At what engine ratings?
RAF trial of Spitfire I with constant speed prop: Spitfire Mk I N.3171 Trials Report
4.6 mins to 13,000 ft at 2,600 rpm, 6.4 lbs boost. By the summer of1940 Spitfires were using 3,000 rpm, 12 lbs boost...
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
At what engine ratings?
RAF trial of Spitfire I with constant speed prop: Spitfire Mk I N.3171 Trials Report
4.6 mins to 13,000 ft at 2,600 rpm, 6.4 lbs boost. By the summer of1940 Spitfires were using 3,000 rpm, 12 lbs boost...
billswagger
Airman 1st Class
- 256
- Mar 12, 2009
Its more than likely the Spitfire in question is not rated at 12lbs, however, i can't make the assumption that it is not rated at 6lbs.
In fact, being that these aircraft are tested under the same parameters it is probably a better indication for performance when it comes to making a brief comparison, than introducing outside data that might actually be using different parameters.
For example, some time to climb tests include engine start, and/or take off run, while others measure from the point of lift off. Not to mention temp and weather conditions.
Two different test can give different results even for the same aircraft.
Another example of this, the German test mentions the two speed metal prop on the Spitfire, which the test you refer to gave a time to climb of 5.5 minutes to reach only 10,000ft.
In any case, i think the propellor type made a bigger difference for climb on the Spitfire, than engine boost. The Rotol controlable pitch prop also made for an improved rate of climb, but at the cost of some top speed.
Bill
In fact, being that these aircraft are tested under the same parameters it is probably a better indication for performance when it comes to making a brief comparison, than introducing outside data that might actually be using different parameters.
For example, some time to climb tests include engine start, and/or take off run, while others measure from the point of lift off. Not to mention temp and weather conditions.
Two different test can give different results even for the same aircraft.
Another example of this, the German test mentions the two speed metal prop on the Spitfire, which the test you refer to gave a time to climb of 5.5 minutes to reach only 10,000ft.
In any case, i think the propellor type made a bigger difference for climb on the Spitfire, than engine boost. The Rotol controlable pitch prop also made for an improved rate of climb, but at the cost of some top speed.
Bill
Last edited:
Kurfürst
Staff Sergeant
Not particularly relevant in this case, as it was an emergency boost, normally not used for climbs to intercept - u see as it overstrained the engine. Indeed one of the biggest problems Fighter Command faced was climbing to the altitude of the attacking aircraft, especially in the case of fighter-bomber raids.
Kurfürst
Staff Sergeant
According Olivier, the Aa engines with slightly increased ratings were fitted to Jabo models (/B) and all E-7s which didn'thave the 601N.
The 1-min rating (601A: 1.40 ata / 1100 PS, 601Aa: 1.45 ata / 1175 PS) appears to be available from the start. There was clockwork that disengaged this increased emergency power after 1 minute.
The 1-min rating (601A: 1.40 ata / 1100 PS, 601Aa: 1.45 ata / 1175 PS) appears to be available from the start. There was clockwork that disengaged this increased emergency power after 1 minute.
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
Development time for new AC could be substantially impacted by components of the AC which were new and untested. Am rereading "Whistling Death" by Boone Guyton, primary test pilot for the Corsair. The P&W R2800 was a new engine, still under development and there were many problems with it. The Hamilton Standard prop was new and had teething problems. At first, the prop lacked a hydraulic accumulator which was still being developed and in the XF4U, under negative G in a dive, the prop changed pitch, overran and twisted off the engine crankshaft, resulting in a dead stick landing. Many times the engine failed, resulting in a glide back to base and once a horrible crash, putting the pilot in the hospital for a lengthy stay. These problems were largely eliminated at the time the Hellcat was being developed and to a lesser extent, the P47.
Another problem for the Corsair and other fighters like the P38 and P47 was that they were edging into largely unexplored flight regimes where they began to experience compressibility which was not well understood. Diving tests often resulted in uncontrollability and terror filled moments in the cockpits and sometimes structural failures and fatal crashes and losses of the prototype. Recently saw a U tube video of a Super Cuda that could do 200 mph. On one run a piece of the windshield trim simply blew off at around 180 mph. The Corsair had to do a bunch of dives at various altitudes just to see if the cockpit framing would hold together at more than 400 mph. The structural integrity of the Corsair was such that the airframe needed little modification although control surfaces sometimes blew away. These early high performance fighters paved the way for later designs and made development times shorter in some cases.
Another problem for the Corsair and other fighters like the P38 and P47 was that they were edging into largely unexplored flight regimes where they began to experience compressibility which was not well understood. Diving tests often resulted in uncontrollability and terror filled moments in the cockpits and sometimes structural failures and fatal crashes and losses of the prototype. Recently saw a U tube video of a Super Cuda that could do 200 mph. On one run a piece of the windshield trim simply blew off at around 180 mph. The Corsair had to do a bunch of dives at various altitudes just to see if the cockpit framing would hold together at more than 400 mph. The structural integrity of the Corsair was such that the airframe needed little modification although control surfaces sometimes blew away. These early high performance fighters paved the way for later designs and made development times shorter in some cases.
