Likewise for Vought's V-143.
Vought V-143 - fighter
(From Angelucci and Bowers; 'The American Fighter')
Saburo Sakai Zero vs Bf-109
- Thread starter Chiron
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Likewise for Vought's V-143.
Vought V-143 - fighter
(From Angelucci and Bowers; 'The American Fighter')
Hi Joe,
>I don't bug people why they don't respond to my posts, I might not like the answer
.
Hm, actually *I* didn't ask why you did not respond, but merely if you had seen my post.
Anyway, can I count on you to continue the discussion over there?
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
>I don't bug people why they don't respond to my posts, I might not like the answer
.Hm, actually *I* didn't ask why you did not respond, but merely if you had seen my post.
Anyway, can I count on you to continue the discussion over there?
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
The Basket
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
It is possible to assert that the Spitfire can be better than the Zero. Just look at the numbers.
No Zero can match a Spitfire V...don't bother with the Mk XIV.
The Zero was golden against ya P40 or wildcats or buffalos but get something half decent and its cannon fodder.
One must remember that when the 109 and Spit was designed the most powerful engines were about 900bhp. Both fighters spurred on each other. It was sheer performance that mattered as both were designed as bomber destoryers or point interceptors. Neither were designed as escorts and the situation both fighters found themselves in were not imagined.
The fact that the Germans would invade and conquer France in six weeks and launch an air war against UK was not a design feature in 1935.
No Zero can match a Spitfire V...don't bother with the Mk XIV.
The Zero was golden against ya P40 or wildcats or buffalos but get something half decent and its cannon fodder.
One must remember that when the 109 and Spit was designed the most powerful engines were about 900bhp. Both fighters spurred on each other. It was sheer performance that mattered as both were designed as bomber destoryers or point interceptors. Neither were designed as escorts and the situation both fighters found themselves in were not imagined.
The fact that the Germans would invade and conquer France in six weeks and launch an air war against UK was not a design feature in 1935.
parsifal
Colonel
Thanks, and you are probably right. But I am still fairly sure that the Me 109 suffered some structural weaknesses, relating to the wing. It was more apparent in the f than the e, and im darned if I can find my source, but I am sure that there was a problem there somewhere.
Anyway, thankyou for the information
Michael
parsifal
Colonel
British AA suffered from some severe problems in 1940. The zero did face exceptionally heavy AA from the US Navy on many occasions. Whilst their losses were never light, they were not "torn to pieces" by the Allied AA. It was the Allied fighters that did the lions share of damage
There will be people out there with better information than me, but I believe the top scorer at Phillipine Sea was either Iowa or Sth Dakota (cant remember which one), and they managed to shoot down something less than 10 Japanese aircraft during the battle. Would not mind if someone out there has better information
Anyway, Hi and nice to meet you
Michael
claidemore
Senior Airman
Parsifal,
I didn't want to go out on a limb and state that 109 wings were breaking off, but yesterday I was reading up on the 109F and did see mention of 'losing too many experten to wings folding up'. I believe you are correct that there was a problem there. I know the G series was beefed up in some areas, not sure if the wing was one of them.
Claidemore
I didn't want to go out on a limb and state that 109 wings were breaking off, but yesterday I was reading up on the 109F and did see mention of 'losing too many experten to wings folding up'. I believe you are correct that there was a problem there. I know the G series was beefed up in some areas, not sure if the wing was one of them.
Claidemore
Oh, I wish that were so. Unfortunately the RAF was not trained to 'fight' let along 'dogfight'. The RAF was prior to the War, one big Flying Club!
It was thought that modern fast monoplanes would put too much physical stress on the pilot, that it would not be practical. And besides, no one considered that the RAF would be faced by an air force that would be able to escort its bombers with fighters! Hence, attacks were choregraphed so that a bomber would be subjected to a succession of two-second bursts of gunfire from different fighters - 'fighter area attacks'.
Even with the learn-on-the-job of the Battle of France, the RAF didn't share 'best practise' through out the 'Command', formation flying looked too good to be abandoned for an effective 'combat' formation.
The RAF's priorities in the BoB were always the bombers, the benefit of manoeurvreability enabled them to counter the 109's diving attack.
