Spitfire V Versus P-40E

slaterat · Aug 28, 2020

The tropical Spit V is generally considered the low point of the Spitfire in WW2. The basic Spit1/V just didn't adapt that well to tropicalization. Its not all to blame on the volkes filter either, (compare to the much cleaner installation on the Hurricane), as the tropical Spits nose was also enlarged for a larger glycol header tank. I think much of the same could be said for the P 40E, Kitttyhawk 1 as well. Its the low point of P 40 development as well. Its a thousand pounds heavier than a Tomahawk, barely faster with an air filter installed, with a pathetic rate of climb, all to get 6x.50 s in the wings that can't be fired under G , or they will jam.

PAT303 · Aug 29, 2020

slaterat said:
Its not all to blame on the volkes filter either

The trouble with the MkV is the extra weight and drag added wasn't offset by the increase in power. Compare the MkV to the MkIX, same air frame but two stage engine giving more power across a broader range. Personally I feel the RAF should have stayed with the 8 mg's harmonised at 200 meters with an increase in belt length and standardise on AP and incendiary with every 5th round a tracer.

GregP · Aug 30, 2020

The P-40E gun jamming was corrected in summer/fall 1942, and the type caused an acceleration of improvements to the Bf 109E leading to the Bf 109F because it was fast and maneuverable.

I'm not too sure if the pilots would have swapped the two extra guns and ammo for lighter weight or not seeing as how it wasn't going to help the performance above 15,000 feet by much anyway. In any case, they didn't get a vote. The difference in weight was about 760 pounds, not 1,000. Perhaps not a lot of difference, but 1,000 pounds is about 31.6% heavier than 760 pounds, so it also isn't insignificant. 240 pounds is roughly about like a second crewman in weight.

wuzak · Aug 30, 2020

GregP said:
The P-40E gun jamming was corrected in summer/fall 1942, and the type caused an acceleration of improvements to the Bf 109E leading to the Bf 109F because it was fast and maneuverable.

?????

If I understand your statement above, correctly the F was a response to the P-40?

The Bf 109F-1 was first in combat in October 1940, and the F-4 was in service in June 1941. The F was in development since 1939.

How did the P-40 have any influence on that?

SaparotRob · Aug 30, 2020

wuzak said:
?????

If I understand your statement above, correctly the F was a response to the P-40?

The Bf 109F-1 was first in combat in October 1940, and the F-4 was in service in June 1941. The F was in development since 1939.

How did the P-40 have any influence on that?

Cool nose art.

rochie · Aug 30, 2020

wuzak said:
?????

If I understand your statement above, correctly the F was a response to the P-40?

The Bf 109F-1 was first in combat in October 1940, and the F-4 was in service in June 1941. The F was in development since 1939.

How did the P-40 have any influence on that?

maybe because fragile British aircraft wouldn't of warranted improvements to the Bf109 E so it had to be an American type ?
i suppose a Nazi spy told them what was coming so they started a program of improvements for when the war started on Dec 7th 1941 !

GregP · Aug 30, 2020

The Bf 109F was not a response to the P-40E. Simply, the P-40E was fast and maneuverable below about 15,000 feet. In North Africa, the Bf 109Es were found a bit wanting, and there were improvements made to the Bf 109E because, early in the war, North Africa / Med was an important theater. It was found the Bf 109E had reached about a development peak, and the "redesign" was underway before the P-40E, but wasn't moving nearly as quickly as it did after a strong appearance in North Africa. Popular aviation art shows a Bf 109E flying over a shot down P-40, but it wasn't wasn't always that way.

The P-40E was not the main reason for the redesign of the Bf 109E; the Bf 109F was under development before the P-40E appeared in late 1941. But it's appearance DID push the Bf 109F's priority up a bit. The Bf 109F development started in 1939, albeit slowly. Early prototypes used the DB 601N (1,159 HP or 1,175 PS). After Feb 40, the DB 601E (1,332 HP or 1,350 PS) was available for the Bf 109. The first two prototypes kept the trapezium wings of the Bf 109E with slightly reduced span, but the V23 had semi-elliptical wingtips.

If you look into it, they speeded up the Bf 109F almost exactly coincident with the introduction of the P-40E. So, right when the Bf 109E was getting a slight black eye, they completed all the Bf 109E upgrades that had been languishing or, more correctly, moving slowly, and got the Bf 109F into production.

rochie · Aug 30, 2020

but the F-4 was in service 6 months before the P-40E, how can one variant influence another variant if it was entered into service after the one it was supposed to have influenced ?

Clayton Magnet · Aug 30, 2020

rochie said:
but the F-4 was in service 6 months before the P-40E, how can one variant influence another variant if it was entered into service after the one it was supposed to have influenced ?

The F-4 might have been, but the F-1 was in service in October of 1940. That's still the Battle of Britain, or the very tail end of it. Which predates the appearance of the Kittyhawk by more than a year

The arrival of the Kittyhawks was much closer to the introduction of the Gustav

rochie · Aug 30, 2020

Clayton Magnet said:
The F-4 might have been, but the F-1 was in service in October of 1940. That's still the Battle of Britain, or the very tail end of it. Which predates the appearance of the Kittyhawk by more than a year

The arrival of the Kittyhawks was much closer to the introduction of the Gustav

But it was supposed to have been the catalyst for the introduction of the F model were told

Vincenzo · Aug 30, 2020

The Emil go out of production in June '41 (6 E-7/NZ) and i'm not sure if this were neaubau or umbau
in all 141 Emil were built in '41, with over 2,500 109 built that year
33 in january
28 in february
54 in march
20 in april
0 in may
6 in june

Glider · Aug 30, 2020

I admit to finding the thought that the P40 in any version at any time, drove or influenced the development on the Bf109 in any way totally weird.

