P-40 vs. Yak-1 vs. Hurricane

[Think Tanker]

The Hurricane had been beefed up a bit by the time the Yak-1 came into play.

Although so were the P-40 series, even though they were already quite durable before.

 

[Think Tanker]

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.

If you're taking a P-40B-E above 3,500m you are asking for a bad time. However, below such altitudes the '40 proved to be more than a fair match for a Friedrich 109 thanks to the former's superior maneuverability at speed and at low altitudes. In addition the P-40E significantly outgunned the Bf-109F series and maintained a much more durable frame. The disadvantages were obviously the lower service ceiling and inferior rate of climb and flat line acceleration, but these did not make the F series superior to the P-40E by any regard.

 

[CORSNING]

To help clear up my earlier statements about the P-40N not being the brute equal to the
earlier P-40s I give you the following statements:

" A new lightweight structure was introduced, two of the six wing-mounted guns were removed,
smaller and lighter undercarriage wheels were installed, head armor was reintroduced, and
aluminum radiators and oil coolers were installed."-- http:www.p40warhawk.com/Variants/P-40N.htm
"From a maintenance standpoint, the P-40E was a much better built aircraft; the P-40N appeared to
be a lightweight, very cheap copy with poor workmanship, poor fittings, clearances and tolerances.
The P-40N actually required more maintenance man hours even though it did not have many of the
normal components or the P-40E, such as an internal starter, vacuum pumps and other items. After
we received the P-40N, we lost two or three due to material failures before we could correct all the
deficiencies. We had to replace the main oil line, which was too light to stand up under engine
pressure. and build up the wheel spindles, which were too small and allowed the wheels to wobble,
resulting in excessive tire wear and blown tires. After these problems were corrected, the P-40Ns
were fairly easy to maintain and keep in commission."

 

[CORSNING]

but these did not make the F series superior to the P-40E by any regard.[/QUOTE]
In a way it did. The F was a more dynamic fighter especially in the vertical. It could
outclimb the P-40E by a pretty good margin and its higher speed at altitude and higher
ceiling gave it the ability to dictate the terms of battle. The 109 had very good acceleration
in 1941-2, the same cannot be said of the P-40 series at this time except when heading
down hill. The P-40N-1 was much better than the E at acceleration, but that was not
saying a whole lot.

 

[Think Tanker]

To help clear up my earlier statements about the P-40N not being the brute equal to the
earlier P-40s I give you the following statements:

" A new lightweight structure was introduced, two of the six wing-mounted guns were removed,
smaller and lighter undercarriage wheels were installed, head armor was reintroduced, and
aluminum radiators and oil coolers were installed."-- http:www.p40warhawk.com/Variants/P-40N.htm
"From a maintenance standpoint, the P-40E was a much better built aircraft; the P-40N appeared to
be a lightweight, very cheap copy with poor workmanship, poor fittings, clearances and tolerances.
The P-40N actually required more maintenance man hours even though it did not have many of the
normal components or the P-40E, such as an internal starter, vacuum pumps and other items. After
we received the P-40N, we lost two or three due to material failures before we could correct all the
deficiencies. We had to replace the main oil line, which was too light to stand up under engine
pressure. and build up the wheel spindles, which were too small and allowed the wheels to wobble,
resulting in excessive tire wear and blown tires. After these problems were corrected, the P-40Ns
were fairly easy to maintain and keep in commission."

You seem to neglect the fact that these P-40N variants were of the N-1 derivative (of which, I should mention, very few were produced), which lacked many of the quality of life improvements seen in the N-5 onwards. The N-5, for example, included an improved canopy design, reducing the quantity of parts to maintain and produce it (thus making it more economically friendly) while also creating the distinctive "slash" in the back of the canopy to provide much better visibility for the pilot. Some variants like the N-10, N-20, N-35 and N-40 incorporated various internal, instrument, and operation adjustments to significantly improve quality of maintenance and operational efficiency. By the final P-40N-40 variation the "N" series provided much better reliability and usability than any previous P-40 variant.

 

[Think Tanker]

In a way it did. The F was a more dynamic fighter especially in the vertical. It could
outclimb the P-40E by a pretty good margin and its higher speed at altitude and higher
ceiling gave it the ability to dictate the terms of battle. The 109 had very good acceleration
in 1941-2, the same cannot be said of the P-40 series at this time except when heading
down hill. The P-40N-1 was much better than the E at acceleration, but that was not
saying a whole lot.

