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

PAT303 said:
Didn't matter how they were mounted, the guns were tested with the plane flying straight and level, RAAF .50's didn't work and neither did the same guns fitted to FAA F4 Martlets, we have covered this in other threads.
Click to expand...

They had a lot of problems with the .50s in the first few months (for several reason, both aircraft and ammunition), though this was starting to dramatically improve by mid 1942 (not every unit sorted it out at the same time).

They also had quite severe issues with the Hispano cannons particularly in the Tropical conditions, around the same time.
 
In 1939-40 the .30's from all nations were a proven gun yet the .50 and 20mm were described by the RAF as underdeveloped, including the ammunition.
 
PAT303 said:
In 1939-40 the .30's from all nations were a proven gun yet the .50 and 20mm were described by the RAF as underdeveloped, including the ammunition.
Click to expand...

It's kind of the perpetual dilemma of the war (and speaks to the circumstances of aircraft like the P-40 and the Hurricane) do you go with what you know works or gamble on something new and potentially much better?
 
I love that not the prom queen line!! I talking to a EAA chapter about my own P40k project and I'm gonna use it for sure!

Was it the hottest airplane we had? Maybe at first but certainly not by the end. But what 1935 design (think P-36) would still hold up by 1943? Not many other than the 109 and the P-38.

The Brits and Aussies in North Africa and the AV G showed how capable it could be with proper handling and strategy. Saburo Sakai said that down low the P-40 was one of his roughest opponents

But is it really too draggy to ever be updated to P-51 levels. A fat wing and a whole lot of airframe drag kept even the updated versions from getting real fast. It's kinda like comparing Babe Ruth to modern ballpayers training and equipment. For me personally the tradition and the style of the P-40 will always be an icon like the Colt 1911 and the Fender Stratocaster IMHO of course!
 

Right, it was an important waypoint on the road to more-modern fighters, and in its day was nothing to sneeze at. The Kiwis were using them creditably in 1944 in the Solomons, some American units were using them in that year in the MTO, and while the airframe was flawed by its older design and provenance, it was still able to cut a bit of mustard. It ain't a P-51 or Spit, never will be, but it hung in for a long time giving creditable service against enemies of its era.
 
And in some roles it was more suitable than a P-51 or Spit. But it was just not as generally useful especially for what were thought of as the most important roles (escorting heavy bombers and point defense / interceptor duties especially for England).

I think the short-hand on the P-40 was that it was originally a shock how poorly it held up to Axis aircraft, but then as we scrambled to train pilots, develop suitable tactics, and make a lot of minor improvements, it turned out that the P-40, in spite of it's one major flaw (altitude) remained surprisingly effective in almost every Theater of the war - except NW Europe - till surprisingly late. Not only the Kiwis but the Aussies and the Americans were still using them in the Pacific in 1944, the Americans used them into 1945 in Burma, the Americans used them as fighters through the middle of 1944 in Italy, and the British continued to use them (as fighter bombers) right up to the end of the war. The Soviets also used them until 1944 at least and they played an important role in key battles in 1942 (at Moscow and Leningrad).

In fact the P-40 proved just good enough to still bite at the nadir for the Allies all over the world in 1942, and then as things improved into 1943 was one of the key types which helped take out a lot of those elite aircrews. It was crucial at the hinge-point and lasted in a useful role a bit beyond that.
 

If the opposite side has aircraft doing 400 mph, like the Luftwaffe had in 1942 in the field, the 360 mph fighter is a slow fighter. Granted, not as slow as 320-330 mph Hurricane II or F4F.

The -33 impeller was turning at 8.77 times the crankshaft speed, the -39 impeller was turning at 8.80 times. A power of 1040 HP at 13600 ft is always 1040 HP at 13600 ft, whether made by the -33 or the -39.


