40s with an initial climb of 3,520 fpm. increasing to 3,720 fpm. at 8,000 ft. Using
WEP it could reach 15,000 ft. in 4.41 minutes and 20,000 ft. in 6.58 minutes.
The down side here is that it was not as rugged as the previous Warhawks and it was
armed with only 4 x 0.5 caliber Browning machine guns.
 
There is more than one type of fragile. Fragile in everyday use? landings and servicing (men walking on wings,etc)
or fragile under gunfire? A lot of early Russian aircraft suffered from weak landing gear or at least landing gear that would slowly collapse over time. Poor seals on retract cylinders.

I don't believe the P-40N was any less sturdy than any other P-40. The weight saving came from leaving certain things out (most of which could be put back in) or substituting light weight components in certain areas. Like the aluminium radiator and oil cooler or the magnesium wheels. I doubt a copper radiator is going to stand up to gun fire any better than the aluminum one and thses components having nothing to do with the strength of the airframe.
 
The P-40N was not fragile in any sense of the word. I don't have time to go into any
detail tonight, 4:00 am. isn't that far away for me. The P-40N just cut corners and was
lighter than the P-40E. No internal starter and hydraulic lines needed to be beefed up
if I recall. The P-40N (compared to other P-40s) was quite the performer. It could turn
inside such Japanese aircraft as the Ki.61 and Ki.44. And later Ns put back in some
items that the N-1 left out such as 2 more wing guns. Performance of the latter versions
is usually distorted by the fact that there published figures are at military ratings rather
than the WEP ratings published for the P-40N-1.
 

Congratulations on a very detailed analysis which I find most interesting. Despite its reputation as a snail compared to other aircraft of the period the P-40 is the superior aircraft in many of the performance details. Quite a surprise.

I cannot comment on the Yak from an ergonomic point of view but I know from personal experience the P-40 ergonomically beats the hell out of the Hurricane because, among other things, the P-40 pilot never needs to take his right hand off the control column during take-off and landing (and for most other flight operations). Throttle, mixture, prop, gear, flap, trim, fuel and primary radio controls are all on the left and in easy reach. On the Hurricane the landing gear and flap controls are on the right so the pilot has to swap hands multiple times during TO and Ldg and to maintain British design consistency (why make it easy when with a little thought you can make it bloody near impossible) the LG emergency uplock release is on the left and hydraulic hand pump needed to pump and lock the gear down is on the right.

I could not find a Yak manual for a theoretical comparison

Mi
 
Last edited:
MiTasol said:
the LG emergency uplock release is on the left and hydraulic hand pump needed to pump and lock the gear down is on the right.Mi
Click to expand...

Again date is relevant. The hydraulic hand pump for the undercarriage was deleted early on in series production (there was still an emergency manual option, "in the event of engine failure or engine driven pump failure" according to the notes).
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
 
Ok, I am going with the Hawker Hurricane Mk.IIc if we are talking army co-op. Those
4 x 20 mm. were the best armament for that.
If we are talking fighter vs. fighter I would chose the Tomahawk IIA from S.L. to 5,000 m.
That's it, cause nobody has said anything about what we are going up against.!? If we are
fighting Bf 109Fs I quit until I get something better than the three listed.

Been thinking if I had to fight the Bf 109F late in 1941 above 6,000 m. and I didn't have
a Spitfire in sight, I'd take the 5th major operational (last Series) MiG-3. At worst case
was equal to the Bf 109F-4. The MiG-3's 397+ mph speed and service ceiling of 39,500 ft.
was not inferior to the Messerschmitt.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

J
Yak-9U Vs Bf-109
Replies
0
Views
769
Jerrybandit67
J
S
Spitfire vs. Dora mass battle
Replies
1
Views
198
PAT303
P
Sakai Saburo Vs Sugita Sho-ichi
2 3 4
Replies
70
Views
4K
GrauGeist
Supercharging & stuff - losses, improvements, good vs. bad. vs. excellent etc
2 3
Replies
44
Views
3K
Bretoal2
B
Spitfire vs Me-109
Replies
3
Views
1K
PAT303
P
Menu
Log in
Register