Far from it, the Friedrich was a more "dynamic" fighter in the vertical, but only so in that regard. It could outclimb the P-40, which isn't an exceptionally useful attribute for aircraft which met in engagements at altitudes of ~2,000m. The 109 in these regards was noticeably inferior in a horizontal dogfight where the P-40 had both a superior roll rate (by an exceptional margin) and much better turning capacity and potential. In 1941-42 the 109 had good acceleration, but that isn't saying much as even by that time the more powerful P-40K series was starting to roll out, which could close the acceleration and speed gap much easier than the previous P-40E variants. The P-40L, even more so, made the weaknesses of the 109 air-frame all the more apparent, being comparable to accelerate, and having a much lesser advantage in the climbing department, all the while the advantages of superior roll rate and horizontal maneuverability were all the more amplified. Furthermore, the P-40N-1 isn't exactly a fair comparison to make against the Friedrich 109, as the was supplanted by the Bf-109G series, which was quite effective, but proved to suffer from additional weight and parasitical drag on the air-frame. Ironically, under actual combat altitudes for the P-40, they were still found to out turn, out dive, and out perform the 109 series in a number of regards. The rising casualties for the P-40 series (relatively speaking) by 1944 is attributed to the fact that more of these craft were regulated to low-flying light bombing operations, where they were far more vulnerable to attack from enemy craft (although in situations where the former engaged the 109G under fighter conditions for both, the P-40 was still more than capable of holding its own).

 

[CORSNING]

Think Tanker,
I did not include the later N variants of the P-40 because with each newer model weight
was increased and performance decreased more or less. And when you consider the
time period of late spring 1943 these three aircraft are no longer what I would consider
front line superiority fighter aircraft. They all still had a purpose though, stopgap until
something better could be supplied. Remember now we are into Bf 109G-2 territory
along with an Fw-190A-3/-4 here and there.
I'm opting for a later Spitfire IX at this time.

 

[Think Tanker]

Think Tanker,
I did not include the later N variants of the P-40 because with each newer model weight
was increased and performance decreased more or less. And when you consider the
time period of late spring 1943 these three aircraft are no longer what I would consider
front line superiority fighter aircraft. They all still had a purpose though, stopgap until
something better could be supplied. Remember now we are into Bf 109G-2 territory
along with an Fw-190A-3/-4 here and there.
I'm opting for a later Spitfire IX at this time.

Each successive N variant increased weight, yes, but even with these features not one of the P-40Ns had a top speed dip below 600kph, and when considering the latest P-40N variant, the P-40N-40, it was equipped with a new and much more powerful V1710-115 engine compared to the previous V1710-81/99 engines on previous N blocks. Even when factoring in the additional weight the magnitude of other improvements in these craft mitigated the exceptionally small performance loss. The P-40N-20, for example, strengthened the wings to accommodate for AN-M64A1 500 LB bombs on the wing pylons, drastically increasing the use of the '40 as a fighter-bomber while also, conveniently, making the craft much better suited to diving operations which the P-40 already exceeded in. By the late spring of 1943 these craft were still very much in active service and garnering a very respectable list of kills against enemy combat craft, and it wasn't until early 1944 when they started being phased out more en-mass. Granted, the remaining P-40s were replaced by the N-40 block which improved their performance and capability to such a degree that these units continued on with these craft for much longer, some of them until the end of the War. The P-40N series provided a unique blend of the P-51's maneuverability and the P-47's ruggedness and payload, which made the craft a very useful asset even later into the war, where its relatively low service ceiling excluded it from escort operations. In fact, P-40Ns that were flying top-cover for their bomber '40 brethren found themselves still exceptionally potent and capable against the Bf-109G series and Fw-190As, seeing as they had superior maneuverability and roll compared to the 109s, and much superior turn at all speeds compared to the 190 and comparable roll rate. When operations in the Mediterranean theater were restricted to relatively low altitudes, the sub-par service ceiling of the P-40 did not matter nearly as much.

 

[Shortround6]

I am not sure where the difference in structure comes from as In AHT the weights for wing, fuselage, tail and control surfaces for an N-25 are so close to the preceding models that they can be written off as production variation. A note concerning the weights is that the empty weight of the P-40E in the chart was 35lbs over the contract guarantee and the P-40F was 109lbs over the guarantee. Arguing over 5-10lbs out of an 1100lb wing doesn't get anywhere.
Significant weight differences are in the landing gear ( About 55-60lbs) the cooling system (59lbs) electrical (about 30lbs) although the last is more than canceled by an 80-100lb increase in communications equipment.the fuel system on the -25, but not earlier 3 tank Ns was about 55-60lbs lighter due to new non-metallic self sealing tanks. By the time you get to the -25 the N is roughly 200lbs lighter than an K or M, the Merlin versions were a bit heavier.

