P-40 vs. Yak-1 vs. Hurricane

[Think Tanker]

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

The implications which I made above are relative, relative to the notion that the P-40 series was a "hunk of junk" and essentially target practice for its foes. My who point orbits around the point that it was still a lethal and effective contemporary in capable hands, contrary to the public notion that it was the former.

 

[GregP]

The F was a bit better than the E, but not much. Operationally, it was just about equal.

That according to live P-40 pilots who give talks when we fly our P-40N on event day.

I can't speak to the wheel and axle issue as we use P-51 wheels on our P-40N so we have common brakes with the 3 P-51s we fly. Matt Nightingale made some wheel covers and I installed them, so you can't really tell unless the wheel covers are off. It is a rugged airplane that takes less maintenance compared with other warbirds we fly. That from watching what planes get worked on the most for 10 years.

 

[buffnut453]

The problem is nobody on this forum (AFAIK) has declared it a "hunk of junk". Under certain circumstances and within defined time periods and theatres, it was a highly capable aircraft. At other times and tactical conditions, the situation was rather different. Adding superlatives to the P-40s description doesn't change those facts. A well-aimed rifle can, with luck, be lethal to an aircraft...that doesn't mean it's an effective combat tool for counter-air ops.

 

[Think Tanker]

The problem is nobody on this forum (AFAIK) has declared it a "hunk of junk". Under certain circumstances and within defined time periods and theatres, it was a highly capable aircraft. At other times and tactical conditions, the situation was rather different. Adding superlatives to the P-40s description doesn't change those facts. A well-aimed rifle can, with luck, be lethal to an aircraft...that doesn't mean it's an effective combat tool for counter-air ops.

The difference is from a rifle round to a P-40 is that the latter was effective in counter-air operations, whether it was inferior to its contemporaries that it fought is more determined at where the fight is taking place, since both the Bf-109 and P-40 occupy much different niches within the multi-purpose combat craft role. By the time 1944 rolled around, the P-40 lacked the range, endurance, or service ceiling to perform in anywhere but in limited theaters where its niche met the demands, in such scenarios, the skill of the pilot dictated the outcome of the fight far more than the craft, as down low the Bf-109 and P-40 were much more comparable air-frames. A pilot who tried to fly a P-40 in a vertical fight would fail about as much as a Bf-109 pilot who decided to try and out-dive his opponent.

 

[Shortround6]

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.

It would help if you stop coming up with arguments that are bollocks.

Like keep a consistent time line. The Bf 109G was introduced in the Spring of 1942, the G-6 with the cowl 13mm mgs started deliveries in March of 1943. Which was actually the same month that the first P-40N-1s are delivered. However in both cases delivered/accepted at the factory is not anywhere near being in combat. Please note that it is several thousand miles further for P-40s to get to North Africa/Med than for German aircraft to make the Journey.

SO please tell us which P-40s you are comparing to which 109s or FW 190s and when.

Yes I can find a number of pictures on the internet with the bomb-load you claim. However that seems to be a field modification/adaptation. No mention is made of reduced armament or ammo or any other limitations. Please note that P-47s when carrying under wing loads were often restricted to 267rpg vs the full 425rpg load. a savings of about 380lbs.
We also have NO figures for how far the P-40 could carry such a load so comparisons to the P-47 become more than a little strained.
We do have figures for the P-51, a P-51 with a pair of 500lb bombs and 180-184 gallons of internal fuel was good for a 175 mile combat radius at 10,000ft with reserves. P-40 has more drag to begin with, less fuel, and the drag of the 3rd bomb means?????

I would also note that statements like "A singular MG151 20mm and a couple of 7.92mm does not equal x6 .50 Cals, especially on the later P-40 series. " Make no sense as there was NO difference between the guns between the P-40E and the P-40N. Same rate of fire.
Perhaps a difference in ammo? Early P-40s had gun reliability problems.

With the P-40s going up from the E series you have 3 different engines, WEP settings were introduced at different times and you have the stripper models. The P-40N was a whole series of modifications of it's own so blanket statements are likely to meet with a large dose of skepticism.

 

[tomo pauk]

A few corrections if I may:

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.