For the LW the priorities were the South-east where the potential invasion beaches were, where the RN ports were, where the aircraft factores were, and where most of Fighterr Commands airfields were i.e. IMO a small increase in range would help, a big increase not relevant.
Interesting to see the Vought aircraft. I remember reading a book about the Australian Aircraft Industry prior to WW2. Packet (I seem to remember) was the guy in charge; he was looking for different types of aircraft that could be produced at the Fishermans Bend Factory, and he was offered a 'Vought' fighter.
What did he say when he saw a Zero - 'It's a Vought'!
But then with a similar specification, similar sized radial engine - different designers are going to come up with similar aircraft.
Glider
Captain
15th August 1945 Seafires vs Zeros
This is a short version of the report that I have, I hope it helps
8 Seafires left Indefatigable escorting Avengers on a raid on Kisarazu airfield but due to the weather a secondary target in Odaki Bay was chosen.
2 Zeros were seen lower down but it was suspected that these were decoys and left alone. Shortly afterwards 12 Zero's dived on the formation from behind. The Lead Seafire was shot down in the first pass, it was suspected that he had radio problems as he made no move to evade or react to any warning. The pilot F Hockley bailed out and was beheaded after being captured.
Sub Lt Vic Lowden and Sub Lt Williams hit one which was seen to 'Flame Nicely going down and its undercarridge dropped' according to the report.
Sub Lt Lowden hit another and pieces were seen to come off as it went down, he then hit a another with his MG's and the Pilot was seen to bail out.
Sub Lt Williams was also credited with a second but I have no more information on that one.
Sub Lt Murphy was closer to the Avengers with his section when the Zero's reached the Avengers on the port side from the rear, while another section of Zero's attacked head on. Sub Lt Murphy reported that he hit one that was finished off by his no 3. He then attacked another Zero that was below him, again this was seen to smoke from its engine and its undercarridge dropped. As he overshot he climbed and found a third Zero that didn't see him, he fired from 100 yards observing strikes on the cockpit and engine, the Zero burst into flames rolled over and entered cloud.
Sub Lt Duncan from the close escort attacked three Zero's being credited with one probable before a cannon jammed after which he hit another with his MG's, his section leader Sub Lt Kay hit a zero and flames were seen on the wing root, he then hit a second with a high deflection shot as it crossed in front of him and blew the tail off.
Duncan was awarded 2 Probables
Kay, 1 Destroyed, 1 Probable 1 damaged
Murphy - 2 Destroyed
Lowden - 2 Destroyed, 1 Shared, 2 damaged
Garvin - 1 Damaged
Williams - 1 Destroyed, 1 Shared
As mentioned the Avenger Gunners were awarded the eighth kill and one Avenger was shot down
The report mentions that the Zero's were well organised and carried out their attacks well but once the intial attack was completed they lost their organisation. Their shooting was also described as poor and they didn't allow enough deflection.
I think you will agree this ties in with a basically poorly trained unit with a couple of more experienced pilots who would have set up the attack.
This is a short version of the report that I have, I hope it helps
8 Seafires left Indefatigable escorting Avengers on a raid on Kisarazu airfield but due to the weather a secondary target in Odaki Bay was chosen.
2 Zeros were seen lower down but it was suspected that these were decoys and left alone. Shortly afterwards 12 Zero's dived on the formation from behind. The Lead Seafire was shot down in the first pass, it was suspected that he had radio problems as he made no move to evade or react to any warning. The pilot F Hockley bailed out and was beheaded after being captured.
Sub Lt Vic Lowden and Sub Lt Williams hit one which was seen to 'Flame Nicely going down and its undercarridge dropped' according to the report.
Sub Lt Lowden hit another and pieces were seen to come off as it went down, he then hit a another with his MG's and the Pilot was seen to bail out.
Sub Lt Williams was also credited with a second but I have no more information on that one.
Sub Lt Murphy was closer to the Avengers with his section when the Zero's reached the Avengers on the port side from the rear, while another section of Zero's attacked head on. Sub Lt Murphy reported that he hit one that was finished off by his no 3. He then attacked another Zero that was below him, again this was seen to smoke from its engine and its undercarridge dropped. As he overshot he climbed and found a third Zero that didn't see him, he fired from 100 yards observing strikes on the cockpit and engine, the Zero burst into flames rolled over and entered cloud.