There were only about 200 of the Stripper N-1s built, then stuff was added back in (slowly) both at the factory and in the field.

OFFICIALLY there was no difference in the power ratings of the 3 different engines used in the N series.
The last planes built did get the -115 engine with the 12 counter weight crankshaft and other improvements and what units did in the field with them I don't know but Allisons tables and charts so no difference in rated power. A great number of the Ns did get a single lever throttle/prop-control shich simplified combat flying much like the German single lever system/s.

 

[pbehn]

As a fan of the Hurricane I am well used to the Spitfire stealing its thunder, I now have some "Johnny come lately" American contraption and a Russian lash-up named after a mountain goat trying to do the same. The Hurricane was in service in 1938, when war was declared it was by far the most numerous allied fighter. The LW was at its strongest when the Battle of France began and it was the Hurricane that gave it a bloody nose, in the Battle of France, over Dunkerque and in the Battle of Britain. Despite losses in France and Dunkerque meaning that the front line numbers of Hurricanes and Spitfires at the start were approximately the same it was still the Hurricane that provided the numbers and the kills that won the Battle of Britain because it was easier to produce and repair.

 

[Juha2]

IMHO the acceleration and rate of climb were important because at least theoretically and IMHO also in the real world the boom and zoom tactic was more effective than turn and burn. Of course it was always good to try to play with own plane's strong points and try to utilize the weaknesses of the opponent's plane.
Information on Soviets tests (P-40E vs Bf 109G-2 amongst others) can be found here: Bf-109 vs P-40

What was achieved. One must be careful on what one is comparing, real results or claimed results. One example is here, May 19th,1943, at Decimomannu, Sardina Decimomannu,Sardinia - Luftwaffe and Allied Air Forces Discussion Forum

 

[tomo pauk]

If you're taking a P-40B-E above 3,500m you are asking for a bad time. However, below such altitudes the '40 proved to be more than a fair match for a Friedrich 109 thanks to the former's superior maneuverability at speed and at low altitudes. In addition the P-40E significantly outgunned the Bf-109F series and maintained a much more durable frame. The disadvantages were obviously the lower service ceiling and inferior rate of climb and flat line acceleration, but these did not make the F series superior to the P-40E by any regard.

The 109F was significantly faster than P-40 of the era, that, along with better climb, ceiling and acceleration made it a better fighter in aggregate than the P-40. It also carried a cannon, meaning the firepower was useful, even if not great.
The 6 x 0.50 armament of the P-40 and subsequent models contributed to the weight & drag increase.

Each successive N variant increased weight, yes, but even with these features not one of the P-40Ns had a top speed dip below 600kph, and when considering the latest P-40N variant, the P-40N-40, it was equipped with a new and much more powerful V1710-115 engine compared to the previous V1710-81/99 engines on previous N blocks. Even when factoring in the additional weight the magnitude of other improvements in these craft mitigated the exceptionally small performance loss.

Having a fighter than tops at 600 km/h sounds great in 1941, but not so much in 1942 or later when other fighters can beat the 650 or 700 km/h mark. The P-40N belonged to the 2nd tier of Allied fighters in 1943, and in 3rd tier in 1944.
The -115 engine of 1944 will add 1000 ft to the rated altitude, the altitude power being now comparable with Merlin XII from BoB wintage, though the war emergency power was ~300 HP greater under 6-7000 ft (unfortunately, change of the crankshaft didn't allowed the 3200 rpm operation). In other words, the -115 will not turn the P-40 into a Luftwaffe killer.

The P-40N-20, for example, strengthened the wings to accommodate for AN-M64A1 500 LB bombs on the wing pylons, drastically increasing the use of the '40 as a fighter-bomber while also, conveniently, making the craft much better suited to diving operations which the P-40 already exceeded in. By the late spring of 1943 these craft were still very much in active service and garnering a very respectable list of kills against enemy combat craft, and it wasn't until early 1944 when they started being phased out more en-mass. Granted, the remaining P-40s were replaced by the N-40 block which improved their performance and capability to such a degree that these units continued on with these craft for much longer, some of them until the end of the War.