The table in pdf, pertaining the US military engines and available for download at the Engine history site gives 14500 ft rated altitude for the -81, and 15000 ft for the -115. This table gives 15000 ft for the -81; all altitudes mentioned are without ram:

WER obvoiusly of 1480 HP at 7500 ft (no ram). Indeed about 200 HP advantage under 8000 ft.
But then, I have the chart showing the 15500 ft for the same V-1710-81.

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.

That is my point - the P-47 will carry big bombs and alternating the drop tanks, full gun & ammo suite, all in the same time. The P-40 will not match that.

 

[tomo pauk]

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.

The P-40 that just received 6-7 20mm shells is in problems just as it is the Bf 109 that got 30-40 .50 projectiles. As noted by SR6, the firepower of any P-40 with 6 .50s was the same.

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.

The top speed is very improtant, no-one went for slower fighter in ww2 when faster types were available. For a fighter to dive on it's prey, it must 1st attain a height advantage, and here are good climbers in advantage. The P-40 was a slower climber than Japanese, German, Soviet or British counterparts.
P-40 was designed as all fighters - to fight at any altitude the enemy might be. Problem was the non-installation of a much more powerful engines as time went on, unlike what was the case for the well known performers (Spitfire, P-51, Bf 109 etc). The later Bf 109s were not exactly excercices in streamlining, but then neither was the P-40. That became a 'niche fighter'; USAAF surely was not expecting that enemy will play to the P-40's strengths.
BTW - down low also means thousands of hostile light AA barrels might be preying upon you.

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.

You're keep giving the P-40 attributes like 'incredibly effective' and similar. That is what I've called it, and it is not meant as insult of any kind. In other words - you put out the claims, that are not followed with data to prove the claims. I you feel offended, I apologise.

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.

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.

Rarely on this forum people call the P-40 as 'flying bait' or similar. But people will probe posts with questions when they feel something does not add up.
With that said - the P-40 at 2500 m will not out-turn the enemy that is at 3000 m. The enemy will make a diving pass, gaining speed in process, and repeat if needed - using the strengths of his machine.
If you have competent pilots, better seat them in a performer when available.

 

[CORSNING]

Far from it, the Friedrich was a more "dynamic" fighter in the vertical, but only so in that regard.
No! the Bf 109F-4 I believe could out accelerate the P-40N-1 even in the horizontal. Actually I will have to look into that.

It could outclimb the P-40, which isn't an exceptionally useful attribute for aircraft which met in engagements at altitudes of ~2,000m.
WHAT! Being able to outclimb another fighter at any altitude means you can acquire the important height advantage.

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.
The P-40D through the P-40M did not have the exceptional roll rate of the Tomahawk and the low weight P-40N-1. It was better than the Bf 109F but not by an exceptional margin and by the F
model 109 the power was up and the slots were working well. The P-40E through M turned a
tighter circle but the 109F turned a strong (power wise) sustained turn.

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.
In 1941 the 109F-4 had great acceleration and even the slightly improved acceleration of the 40K
was not a close match, except down hill.

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
Uh no, the P-40L did not accelerate with the 109F-4 at any altitude that I am aware of. And as far
as climbing goes, the best test figure for the P-40F I can come up with is 2,210 fpm at 9,600 ft
(2,926 m.) I will concede that the lighter (250-300 lb) could climb better (2,500 fpm. or so) but that
does not compare with the Bf 109F's 3,640 fpm around the same altitude.

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,
Wow, you don't even want to go there if we start talking the capabilities of the Bf 109 G-1/G-2.

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
And the fact that the performance of the pure fighter variants of the 109 and 190 far surpassed the
comparable P-40 time wise.

(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).

Only to the bomb laden five gun versions of the 109Gs.

 

[CORSNING]

Great information TP and S6.

 

[CORSNING]

TT, Shortround6 is dead on right. The P-40 in any version was not a lemon but you have
to be specific which model vs. which model of other fighter do you wish to compare it to.
If the P-40 had been a lemon nobody would have used it. There was actually a time when
it was 'state of the art' to some degree. When the French ordered it in 1939/40? it would
have been their biggest asset against the Bf 109D/Es. When the Russians received it for
the first time it became their first brush with a modern fighter that could compete with the
German invaders on an equal level.

 

[Think Tanker]

TT, Shortround6 is dead on right. The P-40 in any version was not a lemon but you have
to be specific which model vs. which model of other fighter do you wish to compare it to.
If the P-40 had been a lemon nobody would have used it. There was actually a time when
it was 'state of the art' to some degree. When the French ordered it in 1939/40? it would
have been their biggest asset against the Bf 109D/Es. When the Russians received it for
the first time it became their first brush with a modern fighter that could compete with the
German invaders on an equal level.