Sub Lt Duncan from the close escort attacked three Zero's being credited with one probable before a cannon jammed after which he hit another with his MG's, his section leader Sub Lt Kay hit a zero and flames were seen on the wing root, he then hit a second with a high deflection shot as it crossed in front of him and blew the tail off.
Duncan was awarded 2 Probables
Kay, 1 Destroyed, 1 Probable 1 damaged
Murphy - 2 Destroyed
Lowden - 2 Destroyed, 1 Shared, 2 damaged
Garvin - 1 Damaged
Williams - 1 Destroyed, 1 Shared
As mentioned the Avenger Gunners were awarded the eighth kill and one Avenger was shot down
The report mentions that the Zero's were well organised and carried out their attacks well but once the intial attack was completed they lost their organisation. Their shooting was also described as poor and they didn't allow enough deflection.
I think you will agree this ties in with a basically poorly trained unit with a couple of more experienced pilots who would have set up the attack.
kool kitty89
Senior Master Sergeant
The Hurricane cou'd beat the Spit in a slow speed turning fight and the Zero (or Ki 43) could easily beat the Hurricane. The Spitfire V had the same advantages over the Japanese fighters as other early war allied fighters, level and dive speed; though it (and other merlin engined a/c) had better altitude performance as well. Though the Spit could match (or almost so) the Zero in a climb, which no allied fighter could do over there till the P-38 came. (and later F6F and F4U)
Another thing to note is that down low (up to 11,000 ft) the P-40 of the same period performed similarly to the Spit V (except in climb) and the AVG's Hawk-81's (H81-3A) may have actually out performed them at these levels. (basically the lighter P-40B's with 1,200-1,300 hp non standard engines, normaly 1,150 hp takeoff, with speed ~370 mph at 14,000 ft) The gear boxes of these engines were not designed for more than 1,100 hp for extended periods of time and were prone to stripping gears.
The Last Curtiss P-40C
Another thing to note is that down low (up to 11,000 ft) the P-40 of the same period performed similarly to the Spit V (except in climb) and the AVG's Hawk-81's (H81-3A) may have actually out performed them at these levels. (basically the lighter P-40B's with 1,200-1,300 hp non standard engines, normaly 1,150 hp takeoff, with speed ~370 mph at 14,000 ft) The gear boxes of these engines were not designed for more than 1,100 hp for extended periods of time and were prone to stripping gears.
The Last Curtiss P-40C
Jerry W. Loper
Airman 1st Class
- 121
- Oct 2, 2007
Another thing to note is that down low (up to 11,000 ft) the P-40 of the same period performed similarly to the Spit V (except in climb) and the AVG's Hawk-81's (H81-3A) may have actually out performed them at these levels. (basically the lighter P-40B's with 1,200-1,300 hp non standard engines, normaly 1,150 hp takeoff, with speed ~370 mph at 14,000 ft) The gear boxes of these engines were not designed for more than 1,100 hp for extended periods of time and were prone to stripping gears.
Kool Kitty: I've been a bit of a P-40 buff for years and am curious, what published sources give the small-mouthed P-40s a speed of 370 m.p.h.?
Kool Kitty: I've been a bit of a P-40 buff for years and am curious, what published sources give the small-mouthed P-40s a speed of 370 m.p.h.?
claidemore
Senior Airman
It's a sub-forum under the Technical section.
kool kitty89
Senior Master Sergeant
The spitfire also had a much higher critical dive speed (as did nearly all other allied fighters including the Hurricane Mk.II) than the Zero's of ~410 mph.
Well as the P-40B had a top speed of 352 mph Curtiss P-40B (JoeB's site)
with only a 1150 hp (takeoff) engine which was down to 1040 hp at 15,000 ft, 370 mph isn't much of a stretch for the same plane (actually Tomahawk IIB/P-40C's stripped down to IIA/P-40B config.) with up to 220 more hp.
Here it's shown: The Last Curtiss P-40C
Granted it says "up to 370 mph" though. However, since these were non standard a/c with non standard engines they are not fully comparable with normal production models.
