Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Something you'll have to explain to me - why is it that I keep seeing comments about the P-40's weight?....or rather, overweight.
I think if you averaged out the weight for all the different models of P-40 that existed, I bet you'd find the plane generally found itself around 8500-10000 lbs.
Does this make the P-51, which was like 12500 lbs. by the time the "D" model came around, obese?
If so, why does that fact never seem to come up whenever the 51 is mentioned?
Comparitively, the P-40 seems like a lightweight and yet I see comments written all the time about the plane being overweight.
Elvis
Elvis, switching from the other thread and discussing a P40 outclimbing a Spit, Bob Johnson in his book, "Thunderbolt" said the early Jug could not stay with a Spit in a steady climb. His tactics in a mock dogfight with a Spit were, with the Spit on his tail, to start rolling one way and then the other, as the Spit did not roll as well as the Jug. Once he had the Spit out of firing position, he would dive(the Spit could not stay with him in a dive) until reaching a very high speed and then zoom climb as the Spit could not zoom climb like a Jug, until far enough above where he could hammerhead stall and drop down on the Spit still laboring to get to his altitude. The P40 rolled well(better than the Jug) and dived well. Perhaps the pilot you quoted meant that he could outclimb a Spit in a zoom climb.
drgondog said:Yes, that would be obese for air to air combat - but the 51 would still be faster than the P-40K (and light) at 25,000 feet.
The empty airframe weight of both ships were close - the Mustang had the heavier engine and far more internal fuel.
Ah, maybe that's it.The power loadings tell the tale. At 10000 feet the power loading of the P40F at 8678 lbs GW was 7.11 and at 20000 feet was 8.15. The corresponding for the P51D at 10176 lbs GW were 6.78 and 7.48. The P40 at all altitudes had more weight per HP available and was not nearly as clean so drag not only slowed it down but hampered it's climb significantly.
A couple more musings about the P-40 / Spit comparison...
According to Chuck Hawks
A Spit Mk.IIA of 1940 had a "best" climb of 3,025 ft/min at 12,800 ft.
It could achieve 10,000 ft. in 3.4 min and 20,000 ft. in 7 min.
According to Joe Baugher
"The first flight of a P-40 (Ser No 39-156) was on April 4, 1940. Maximum speed was 357 mph at 15,000 feet, service ceiling was 32,750 feet, and initial climb rate was 3080 feet per minute. An altitude of 15,000 feet could reached in 5.2 minutes. The length of the P-40 was 31 feet 8 3/4 inches, which became standard for all early models. Weights were 5376 pounds empty, 6787 pounds gross, and 7215 pounds maximum."
Now, if you look back at Chuck Hawk's comments of a Spit of similar vintage and average out those "time-to-altitude" figures, do you know what you end up with?
15000 ft. in 5.2 min.
Exactly the same figure as Joe Baugher states for the first P-40 (incidentaly, that works out to 2884.6153 ft./min.)
Elvis
Hello Ivan!Hello Elvis
Yes, I understand what you're saying and have no reason to doubt you, whatsoever, but if it takes two planes the same amount of time to get from point A to point B, what does it matter if one is faster at a particular altitude, than the other, if it all equals out in the end?Ivan1GFP said:Typically the climb rate of an aircraft improves slightly as the aircraft goes from sea level to 3000 to 5000 feet and then decreases as the altitude increases. Thus your identical average climb rates to different altitudes doesn't mean the aircraft climb rates are comparable.
What do you know about Chuck Hawks?Ivan1GFP said:This is just a personal opinion, but JoeB is about as reliable as it gets as far as facts and research. I don't believe I can say the same about your other source.
Yes, when it comes down to it, the 51 is just a more advanced design that the P-40 could not be "re-designed" to match.Ivan1GFP said:BTW, for the general discussion, consider that early Allison engine Mustangs had essentially the same engine as installed in contemporary P-40s and were about 30-40 mph faster. That says a lot for aerodynamics. I wonder what would have happened if the P-46 had been developed alongside the P-51.
- Ivan.
Hello Ivan!
Yes, I understand what you're saying and have no reason to doubt you, whatsoever, but if it takes two planes the same amount of time to get from point A to point B, what does it matter if one is faster at a particular altitude, than the other, if it all equals out in the end?
Has a great deal of influence if you are fighting at a specific altitude in which the other a/c excels - like a Fw 190 dueling with a Mustang at 28,000 feet
...and not to get too far off track, but since you mentioned the 51, I've always wanted to see a B/C version with the Allison, but setup like the early Merlin (i.e., two-speed, single stage, intercooled).
Would probably put out about the same power (giviing a little more to the Alli's increased displacement...or maybe it would all equal out?), but the plane is lighter by about 300-400 lbs. and better balanced.
Would be interesting to see what improvements, if any, showed up and by what degree, compared to the Merlin version that actually existed.
Elvis
Demetrious, the P40 did not have a tactically significant speed advantage over the A6M
The best advice for a P40 pilot against the Zero was the same as to all USN fighter pilots, "do not dog fight with a Zero."
I think that us armchair "experts" get enchanted with paper numbers, especially vmaxs and think those numbers determine most ACM kills. I have quoted Lundstrom where Wildcats had to fight at 50% throttle to conserve fuel and they survived.
t wasn't viewed as any sure thing that a P-40 could stay ahead of a Zero in level flight near sea level (though on paper it should be able to).
I think that if they had used a large single stage, two (or three?) speed supercharger to give it improved altitude performance it would have been as good as the 109 and Spitfire until late-'42/early-'43.This. And also this:
Varying with atmospheric conditions, and the pilots skill with engine settings- and perhaps even the quality of the maintenance done on the engine- the P-40s slim advantage might vanish. In actual combat, it was up to the pilot not only to milk every erg of performance from his crate, but to innately understand the fight and secure advantages that, by rights, he shouldn't be able to get.
I think much of the P-40s problems stemmed from the fact that the P-40s advantages were harder to understand and capitalize on, while the Zero's- which was "turn, turn, turn-" was easy and intuitive. There's a reason why most of the newbies in Aces High, the online fighter plane MMO, can be found in Spitfires. (Usually yelling at the other newbies in Mustangs to stop running away and come turnfight. ^_^) I think this is one of the reasons I geek out over the P-40 like a schoolgirl with a new kitten: because a skilled pilot could take a seemingly underpowered and helpless machine and open a giant can of doom with it.
Really, IMO, it was a fantastic airframe. It had a good turn radius, competitive against pretty much anything in the air, an excellent roll rate which was second only to a very few, a decently clean profile, a good armament, a good range, and on top of it all, it was incredibly rugged. The same outdated construction techniques that left it lacking in performance compared to new designs like the P-51 also gave it insane structural strength; the wikipedia page shows a ship that came home with 25% of one wing missing.
If the P-40 had been equipped with a 1500 horsepower Merlin V engine like the Mustang D model had, I think the P-40s potential could have been truly realized.
It depends on what you mean by construction techniques. The P-40 didn't have the same NACA wing-foil section as the P-51 but generally speaking WWII fighters were of the same aluminium monocoque design as one another. The P-40 was certainly closely related to the P-51 in this respect.The same outdated construction techniques that left it lacking in performance compared to new designs like the P-51 also gave it insane structural strength; the wikipedia page shows a ship that came home with 25% of one wing missing.
If the P-40 had been equipped with a 1500 horsepower Merlin V engine like the Mustang D model had, I think the P-40s potential could have been truly realized.