Xdominick97
Airman
- 19
- Mar 27, 2012
In my opinion which many people do not realize was that the p 40 was great. It was used in the fighter group flying tigers and were known as tigers to pilots of the jap zeros because the p40s would dive on them from high altitudes and breakup there formation. The p 40s would shoot down so many that the restvofvthe zeros or jap torpedo bomber would fly back to there mainland. Although the other planes were great i would go with theb p 40 out of any plane in a dogfight
davebender
1st Lieutenant
It didn't work that way in the Philippines or Dutch East Indies during 1942. The P-40E didn't accelerate or climb well, which makes it difficult to attain a superior altitude. More often then not the faster climbing A6M would have the altitude advantage.
wuzak
Captain
I don't think the AVG ever met Zeroes in thei P-40s.
Anyone confirm?
Anyone confirm?
Yeah, I'm skeptical about the criticism for Japanese planes. The Zero not only climbed better, but also had a much longer range, and was much more agile in low speed to evade attacks and had excellent visibility, not to mention the excellent men behind the stick. The Zero certainly was a modern plane that could hold it's own or even do better than the P-40. The Ki-43 was a little worse.
Last edited:
Hello Wuzak!
Your comment about the AVG and Zeros is supported by the following found at Dan Ford's website:
http://www.warbirdforum.com/neumann.htm
Hello!
The Army Air Corp carried out tests between a Hurricane, Spitfire and P-40 (amoung other aircraft). A copy of that report can be found at Mike William's website at:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/PHQ-M-19-1307-A.pdf
Just some information to consider when discussing the topics.
May God fly your wing always!
Eagledad
Your comment about the AVG and Zeros is supported by the following found at Dan Ford's website:
http://www.warbirdforum.com/neumann.htm
Hello!
The Army Air Corp carried out tests between a Hurricane, Spitfire and P-40 (amoung other aircraft). A copy of that report can be found at Mike William's website at:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/PHQ-M-19-1307-A.pdf
Just some information to consider when discussing the topics.
May God fly your wing always!
Eagledad
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Correct. Former AVG members did engage Zeros but not when they were attached to the AVG. There were no IJN units in the area during AVG operations
davebender
1st Lieutenant
IJA and IJN produced their own aircraft types. Just like the USN and USA. Strange they couldn't cooperate (and still don't).
bluezanzibar
Recruit
- 8
- Feb 26, 2012
Nikolay Gerasimovitch Golodnikov is an Ace with seven victories over German aircraft and flew the Hurricane and P40 in battle as well as the I-16 and Aircobra. Briefly, his opinions on the Hurricane and P40 were;
Hurricane
".....It had a very thick profile and poor acceleration characteristics. At maximum speed it was somewhat faster than an I-16. But until it had attained this speed, many things could happen. It was not slow in responding to the control stick, but everything happened smoothly, in its own time. In the I-16, if you moved the stick, the airplane inverted right now. With this beast, it would roll over very slowly.
It had good lifting strength and could therefore equal the I-16 in rate of climb.
It was very good in horizontal maneuverability. If four Hurricanes established a circle, it was impossible to break out of it. No Germans could break into the circle either.
It was very poor in vertical maneuver, the thick profile. Primarily we tried to conduct battle in the horizontal and avoid the vertical plane.
The Hurricane had a short take-off run, again because of the thick wing.
In its technical and tactical characteristics the Hurricane was somewhat behind the Messerschmitt Bf-109E, primarily in the vertical. It was not inferior in the least in the horizontal. When the Bf-109F arrived, the Hurricane was well outclassed but continued to contest the skies.
The Hurricane burned rapidly and completely, like a match. The percale covering."
P40
"....the P-40 significantly outclassed the Hurricane, and it was far and away above the I-16.
Personally speaking, the P-40 could contend on an equal footing with all the types of Messerschmitts, almost to the end of 1943. If you take into consideration all the tactical and technical characteristics of the P-40, then the Tomahawk was equal to the Bf-109F and the Kittyhawk was slightly better.
Its speed and vertical and horizontal maneuver were good. It was fully competitive with enemy aircraft.
As for acceleration, the P-40 was a bit heavy, but when one had adjusted to the engine, it was normal.
When the later types Bf-109G and FW-190 appeared, the P-40 Kittyhawk became somewhat dated, but not by much. An experienced pilot could fight an equal fight with it."
For the rest of his story see Conversations with N.Golodnikov , which is part of this great site Lend-Lease on airforce.ru containing numerous interviews with Russian Pilots.