IIRC the best performing P-40 was the P-40N with 378 mph at 10,500 ft with 1,480 hp V-1710-81 engine. The P-40M should have been similar, having the same engine but being ~400 lbs heavier empty. (I only have figures for the P-40M at 1,150 hp Mil power with crit alt at 17,400 ft, not WEP) The M could still manage a decent 362 mph at 20,000 ft (down to 950-1,000 hp) and could climb to 20,000 ft in a minimum of 7.5 min. (at normal gross, clean config with max power: 1,480 hp WEP to 10,500 ft down to 1,150 hp Mil at 17,400 ft and continues to drop, but the time limit for WEP as not exceeded due to this)
claidemore
Senior Airman
There is a performance trial between the Gloster F.5/34 (which looks so much like a Zero), and the Hawk 75 and Spitfire Mk1 over in the Technical section.
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/at...iss-h.75-spitfire-gloster-f5-aileron-test.pdf
Interesting document.
Claidemore
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/at...iss-h.75-spitfire-gloster-f5-aileron-test.pdf
Interesting document.
Claidemore
Hi Jerry,
>Another thing to note is that down low (up to 11,000 ft) the P-40 of the same period performed similarly to the Spit V (except in climb) and the AVG's Hawk-81's (H81-3A) may have actually out performed them at these levels.
Quite credible ... please have a look at the attached analysis of the P-40E compared to the (non-tropicalized) Spitfire V, which I prepared quite a while back based on a variety of tests including that of P-40E A29-129. (Thanks to my Australian friend Peril for digging up all those tests from the archives!
The P-43 and Ki-44 graphs are less accurate as I'm not aware of test data for the former, and for the latter I have relied on TAIC data modified to represent engine restriction as the early Ki-44 types the Flying Tigers might have met might have had.
The P-40C, having a similar top speed as the P-40E while being quite a bit lighter, would of course climb somewhat better than indicated in my graph.
>Kool Kitty: I've been a bit of a P-40 buff for years and am curious, what published sources give the small-mouthed P-40s a speed of 370 m.p.h.?
I actually think that a true air speed of 370 mph (595 km/h!) is rather unlikely. The extra power from overboosting the engine would only be available at low altitude, where the high air density makes it really difficult to achieve high speeds. (Not even the P-40N, running at 57" Hg, ever reached 370 mph in any tests I'm aware of. In a clean configuration, it might have exceeded 360 mph by a hair.)
It's possible that the overboosted AVG P-40 occasionally reached a speed that the pilots converted to 370 mph TAS, but it seems that the compressiblity error that makes the airspeed indicator read excessively high was only appreciated by engineers at that time, so the pilots probably were unaware of the error in their conversion.
The one major P-40 variant that in my opinion could exceed the 370 mph reference speed was the Merlin-engined P-40F - in supercharger high gear, it achieved high power at high altitude where the low air density allows high speeds to be reached more easily.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
>Another thing to note is that down low (up to 11,000 ft) the P-40 of the same period performed similarly to the Spit V (except in climb) and the AVG's Hawk-81's (H81-3A) may have actually out performed them at these levels.
Quite credible ... please have a look at the attached analysis of the P-40E compared to the (non-tropicalized) Spitfire V, which I prepared quite a while back based on a variety of tests including that of P-40E A29-129. (Thanks to my Australian friend Peril for digging up all those tests from the archives!
The P-43 and Ki-44 graphs are less accurate as I'm not aware of test data for the former, and for the latter I have relied on TAIC data modified to represent engine restriction as the early Ki-44 types the Flying Tigers might have met might have had.
The P-40C, having a similar top speed as the P-40E while being quite a bit lighter, would of course climb somewhat better than indicated in my graph.
>Kool Kitty: I've been a bit of a P-40 buff for years and am curious, what published sources give the small-mouthed P-40s a speed of 370 m.p.h.?
I actually think that a true air speed of 370 mph (595 km/h!) is rather unlikely. The extra power from overboosting the engine would only be available at low altitude, where the high air density makes it really difficult to achieve high speeds. (Not even the P-40N, running at 57" Hg, ever reached 370 mph in any tests I'm aware of. In a clean configuration, it might have exceeded 360 mph by a hair.)
It's possible that the overboosted AVG P-40 occasionally reached a speed that the pilots converted to 370 mph TAS, but it seems that the compressiblity error that makes the airspeed indicator read excessively high was only appreciated by engineers at that time, so the pilots probably were unaware of the error in their conversion.