Turning a series of fighters into fighter-bombers was a clear signal that there are other, more capable fighters around. Basically, once there was enough of P-38/47/51s, the days of the P-40 as 1-st line fighter were numbered in the USAAF.

The P-40N series provided a unique blend of the P-51's maneuverability and the P-47's ruggedness and payload, which made the craft a very useful asset even later into the war, where its relatively low service ceiling excluded it from escort operations. In fact, P-40Ns that were flying top-cover for their bomber '40 brethren found themselves still exceptionally potent and capable against the Bf-109G series and Fw-190As, seeing as they had superior maneuverability and roll compared to the 109s, and much superior turn at all speeds compared to the 190 and comparable roll rate. When operations in the Mediterranean theater were restricted to relatively low altitudes, the sub-par service ceiling of the P-40 did not matter nearly as much.

This is fanboyism at it's best.
The USAF didn't needed P-51's maneuverability, but it's range, speed and lack of vices. It took two/three/four P-40s to carry as much bombload as one P-47, and P-47 was much more rugged, faster and rangier. What excluded the P-40 from escort the P-38, 51 and later P-47 were doing was lack of range and performance above 20000 ft. P-40Ns were not exceptionably capable vs. Fw 190 of Bf 109G series, it was the other way around. LW pilots will not enter the turning game vs. anyone, same as with Allied pilots vs. the Japanese. No Allied AF considered using the P-40s once they have had better stuff available.

 

[stona]

Turning a series of fighters into fighter-bombers was a clear signal that there are other, more capable fighters around. Basically, once there was enough of P-38/47/51s, the days of the P-40 as 1-st line fighter were numbered in the USAAF.


.

See also Whirlwind, Hurricane, Typhoon for a British perspective.

Cheers

Steve

 

[pbehn]

Using a fighter as a fighter bomber was completely logical when it had ceased to be competitive or when the opposition had been removed from the game. The Hurricane took the Italian air force out of the game in Africa/ Malta improvements to the P40meant that the LW had to use its latest Bf109 versions to get the better of what was a second string enemy fighter.

 

[Shortround6]

A few corrections if I may:

Having a fighter than tops at 600 km/h sounds great in 1941, but not so much in 1942 or later when other fighters can beat the 650 or 700 km/h mark. The P-40N belonged to the 2nd tier of Allied fighters in 1943, and in 3rd tier in 1944.
The -115 engine of 1944 will add 1000 ft to the rated altitude, the altitude power being now comparable with Merlin XII from BoB wintage, though the war emergency power was ~300 HP greater under 6-7000 ft (unfortunately, change of the crankshaft didn't allowed the 3200 rpm operation). In other words, the -115 will not turn the P-40 into a Luftwaffe killer.

Allison's figures for the -115 were the same as the -81 and -99. 1125hp at 15,500ft. Which pretty much fails to match the Merlin XII at altitude. Down low and using WEP things get better for the Allison The Merlin being rated at 1280hp at 10,500ft using 12lbs boost (54in?) vrs the Allison's 1480hp at 10,550ft using 57in. however the Allison altitude includes RAM. In climb the 1480hp disappeared at about 8000ft.
The older engines with the 8.80 supercharger gears were allowed 1550hp at sea level with 60in.

Service use may vary. but the P-40N engines were closer to 200hp more powerful than 300hp.

This is fanboyism at it's best.
The USAF didn't needed P-51's maneuverability, but it's range, speed and lack of vices. It took two/three/four P-40s to carry as much bombload as one P-47, and P-47 was much more rugged, faster and rangier. What excluded the P-40 from escort the P-38, 51 and later P-47 were doing was lack of range and performance above 20000 ft. P-40Ns were not exceptionably capable vs. Fw 190 of Bf 109G series, it was the other way around. LW pilots will not enter the turning game vs. anyone, same as with Allied pilots vs. the Japanese. No Allied AF considered using the P-40s once they have had better stuff available.

The late P-40Ns were equipped to carry three 500lbs from the factory, Some earlier aircraft were fitted to carry SIX 250lbs in North Africa, however I have no idea what was left out or what kind of runway was used to get airborne with such a load. A few squadrons used a pair of 1000lbs in Italy so the P-40s bomb load was pretty close to the P-47 and P-51 HOWEVER I have no idea what the fuel load was (or if full ammo was carried) so the range/radius is subject to question.

