P40 Vs all other fighters in Europe

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

nuuumannn said:
Nope, not according to pilots who flew the types. It's well known that the British fighters were superior low speed dogfighters.
Click to expand...
Jeffery Quill stated after flying an Emil that RAF pilots gave it too much respect, it couldn't turn anywhere near as tight as a Spit or Hurri and the controls started locking up above 350mph and at 400 the ailerons were unmovable.
 
PAT303 said:
it couldn't turn anywhere near as tight as a Spit or Hurri and the controls started locking up above 350mph and at 400 the ailerons were unmovable.
Click to expand...

Pretty much. In later versions this was the case too. Those slats were effective in delaying the stall but they did nothing for the type's manoeuvrability. The Bf 109 was superior in the vertical plane to the British fighters.
 
nuuumannn said:
versus the Bf 109's fully variable props
Click to expand...

I could be wrong but think the early 109 props were fully variable but not constant speed?
The required the pilot to keep twitching the switch to adjust the prop to suit the speed range the plane was operating at?
Or rather the pilot would have to keep the engine speed and the prop aligned with what he was trying to do.

Trying it again

If the Pilot was climbing (low speed but high power) the pilot would have to throttle the engine up but put the prop into fine pitch or close to it (coarser than take off).
If cruising the pilot had to throttle back but manually adjust the prop pitch to suit the throttle and desired speed.
If at full speed you had max throttle and max pitch.
But if you were a turn as the airplane lost speed the pilot would have to reduce the prop pitch with one hand while controlling the plane with the other hand while leaving the throttle alone (?).



CS prop took care of that for the pilot. Somewhat.
Like in the turn the constant speed governor would automatically to reduce the pitch of the propeller to keep the prop pitch at a good match to aircraft speed as the engine was making full power.

This is something often ignored with the 2 speed prop.
In order to get "best" performance the airplane with a two speed (basically one speed/fixed pitch after take-off)
the pilot had to reduce the engine throttle to keep from over speeding the prop. The prop is not operating at anywhere near a good angle if the airspeed in not near full speed and unless the engine is throttle reduced and the engine rpm reduced. Trying to fly a tight turn with the engine running around 20-30% below max power is obviously going to affect the planes turning ability.
 
PAT303 said:
Jeffery Quill stated after flying an Emil that RAF pilots gave it too much respect, it couldn't turn anywhere near as tight as a Spit or Hurri and the controls started locking up above 350mph and at 400 the ailerons were unmovable.
Click to expand...
It had cannon and was quick, with a good rate of climb. If you are diving at 400MPH you are leaving the bomber formation that you were sent to attack?
 
Shortround6 said:
I could be wrong but think the early 109 props were fully variable but not constant speed?
Click to expand...

Yes, that's why I said fully variable (as opposed to two-position) and not CS. De Havilland fitted the first CS prop to a Spitfire in mid 1939.

I know you like to make a big deal out of the Brits fitting big hunks of wood to their fighters in the late 30s, and for good reason - it's inexplicable, really, considering that the Blenheim, Battle, Defiant, Whitley, Wellington, Sunderland, Hampden all had VP props before the Spitfire and Hurricane, but the Brits had them, they just didn't fit them to the aircraft that probably needed them as much...

I do know how props work. I used to work in a prop overhauling shop and marvelled at the simplicity of the Hydromatic props. Overhauled a couple off a DC-3, and hacked a set of HS blades for an Allison going into a Yak-3 from blades that had come from a Privateer. I've still got the tips I cut down on my shelf.
 
nuuumannn said:
know you like to make a big deal out of the Brits fitting big hunks of wood to their fighters in the late 30s, and for good reason - it's inexplicable, really
Click to expand...
Spitfires with wooden fixed pitch props were a little faster than the constant speed equipped units. The benefits of the conversion of course enormously outweigh the slight reduction in top speed.
 
Clayton Magnet said:
Spitfires with wooden fixed pitch props were a little faster than the constant speed equipped units. The benefits of the conversion of course enormously outweigh the slight reduction in top speed.
Click to expand...

Not to mention more efficient acceleration, better fuel consumption, better power usage across the range of the flight regime, the advantages certainly outweighed maximum speed. Nonetheless, it was recognised before the war that VP props were more efficient on the fighters, but production and supply was not what it would eventually become. The British industry was working at peacetime levels when the First Spitfires and Hurricanes entered service.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Airwar Over Europe?
Replies
2
Views
684
Canaus
C
J
Where US fighters failed over Europe
2 3
Replies
47
Views
5K
Geoffrey Sinclair
G
Aircraft in Battle of Păuliș? Hungary vs Romania 1944
Replies
0
Views
642
CHen10
S
Spitfire vs. Dora mass battle
2
Replies
33
Views
3K
Snautzer01
All weather?
Replies
3
Views
590
GregP
Menu
Log in
Register