The one major P-40 variant that in my opinion could exceed the 370 mph reference speed was the Merlin-engined P-40F - in supercharger high gear, it achieved high power at high altitude where the low air density allows high speeds to be reached more easily.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
Attachments
kool kitty89
Senior Master Sergeant
That is untrue on the P-40's engines most had rated WEP (or takeoff) op to ~10,500 ft. Plus most of the P-40's speed figures for the E and later models is at least 362 mph at 15,000 ft. (Merlin Models topped out at ~20,000 ft but at about the same speed, lowere altitude would be about the same at WEP)
The P-40E was ~10 mph faster than the P-40B, the B did 352 mph and 2,860 ft/min initial climb. The extra weight of the P-40C and the addition of the belly shackel decreased speed be ~5 mph and climb by ~220 ft/min. It should also be noted that the nose and canopy of the Tomahawk (P-40C and earlier) were much different from the D and later models due to the redesign of the gear box of the V-1710 engine resulting in a shorter engine with higher thrust line. The radiator was also moved foreware and enlarged. (making the plane a bit ugly and less shark like)
You seem underestimate the quality of the Allison engines of later models.
The P-40K's engine was rated for 1,320 hp while the Merlins were rated only for a Max of 1,300 hp (very similar to the Merlin XX). But the Merlins kept their power better with ~1,140 hp at 18,000 ft. These were "low altitude" single stage, 2-speed supercharged Merlins. I will admit that the speeds will be better with the Merlins at thier critical altitedes for WEP/Mil power than the similar Allison versions. (certainly above 15,000 ft) But with the P-40M/N this is NOT the case! (except above 20,000 ft) Plus the single-stage Allison was lighter by at least 200 lbs than these merlins.
One problem with accurate speed and power figures is that sometimes only Mil power is used/listed instead of WEP.
This changed with the V-1710-81 engine of the P-40M/N. With normal rating overboost limited throttle to 1,200 hp for takeoff (this may have changed with high octane fuel) but at 3,000 ft full power of 1,480 hp was atained. This was acheivable up to the full throttle height of 10,500 ft. Critical altitude for Mil power (1,150 hp) was 17,400 ft. Above 18,000 ft the Merlin powered varients gained a slight advantage, ceiling was the only significant advantage. At 20,000 ft the P-40M could manage 362 mph at full throttle (down to ~1,000 hp). At 10,500 ft the P-40N was listed for 378 mph at 1,480 hp WEP. (this was with a reduced armament and lower weight, but the fully equipped later models were only 200 lbs heavier, and the P-40K/M were only 400 lbs heavier, enough to hurt climb but not significant speed) Best climb for the P-40M was 7.5 min to 20,000 ft.
Check out alot of figures here: Curtiss P-40 Warhawk, Tomahawk, Kittyhawk (granted a fair amount are at mil power)
This makes sense because the V-1710-81 powered P-51A with similar weight to the P-40 and higher wing loading (even higher lift loading due to lo lift airfoil, albeit the clean airframe and radiator helps a bit) had a top speed of 415 mph at 10,400 ft WEP and 408 mph at 17,500 ft (1,150 mil power). Time to 20,000 ft at 8,000 lbs was ~6.7 min and max climb was ~4,100 ft/min at ~7,500 ft.
See: Mustang (Allison Engine) Performance Trials
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p-51a-1-6007.jpg
The P-40E was ~10 mph faster than the P-40B, the B did 352 mph and 2,860 ft/min initial climb. The extra weight of the P-40C and the addition of the belly shackel decreased speed be ~5 mph and climb by ~220 ft/min. It should also be noted that the nose and canopy of the Tomahawk (P-40C and earlier) were much different from the D and later models due to the redesign of the gear box of the V-1710 engine resulting in a shorter engine with higher thrust line. The radiator was also moved foreware and enlarged. (making the plane a bit ugly and less shark like)
You seem underestimate the quality of the Allison engines of later models.
The P-40K's engine was rated for 1,320 hp while the Merlins were rated only for a Max of 1,300 hp (very similar to the Merlin XX). But the Merlins kept their power better with ~1,140 hp at 18,000 ft. These were "low altitude" single stage, 2-speed supercharged Merlins. I will admit that the speeds will be better with the Merlins at thier critical altitedes for WEP/Mil power than the similar Allison versions. (certainly above 15,000 ft) But with the P-40M/N this is NOT the case! (except above 20,000 ft) Plus the single-stage Allison was lighter by at least 200 lbs than these merlins.