The USAAF opinion of the P-40 was that it had reached the end of the line in 1943, no new US units were be formed with P-40s and only such combat units as could NOT be rapidly switched to other types would even get replacement aircraft. Late 1943 and 1944 production was almost entirely for Lend Lease.

It did make a valuable contribution to the war effort. No one is trying to take that away, But against German aircraft of 1943/44 IF flown by pilots of equal skill the P-40 was lacking.

 

[Glider]

Far from it, the Friedrich was a more "dynamic" fighter in the vertical, but only so in that regard. It could outclimb the P-40, which isn't an exceptionally useful attribute for aircraft which met in engagements at altitudes of ~2,000m.

I am sorry but the climb advantage is of critical importance at any altitude and maybe more mportant at low level.

The 109 in these regards was noticeably inferior in a horizontal dogfight where the P-40 had both a superior roll rate (by an exceptional margin) and much better turning capacity and potential.

A better roll rate doesn't mean a better turn rate, what the figures were I do not kow and would appreciate anyt evidence you have that supports that view.

In 1941-42 the 109 had good acceleration, but that isn't saying much as even by that time the more powerful P-40K series was starting to roll out, which could close the acceleration and speed gap much easier than the previous P-40E variants.

The 109 had a much better aceleration than the P40 which was big, heavy and almost certainly had a higher drag ratio, plus of course (in P40E) a less powerful engine. Even the P40L just about managed to equal the power of the Me109F4

The rising casualties for the P-40 series (relatively speaking) by 1944 is attributed to the fact that more of these craft were regulated to low-flying light bombing operations,
In situations where the former engaged the 109G under fighter conditions for both, the P-40 was still more than capable of holding its own).

I am sorry but whenever the P40 went up against the Me109 F or G they sufferred very heavy losses, no exceptions. In Russia the Russians soon moved the P40 and Hurricane to second line duties. In the desert the P40 and Hurricane losses were exceptional until the Spitfires arrived to take on the 109's.
You will be hard pushed to find any allied pilot of any nation who truly considered the P40 to be the equal to the 109.

 

[CORSNING]

Oh that's just great. I read what Thinker Tank says just before going to bed and
then start getting all kinds of ideas of how to answer his statements. But of course I
have to go to bed early because I have to be up by 4:00 a.m. Then I go to work
because I need money like everybody else. I'm constantly thinking up more to say all
day long and come home to find that Tomo and Shortround have pretty much read
my mind and then Juha, Stona Pbehn & Glider have covered about everything left
unsaid. Dammit!

 

[Think Tanker]

The 109F was significantly faster than P-40 of the era, that, along with better climb, ceiling and acceleration made it a better fighter in aggregate than the P-40. It also carried a cannon, meaning the firepower was useful, even if not great.
The 6 x 0.50 armament of the P-40 and subsequent models contributed to the weight & drag increase.

A singular MG151 20mm and a couple of 7.92mm does not equal x6 .50 Cals, especially on the later P-40 series. Furthermore, this armament remained consistent and never increased the drag on future P-40 models, only the contrary ever happened on the P-40L and P-40N-1 series.

Having a fighter than tops at 600 km/h sounds great in 1941, but not so much in 1942 or later when other fighters can beat the 650 or 700 km/h mark. The P-40N belonged to the 2nd tier of Allied fighters in 1943, and in 3rd tier in 1944.
The -115 engine of 1944 will add 1000 ft to the rated altitude, the altitude power being now comparable with Merlin XII from BoB wintage, though the war emergency power was ~300 HP greater under 6-7000 ft (unfortunately, change of the crankshaft didn't allowed the 3200 rpm operation). In other words, the -115 will not turn the P-40 into a Luftwaffe killer.

The top speed is not nearly as important, especially when the majority of German fighters of the time period only met a top-speed of ~650kph. The acceleration of such craft is a much more important attribute, which, when putting the P-40 in a slight dive, it had a definite edge over the '109, '190 and their derivatives. Only later model Fw-190s matched (and in some rare cases exceeded) the diving acceleration of the P-40. The aircraft was not designed to be flown high, hence why I am considering its attributes under its combat circumstances. The P-40 was never going to be the aircraft which would escort bombers or have the reach to strike long-range pacific bases, but where it was used in suitable conditions it proved to be exceptionally capable, still being the most maneuverable of American fighters horizontally (surpassing the Bf-109 and Fw-190, which the P-47 or P-51 had a much harder time doing) and considering that later Bf-109 variants like the Gustav series incorporated a lot of more draggy attributes, the P-40 was more than a match for these craft when brought down and low.