Hurricane
".....It had a very thick profile and poor acceleration characteristics. At maximum speed it was somewhat faster than an I-16. But until it had attained this speed, many things could happen. It was not slow in responding to the control stick, but everything happened smoothly, in its own time. In the I-16, if you moved the stick, the airplane inverted right now. With this beast, it would roll over very slowly.
It had good lifting strength and could therefore equal the I-16 in rate of climb.
It was very good in horizontal maneuverability. If four Hurricanes established a circle, it was impossible to break out of it. No Germans could break into the circle either.
It was very poor in vertical maneuver, the thick profile. Primarily we tried to conduct battle in the horizontal and avoid the vertical plane.
The Hurricane had a short take-off run, again because of the thick wing.
In its technical and tactical characteristics the Hurricane was somewhat behind the Messerschmitt Bf-109E, primarily in the vertical. It was not inferior in the least in the horizontal. When the Bf-109F arrived, the Hurricane was well outclassed but continued to contest the skies.
The Hurricane burned rapidly and completely, like a match. The percale covering."
P40
"....the P-40 significantly outclassed the Hurricane, and it was far and away above the I-16.
Personally speaking, the P-40 could contend on an equal footing with all the types of Messerschmitts, almost to the end of 1943. If you take into consideration all the tactical and technical characteristics of the P-40, then the Tomahawk was equal to the Bf-109F and the Kittyhawk was slightly better.
Its speed and vertical and horizontal maneuver were good. It was fully competitive with enemy aircraft.
As for acceleration, the P-40 was a bit heavy, but when one had adjusted to the engine, it was normal.
When the later types Bf-109G and FW-190 appeared, the P-40 Kittyhawk became somewhat dated, but not by much. An experienced pilot could fight an equal fight with it."
For the rest of his story see Conversations with N.Golodnikov , which is part of this great site Lend-Lease on airforce.ru containing numerous interviews with Russian Pilots.
The interview is the most detailed with a WWII pilot that I ever read.
He mentions the wing MGs from the P-40 B/C/D were removed to reduce weight, and firepower was still sufficient. Didn't the Anglo-Americans conducted a similar procedure?
He mentions the wing MGs from the P-40 B/C/D were removed to reduce weight, and firepower was still sufficient. Didn't the Anglo-Americans conducted a similar procedure?
Last edited:
I may be entirely wrong, but I've always believed that one of the problems of the P-40 was that it was just an incremental evolution of the P-36 offered by Curtiss to give the US something at least similar to the Bf-109 and Spitfire. Don't get me wrong: I think the P-40 is an underrated fighter, but it shares some similarity with the Hurricane in that it merged some modern traits with hold overs from an earlier generation of fighters - as opposed to the Spit and 109 that were the wave of the future with a lot more development potential
Exactly. The P-40 was in theory an obsolete aircraft even before it was ordered into production. However being descendent of the P-36 it was ready for mass production. It was better to have a P-40 than a P-36 while waiting for promissing designs like the P-38 and P-47.
How would it be if the P-40 had been given an adequate engine with enough power for this fighter's size such as the Griffon? Guess it would be competitive and right up there with the best late war planes.
I never understood why the P-40 airframe was considered obsolete and should have less development potential than other fighters, the same goes for the P-39 and P-63.
I never understood why the P-40 airframe was considered obsolete and should have less development potential than other fighters, the same goes for the P-39 and P-63.
Last edited:
Shortround6
Major General
Basically from the firewall back it was a 1934 design. The Hawk 75 first flew in May of 1935. Not all designs are able to age (be upgraded) the same.
The plane was originally designed for 2-4 machineguns, a light bomb load (several hundred pounds at a guess). It started with a small 14 cylinder two radial, the Wright R-1670 which went nowhere and was replaced by a P&W R-1535. Then the large diameter ( cylinder R-1820 was stuck on it. Then the 14 Cylinder R-1830 and the Allison and finally the Merlin XX. How much development do you want????? 6 different engines in it's career and let's not forget the turbo P-37 version.
The Original engines were good for 700-775 hp and weighed under 1200lbs (air-cooled). The Allison and Merlin could hit 1400-1500WEP and weighed (Merlin) closer to 1600lbs plus radiators and coolant.
There comes a time to cut you losses and move on to something new.
The plane was originally designed for 2-4 machineguns, a light bomb load (several hundred pounds at a guess). It started with a small 14 cylinder two radial, the Wright R-1670 which went nowhere and was replaced by a P&W R-1535. Then the large diameter ( cylinder R-1820 was stuck on it. Then the 14 Cylinder R-1830 and the Allison and finally the Merlin XX. How much development do you want????? 6 different engines in it's career and let's not forget the turbo P-37 version.
The Original engines were good for 700-775 hp and weighed under 1200lbs (air-cooled). The Allison and Merlin could hit 1400-1500WEP and weighed (Merlin) closer to 1600lbs plus radiators and coolant.
There comes a time to cut you losses and move on to something new.