Lets compare it against the contemporary craft which it would face, the P-40E-1 to the Bf-109E-4 series over the deserts of Africa, or the P-40N-40 against the Bf-109G-2, a more interesting and more troublesome fight for the former for certain. Furthermore, when considering the value of these craft we must not forget critical components of reliability, resilience, versatility, range, among other "soft" factors. Some of the aforementioned the P-40 has a definitive advantage in (resilience and versatility being two, although the 109 has its own advantages in range, service ceiling, and versatility for air operations) while other areas not so much. After all, it was the all-encompassing factors of these "obsolete" craft (Hurricane, P-40, Hs 123 etc.) which kept them in service for much longer than would normally be expected.

 

[Glider]

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.

For the record I repeat the last sentence of my last posting
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.

Note the word equal. The undeniable fact is that the P40 was outclassed by the 109F

 

[pbehn]

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.

The Russians may have soon moved the Hurricane to second line duties but the first to arrive in 1941 were vitally needed. In war something is better than nothing and you frequently hve to pi$$ with the pot you have not what you want. The Russian front was huge and there were many areas of second line activity. A Mk II Hurricane with 4 x 20mm canon was just as effective as a Typhoon as far as fire power in ground attack

In North Africa the Hurricanes and P 40s forced Hitler to provide 109s to support Italy, yes they needed Spitfires to support/escort them but this was a strange conflict. The LW didnt really trouble its self with attacking the enemy on the ground, the losses suffered by the allies in N Africa never made them halt the attacks on Axis ground forces.

 

[Glider]

The Russians may have soon moved the Hurricane to second line duties but the first to arrive in 1941 were vitally needed. In war something is better than nothing and you frequently hve to pi$$ with the pot you have not what you want. The Russian front was huge and there were many areas of second line activity. A Mk II Hurricane with 4 x 20mm canon was just as effective as a Typhoon as far as fire power in ground attack

In North Africa the Hurricanes and P 40s forced Hitler to provide 109s to support Italy, yes they needed Spitfires to support/escort them but this was a strange conflict. The LW didnt really trouble its self with attacking the enemy on the ground, the losses suffered by the allies in N Africa never made them halt the attacks on Axis ground forces.

Totally agree, there are many times when something is better than nothing. The Valantines and Matildas we sent to Russia were far from being the best tanks around but they filed a gap at a critical time but no one would clain that the were the equal of a Pz III or a T34.

Its the same arguement for the P40 vs the 109, they filed a gap

 

[Think Tanker]

Totally agree, there are many times when something is better than nothing. The Valantines and Matildas we sent to Russia were far from being the best tanks around but they filed a gap at a critical time but no one would clain that the were the equal of a Pz III or a T34.

Its the same arguement for the P40 vs the 109, they filed a gap

And even in the Hurricane's case, it proved to fill a very useful gap of being a resilient and effective ground-attacker.

 

[Glider]

And even in the Hurricane's case, it proved to fill a very useful gap of being a resilient and effective ground-attacker.

Again I totally agree, but not as a fighter capable of taking on the 109 with any cofidence

 

[pbehn]

Again I totally agree, but not as a fighter capable of taking on the 109 with any cofidence

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.

 

[Shortround6]

or the P-40N-40 against the Bf-109G-2, a more interesting and more troublesome fight for the former for certain.

Gee, Use a late 1943 or early 1944 P-40 against an early 1942 109?

somehow that doesn't convince me.

You made the claim that the P-40 was a much more cost effective fighter bomber than the P-47, it may have been, but without information on bomb load vs radius that claim could well go either way. A fighter bomber than can't reach the intended targets is a 100% waste of money.

P-40s did a great job of shooting up some German transport air shipments. However it should be noted that they had Spitfires for top cover, not more P-40s.

 

[GregP]

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.

 

[CORSNING]

OK, past bed time for me. Yea, yea I know I'm a real lightweight. But tomorrow
I shall avenge something somewhere and compare the P-40N to the mighty Bf 109G-2.
I have already looked over their performance figures and although the outcome is some-
what anticipated, there may be a few surprises involve...?