One problem with accurate speed and power figures is that sometimes only Mil power is used/listed instead of WEP.
This changed with the V-1710-81 engine of the P-40M/N. With normal rating overboost limited throttle to 1,200 hp for takeoff (this may have changed with high octane fuel) but at 3,000 ft full power of 1,480 hp was atained. This was acheivable up to the full throttle height of 10,500 ft. Critical altitude for Mil power (1,150 hp) was 17,400 ft. Above 18,000 ft the Merlin powered varients gained a slight advantage, ceiling was the only significant advantage. At 20,000 ft the P-40M could manage 362 mph at full throttle (down to ~1,000 hp). At 10,500 ft the P-40N was listed for 378 mph at 1,480 hp WEP. (this was with a reduced armament and lower weight, but the fully equipped later models were only 200 lbs heavier, and the P-40K/M were only 400 lbs heavier, enough to hurt climb but not significant speed) Best climb for the P-40M was 7.5 min to 20,000 ft.
Check out alot of figures here: Curtiss P-40 Warhawk, Tomahawk, Kittyhawk (granted a fair amount are at mil power)
This makes sense because the V-1710-81 powered P-51A with similar weight to the P-40 and higher wing loading (even higher lift loading due to lo lift airfoil, albeit the clean airframe and radiator helps a bit) had a top speed of 415 mph at 10,400 ft WEP and 408 mph at 17,500 ft (1,150 mil power). Time to 20,000 ft at 8,000 lbs was ~6.7 min and max climb was ~4,100 ft/min at ~7,500 ft.
See: Mustang (Allison Engine) Performance Trials
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p-51a-1-6007.jpg
Hi Koolkitty,
>That is untrue on the P-40's engines most had rated WEP (or takeoff) op to ~10,500 ft.
What exactly is untrue? And what which boost pressures for which version do you consider "WEP"?
>Plus most of the P-40's speed figures for the E and later models is at least 362 mph at 15,000 ft.
Well, where are the test reports showing these figures? My analysis is built on actual flight test data, quite a bit of research (by several people) went into it, and I haven't seen a higher speed than 355 mph @ 15000 ft as achieved by a P-40N-1 at 57" Hg, 3000 rpm in RAAF tests for any Allison-powered model.
>You seem underestimate the quality of the Allison engines of later models.
...
>But with the P-40M/N this is NOT the case! (except above 20,000 ft)
Well, having seen actual Allison power graphs, I don't think I underestimate anything, but if you have a graph you consider correct, I'm quite willing to check its impact on performance.
>Check out alot of figures here: Curtiss P-40 Warhawk, Tomahawk, Kittyhawk (granted a fair amount are at mil power)
That's a good site for getting a first impression, but the test reports from the Australian archives are really much more useful for an engineering analysis.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
>That is untrue on the P-40's engines most had rated WEP (or takeoff) op to ~10,500 ft.
What exactly is untrue? And what which boost pressures for which version do you consider "WEP"?
>Plus most of the P-40's speed figures for the E and later models is at least 362 mph at 15,000 ft.
Well, where are the test reports showing these figures? My analysis is built on actual flight test data, quite a bit of research (by several people) went into it, and I haven't seen a higher speed than 355 mph @ 15000 ft as achieved by a P-40N-1 at 57" Hg, 3000 rpm in RAAF tests for any Allison-powered model.
>You seem underestimate the quality of the Allison engines of later models.
...
>But with the P-40M/N this is NOT the case! (except above 20,000 ft)
Well, having seen actual Allison power graphs, I don't think I underestimate anything, but if you have a graph you consider correct, I'm quite willing to check its impact on performance.
>Check out alot of figures here: Curtiss P-40 Warhawk, Tomahawk, Kittyhawk (granted a fair amount are at mil power)
That's a good site for getting a first impression, but the test reports from the Australian archives are really much more useful for an engineering analysis.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
Wildcat
Major
Guys, this site has some great documents on the P40 that you might find interesting.
Perils P40 Archive Data
Perils P40 Archive Data