Note the altitude for the WER there - sea level. It will be making more high up, as can be seen at the chart I've previously posted. The ram effect adds another 2500 ft for the rated altitude for WER power setting (57 in Hg at 3000 rpm). The Alison memo indeed warns for not over-boosting the new engines (the ones where impeller turns at 9.60 times the crankshaft rpm), and the power tables and chart show that, the new engines making ~100 HP less at low level vs. 'old' versions that could be run at 60 in Hg down low with blessing from Allison and USAAF. The 'old' S/C will also consume less power to drive, so more power is left to turn the prop.
There was no such thing as "this is a F/B P-40N, so easy on the throttle, fellas".

Schweik said:
Right but without the second speed it would then be relatively a dog down low. As it was the P-40K was considered much faster than the P-40F below 4,000 ft.
Click to expand...

As it should be, it had more power there. Trick was finding the answer how to gain performance, altitude and situational advantage over the enemy at all combat altitudes: the P-40 was lacking in that domain vs. the Luftwaffe, and could get at best the parity in Asia/Pacific.


Easy pick - the higher, the better.
FWIW, I was trying to note that 2-speed S/C is not be-all end-all qualifier, when we talk about 1-stage supercharged engines.
 
Tomo has covered just about all of the technical changes to the Allison engines.

Some of the pilots manuals don't quite line up with the Allison factory specifications. But some of the pilot manuals tend to get a little sloppy with ram and no ram altitudes
There were some refits with changes with the backfire screens, too. But the superchargers and gear ratios stayed the same. until the 9.60 gears came along.

But the main impeller when driven with a 8.80 (or 8.77) supercharger was only going to do so much and it didn't matter if you had the plain steel crankshaft, the shot peened crankshaft or the shot peened and nitrided crankshaft. The engine would hold up longer without breaking at low altitude but it was not going to make any more power at 12,000-15,000ft. (aside from changing out the backfire screens).

The 9.60 supercharger gears increased the temperature of the mixture and the higher temperature is what caused the caution in restricting the Pressure. An engine running 9.60 gears was always going to be operating closer to the detonation limits.

I would note that the WER were also what the engine should make no RAM (like climbing or coming out of a steep turn)

The P-40 also got lucky. How many threads do we have on things the Japanese could have done differently. (or what the Italians could have done differently)
If the Japanese had looked around and realized that the Ki-43 needed to be retired at the end of 1942 then a lot of the P-40 saga against the Japanese facing Ki-44s ( or Ki-44s with big wings) would have been way different.

The P-40N (and the L) were both attempts to lighted the plane up when they realized they weren't going to get much in the way of increased power. But with the N the difference in performance wasn't great and the trade-offs limited the actual utility of the airplanes. There were thousands of P-40Ns built (over 1/2 the production run)and no more of the 400 were hotrods were built, if that many and a number of them were converted back to normal Ns, at least somewhat. The Japanese and Italians and to some the extent the Germans, were not able to come up with next generations fighters (or even good improvements to existing generation fighters) that would have knocked the P-40s out of the feild.
 
How many threads do we have on things the Japanese could have done differently. (or what the Italians could have done differently)
Click to expand...

Got a big engine? Use it. Not got one? License it. Can't license it? You're screwed. Power is the key.
 
K5083 said:
Got a big engine? Use it. Not got one? License it. Can't license it? You're screwed. Power is the key.
Click to expand...

Japanese answer to the 1st question was 'yes'. However, the 'use it' part of the deal was not exactly followed through, especially for the Navy fighters.
Italian engine policy past 1935-ish was a hot mess, leaving them to a late start by 1940s, despite the licence deals with DB.
 
PAT303 said:
Didn't matter how they were mounted, the guns were tested with the plane flying straight and level, RAAF .50's didn't work and neither did the same guns fitted to FAA F4 Martlets, we have covered this in other threads.
Click to expand...
Actually it mattered significantly in P-51B/D. The solution to the B was addition of booster motor (from B-26 top turret IRC) to assist feed continuity uner high G, but realigning the 50 cal upight in the D solved the feed issue

I do know that RAF had to exert some cycles to sort out both feed chutes and mounts for the Mustang I and IA to solve issues with early Mustang 50 cal and 20mm.
 
Last edited:
Schweik said:
It's kind of the perpetual dilemma of the war (and speaks to the circumstances of aircraft like the P-40 and the Hurricane) do you go with what you know works or gamble on something new and potentially much better?
Click to expand...
The Merlin only had about 1100hp available in 1938/39 so weight was a big issue.
 
I hope you don't actually believe this do you?

That's trope has been debunked more times than your average politician lies.
 
tomo pauk said:
If the opposite side has aircraft doing 400 mph, like the Luftwaffe had in 1942 in the field, the 360 mph fighter is a slow fighter. Granted, not as slow as 320-330 mph Hurricane II or F4F.
Click to expand...

But the Luftwaffe didn't have any 400 mph aircraft flying in the Med in 1942. With Trop filters their 109F and early G (toward the end of the year) were doing about 370-380 mph at their highest operating altitude. MC 202 was about the same or a little less. They got one squadron of Fw 190s briefly in 1943 but they were in Theater only for a short time.
tomo pauk said:
The -33 impeller was turning at 8.77 times the crankshaft speed, the -39 impeller was turning at 8.80 times. A power of 1040 HP at 13600 ft is always 1040 HP at 13600 ft, whether made by the -33 or the -39.
Click to expand...
As indicated on the charts I linked, the Tomahawk types were showing a higher critical altitude at military power.
Allison didn't give that blessing until Dec of 1942, the power issues with the Kittyhawks were already resolved by then (for several months) as acknowledged in the memo. But in early 1942 they did not know how far the engines could safely be pushed, and the improved bearings, crank shaft and crank cases were not delivered yet. Hence the problems with the early Kittyhawks starting in Dec 1941.

This is the way 11 victory P-40 Ace and Squadron Leader Bobby GIbbes put it:

"Well it was basically the same aeroplane. We were a little disappointed when we first got the Kitty, we thought it'd be way ahead of the Tomahawk. In actual fact, it was a little bit better. One thing I personally didn't like about it was the Tomahawk had fairly high sides and you'd be sitting behind a thin sheet of metal but you felt safer. The Kittyhawk had perspex coming way down and you felt as if you were sitting up, very vulnerable, because you could see out so much. That was one feature I do remember. However, later when we got our Kittyhawks running properly - were getting better performance - they were a better aeroplane."

tomo pauk said:
There was no such thing as "this is a F/B P-40N, so easy on the throttle, fellas".
Click to expand...
I believe there was though I don't know if this was just a bureaucratic thing (i.e. orders / policy) or literally a throttle limitation. Some of them had a wire which had to be broken to exceed a certain boost pressure. As Shortround6 often points out, the crew chief would typically know if they had been overboosting the engines (or just using WEP) when the plane landed due to scorch marks, oil leaks etc.


With the P-40, in all Theaters, they had to figure out how to contend with being attacked from above and carrying the day anyway. That is a very tall order, and it's the reason why the P-40 was considered so flawed. They worked out very specific tactics for this in the MTO, starting with just flying in pairs / figure 4 flights (which for some reason lagged in that Theater until around mid-1942) then flying in squadron formation and turning into the initial attacks as a unit (on the word of the squadron leader). And of course, using their escape maneuvers when they got into trouble.

Tactics in the Pacific and China were actually somewhat similar, except that they could extend more easily at or near co-altitude without doing a dramatic split S escape manuever and zoom climb.

tomo pauk said:
Easy pick - the higher, the better.
FWIW, I was trying to note that 2-speed S/C is not be-all end-all qualifier, when we talk about 1-stage supercharged engines.
Click to expand...

Well, generally I agree, but not always. In an Allison P-40, the higher critical altitude is a tradeoff to the much higher power down low. There were definitely more Aces made flying P-40K than M. This also depended where the fighting was taking place, which is a reflection of what kind of bombers were active and what kind of targets they were going for. In the Pacific with dive and torpedo bombers the fighting was often lower, similar in the Med and Russian Front. There is a reason why they made those LF Spitfires.
 
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
654
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
619
CHen10
S
Spitfire vs. Dora mass battle
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
PAT303
P
All weather?
Replies
3
Views
579
GregP
Menu
Log in
Register