Turning a series of fighters into fighter-bombers was a clear signal that there are other, more capable fighters around. Basically, once there was enough of P-38/47/51s, the days of the P-40 as 1-st line fighter were numbered in the USAAF.

I never argued that it was the end-all-be-all, it didn't have the range of any of the above nor the high-altitude performance to meet an evolving criteria, but in the circumstances where the combat environment met its doctrine, it proved to still be an incredibly effective craft even in 1944.

This is fanboyism at it's best.

Let us withhold our blatant Ad Hominem attacks until the end, can we? It really fails to add anything to the discussion.

The USAF didn't needed P-51's maneuverability, but it's range, speed and lack of vices.

Yes, which is why it eventually replaced the P-40, although the maneuverability of the latter still proved its worth, but not nearly enough to a degree to keep it in environments that it did not suit.

It took two/three/four P-40s to carry as much bombload as one P-47, and P-47 was much more rugged, faster and rangier.

The P-40N-20 and above variants could carry x1 AN-M64A1s on each wing, and a singular AN-M65A1 on the central pylon. In contrast the P-47 could carry x1 AN-M65A1s on each wing and x1 AN-M64A1 on the central pylon. When calculating the total payload this gives us a bomb load of 2,500 LB for the P-47, and 2,000 LB for the P-40N-20, which, for a craft that cost only 66% as much as a P-47, that is a pretty good deal cost-efficiency wise. As for speed? Yes, the P-47 was faster, but the P-40's speed is misleading as it too could accelerate rather quickly. For more rugged, I will give you that, but the P-40 was absolutely no slouch their either, being more rugged and durable than the P-51 but slightly less than the P-47. The last point I have already addressed before and shall not waste your time any further.

What excluded the P-40 from escort the P-38, 51 and later P-47 were doing was lack of range and performance above 20000 ft.

You are stating a point which I have already made, what does this add to the argument if I have already made this point before?

P-40Ns were not exceptionably capable vs. Fw 190 of Bf 109G series, it was the other way around.

Above 3,500m, sure, but that is not where they fought. At altitudes around 2,500m the P-40N series still proved to be a very real threat. I am not foolish enough to argue that the P-40N was blatantly superior to the aforementioned craft at such heights, but rather that the stigma that it was "flying bait" in such engagements is foolish, short-sighted and incorrect.

LW pilots will not enter the turning game vs. anyone, same as with Allied pilots vs. the Japanese. No Allied AF considered using the P-40s once they have had better stuff available.

Simply put the P-40 has a helluva lot of ways to engage a Bf-109, it turns sharper, rolls much better and dives much quicker. The Bf-109 has its assets too, but that does not make it objectively superior to the '40. As for the Pacific theater, the P-40 was abandoned not because of lacking performance, but rather range and endurance, when you are fighting over islands the latter proves more valuable than maneuverability and versatility. The fact is that when it was used in the Pacific theater by competent pilots it again proved to be very effective.

A lot of you seem to be severely misinterpreting me, I am not standing here to argue that the P-40 was the "best plane evar 1!11!" but rather that the inaccurate portrayal of it as a mediocre and inferior aircraft even for its time is utter bollocks.

 

[stona]

A lot of you seem to be severely misinterpreting me, I am not standing here to argue that the P-40 was the "best plane evar 1!11!" but rather that the inaccurate portrayal of it as a mediocre and inferior aircraft even for its time is utter bollocks.

I don't think anyone suggested that you argued that. You did write, for example

"In fact, P-40Ns that were flying top-cover for their bomber '40 brethren found themselves still exceptionally potent and capable against the Bf-109G series and Fw-190As, seeing as they had superior maneuverability and roll compared to the 109s, and much superior turn at all speeds compared to the 190 and comparable roll rate. When operations in the Mediterranean theater were restricted to relatively low altitudes, the sub-par service ceiling of the P-40 did not matter nearly as much."

This seems to several here a rather optimistic assessment of the P-40's capabilities, and you can hardly expect them not to offer arguments and data to the contrary.

Cheers

Steve

 

[CORSNING]

TT, you are the one that said;
[The disadvantages were obviously the lower service ceiling and inferior rate of climb and flat line acceleration, but these did not make the F series superior to the P-40E by any regard.[/QUOTE]

The truth is those advantages were actually in part exactly what made the F series superior.