I suggest a cold bath for the believers and recommend that they think through the total lack of logic or evidence that even hints towards this before posting anything else

GregP · Aug 30, 2020

Actually, I am just paraphrasing articles and things I've heard over the years. I can say that the 6 MG P-40E was a pretty good improvement over the earlier units, which sported two 50-cal and four 30-cal guns.

The Bf 109F was a general fuselage clean-up with a new spinner adopted from the Me 210, elbow-shaped supercharger intake, rounded fuselage, and a host of other small changes. There was a more aerodynamic oil cooler radiator and fairing, a new ejector exhaust, particularly on the left side where a metal shield was fitted to prevent exhaust from entering the supercharger intake, as wella s a new VDM propeller. Most importantly, while the rudder was slightly reduced in area, the fin was airfoiled to assist in keep the tail straight on takeoff and in flight. Note the airfoil was for a clockwise-turning propeller. This was NOT good if a counterclockwise-turning engine, such as a Hispano, was fitted.

But, all this was not moving very fast until late 1941.

Vincenzo · Aug 30, 2020

GregP said:
Actually, I am just paraphrasing articles and things I've heard over the years. I can say that the 6 MG P-40E was a pretty good improvement over the earlier units, which sported two 50-cal and four 30-cal guns.

The Bf 109F was a general fuselage clean-up with a new spinner adopted from the Me 210, elbow-shaped supercharger intake, rounded fuselage, and a host of other small changes. There was a more aerodynamic oil cooler radiator and fairing, a new ejector exhaust, particularly on the left side where a metal shield was fitted to prevent exhaust from entering the supercharger intake, as wella s a new VDM propeller. Most importantly, while the rudder was slightly reduced in area, the fin was airfoiled to assist in keep the tail straight on takeoff and in flight. Note the airfoil was for a clockwise-turning propeller. This was NOT good if a counterclockwise-turning engine, such as a Hispano, was fitted.

But, all this was not moving very fast until late 1941.

i think you need to read again that articles, the F was the main production version of 109 from late 1940

Clayton Magnet · Aug 30, 2020

GregP said:
Actually, I am just paraphrasing articles and things I've heard over the years. I can say that the 6 MG P-40E was a pretty good improvement over the earlier units, which sported two 50-cal and four 30-cal guns.

The Bf 109F was a general fuselage clean-up with a new spinner adopted from the Me 210, elbow-shaped supercharger intake, rounded fuselage, and a host of other small changes. There was a more aerodynamic oil cooler radiator and fairing, a new ejector exhaust, particularly on the left side where a metal shield was fitted to prevent exhaust from entering the supercharger intake, as wella s a new VDM propeller. Most importantly, while the rudder was slightly reduced in area, the fin was airfoiled to assist in keep the tail straight on takeoff and in flight. Note the airfoil was for a clockwise-turning propeller. This was NOT good if a counterclockwise-turning engine, such as a Hispano, was fitted.

But, all this was not moving very fast until late 1941.

By late 1941, the Bf 109F was fully developed, and had been so for some time. At that time, it was the Gustav that was being developed

GregP · Aug 31, 2020

Hi Vincenzo,

Thanks for the correction. I can still find articles saying the Bf 109F was hurried up to address the P-40E in North Africa / Med, but now the dates are not making sense. Something somewhere seems to be a bit off, that's for sure. So, maybe I can shelf this one until I get time to look at it some more.

When I go back and read some of the things said in 1960 / 1970 books on the subject, some things seem a bit out of kilter.

Cheers.

rochie · Aug 31, 2020

Vincenzo · Aug 31, 2020

Just for info
the Kittyhawk fly their first mission the 28th December 1941 with the 3rd SAAF squadron
i've not checked but USAAF equivalent go in battle highly probably early in the month in the "Far East"

Glider · Aug 31, 2020

GregP said:
Actually, I am just paraphrasing articles and things I've heard over the years. I can say that the 6 MG P-40E was a pretty good improvement over the earlier units, which sported two 50-cal and four 30-cal guns.

.

Look at it from a German perspective. Your main fighter the 109E has reached the peak of its development and needs a serious redesign. You look around and you see :-

Spitfire - fully a match for your 109E and clearly being developed. You probably know that there is a Mk2 entering service and will have heard of 20mm cannon
P40 in its earliest form - not even close to a match for the 109E, lacking weapons, performance, protection, self sealing fuel tanks and belonging to a country that isn't in the war.

Which are you going to worry about?

pbehn · Aug 31, 2020

Isnt the difference in a word develop and deploy. The P-40 obviously didn't change or force the deployment of a more advanced Bf 109 marque. However the LW had many places to send aircraft and was producing/developing several types so the question is where do you send your "E"s and "F"s?

Spitfire V Versus P-40E

Senior Airman

Tech Sergeant

Major

Captain

Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII

Moderator

Major

Moderator

Staff Sergeant

Moderator

Senior Master Sergeant

Captain

Major

Senior Master Sergeant

Staff Sergeant

Major

Moderator

Senior Master Sergeant

Captain

Colonel

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads