P40 vs Hurricane, Spitfire, ME109
- Thread starter pinsog
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Colin1
Senior Master Sergeant
All of these have been done before in various threads. There was a P-40 vs Bf109 thread raging when I joined the forum. Hurricane vs P-40 was quite recent. Spitfire vs Bf109 is a way further back and may even be in old threads by now.
Hurricane can compete in the turn but not in either the vertical or max speed. The P-40 would have been a competitor up to around 16,000ft but in my opinion would only have traded blows with the Luftwaffe (ie losses both ways) rather than won air superiority outright.
The two best fighters in the world at the outbreak of WWII were generally acknowledged as being the Spitfire Ia and the Bf109E, their combination of altitude performance, max speed and armament put daylight between them and anything else in the world.
Both the Hurricane and the P-40 were generally regarded as tougher than the Spitfire or the Bf109. The P-40 could hit you back harder than either the Hurricane or the Spitfire. The Bf109 carried heavier armament than the Spitfire, Hurricane or P-40 but differing muzzle velocities and trajectories of the non-uniform armaments carried their own problems.
Hurricane can compete in the turn but not in either the vertical or max speed. The P-40 would have been a competitor up to around 16,000ft but in my opinion would only have traded blows with the Luftwaffe (ie losses both ways) rather than won air superiority outright.
The two best fighters in the world at the outbreak of WWII were generally acknowledged as being the Spitfire Ia and the Bf109E, their combination of altitude performance, max speed and armament put daylight between them and anything else in the world.
Both the Hurricane and the P-40 were generally regarded as tougher than the Spitfire or the Bf109. The P-40 could hit you back harder than either the Hurricane or the Spitfire. The Bf109 carried heavier armament than the Spitfire, Hurricane or P-40 but differing muzzle velocities and trajectories of the non-uniform armaments carried their own problems.
Last edited:
bobbysocks
Chief Master Sergeant
Ghostdancer
Airman
I know that the RAF was using the P-40, the RAF version being known as the Kittyhawk if I'm correct on this. Was it actually used in the Battle Of Britain? I believe they were in North Africa and have wondered what success it had vs. the German 109's. Didn't USAAF units also fly the P-40 in the African campaign?
Last edited:
Armour plate and rubber mats can be installed in no time. But speaking of time, the P-40 did not enter production before May 1940. 11 planes were made that month, 25, 56 and 104 in the next three. It wasn´t until mid-September that the first planes even reached the UK and by that time the BoB was over.
pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
I know the RCAF had P40's based in the UK post BOB but were there any RAF,RAAF,RNZAF or other units flying the P40 in the UK
billswagger
Airman 1st Class
- 256
- Mar 12, 2009
I don't think the P-40 made any significant contribution to the battle of Britain. But being that the P-36 was used heavily in the Battle of France, i wonder if the 36 was also used in Britain.
The P-40 was a formidable fighter in 1941, said to have more speed than a Spitfire and better turn and dive than a 109E. Its only set back was climb.
Being an American built plane it had a higher load limit than either plane, although making it heavier, it could be thrown around much more aggressively. The British still thought it was worse than a Spitfire in performance, but better than a Hurricane.
The P-40 was a formidable fighter in 1941, said to have more speed than a Spitfire and better turn and dive than a 109E. Its only set back was climb.
Being an American built plane it had a higher load limit than either plane, although making it heavier, it could be thrown around much more aggressively. The British still thought it was worse than a Spitfire in performance, but better than a Hurricane.
Glider
Captain
The P40 wasn't used in the BOB as it wasn't ready. I could be wrong but I understand that at the time of the BOB the P40 had 2 x HMG no armour or self sealing tanks.
As for the P36 it wasn't used during the BOB but a number were in reserve in case of a German invasion
As for the P36 it wasn't used during the BOB but a number were in reserve in case of a German invasion
P-40 was not fastest of Spitfire V and was not always better turning of Emil (was better in low quote, with altitude the loss of power go down also turn capabilities) , and in '41 there was the Friederich
Gotta believe if the US shared a border with Europe (if the Atlantic Ocean wasn't there), the US would've brought the P40 along faster to have a competitive fighter ready about the same time as the Hurricane, Spitfire and Me109. Isolationsim was the rule of the day in the US and that affected the mentality of weapons development.
Nothing like having Panzers running around next door to light a fire under your weapons designers.
Nothing like having Panzers running around next door to light a fire under your weapons designers.
Maybe... but the France shared border with Germany but not developed best fighter of British, (or also earlier) that haven't border with it
Colin1
Senior Master Sergeant
France was having her own problems
Nationalisation was in the process of amalgamating the French aircraft industry, which was largely unhappy with the whole affair. There were serious engine production bottlenecks making it difficult to complete aircraft, propeller production was so bad they just bought in from the US to make up the shortfall and when aircraft were eventually finished, they sat idle awaiting armaments.
It wasn't always clear what armaments each aircraft was supposed to have.
The new system couldn't consistently:-
- synchronise production
- implement a reliable in-service support program (and when parts WERE available, transport around the country was spasmodic)
- get finished aircraft to the Air Force for operational use
France was pushed to produce a war-participant, let alone a war-winner
Last edited:
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
Yes, and in France there was the two hour break for lunch. The first production P40s were not accepted until May, 1940. No doubt that all US AC in that time frame could have been ready earlier if the urgency caused by actually been engaged in a war had been there.
I think the US showed the ability to put together a good airplane and get it flying fast if the need arose. And example would be the P51 or F6F. Both of them had gestation periods of less than a year from test flight to production. While it was not full production, it was a start.
US production versus French production were two different operations. The French put together some very good weapons, but they took a lot of time doing it.
US production versus French production were two different operations. The French put together some very good weapons, but they took a lot of time doing it.
The "(development)contract to production" time dropped dramatically once the war began. The "quickest" of the pre-war a/c was the P-40 with 33 months, exactly the same amount of time as the "slowest" wartime developed plane needed(P-61).
All countries has their problems, the nationalization start because the company not fit the government built request, so we can't take out us politics and put in french politics.
The 520 production started after 13 months of 1st flew, for most part of this the France was not in war (11 months), i think it's not bad (Spitfire need around 2 years, Hurricane a few less) (Mustang need less 6 months, but if it's true that US was not in war they were for a country in the war).
The 520 production started after 13 months of 1st flew, for most part of this the France was not in war (11 months), i think it's not bad (Spitfire need around 2 years, Hurricane a few less) (Mustang need less 6 months, but if it's true that US was not in war they were for a country in the war).
Colin1
Senior Master Sergeant
Rubbish
In France the challenge of planning, financing and implementing a re-armament program took place in a political environment where it remained extremely difficult to establish an enduring partnership among workers, employers, and public officials. When the Popular Front governments of 1936 and 1937 made important concessions to workers, business leaders and investors withheld their support
It's true that no major power found it an easy task to build a modern air force in the 1930s, it required real effort to both keep abreast of a rapidly evolving technology and make a timely commitment to mass production; the Brits also stumbled, just not as badly as the French.
billswagger
Airman 1st Class
- 256
- Mar 12, 2009
Kurfrst - Vergleichsfliegen Bf 109 E, Bf 110 C, Spitfire, Hurricane und Curtiss.
Climb times to 4 km:
Bf 109 E 4.4 min,
Spitfire 5 min,
Curtiss 5.2 min.
Hurricane 5.6 min,
In this case the Curtiss was 12 seconds behind the Spitfire in a climb to 4000m, and 36 seconds behind the 109E.
This could be a P-36 or P-40, the information doesn't say, but the date of the analysis is Aug 9th 1940
Climb times to 4 km:
Bf 109 E 4.4 min,
Spitfire 5 min,
Curtiss 5.2 min.
Hurricane 5.6 min,
In this case the Curtiss was 12 seconds behind the Spitfire in a climb to 4000m, and 36 seconds behind the 109E.
This could be a P-36 or P-40, the information doesn't say, but the date of the analysis is Aug 9th 1940
