Spitfire V Versus P-40E

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules


The P-40E (Kittyhawk 1A) was basically a slightly modified P-40D (Kittyhawk I), of which 600 made, which was basically only in use by the British who got about 560 of them between April and September of 1941. The US got about 40 and deverted maybe of those 20 to Canada. They were in action with the DAF in Egypt by January 1942. The P-40D represetned the big change from the P-40B and C by shortening the nose and putting the big guns in the wing. The early P-40Ds had two guns in each wing, but probably most of them had the traditional three guns in each wing like the P-40E. They were plumbed for an external fuel tank or a bomb on the centerline.

There were 2500 P-40E / Kittyhawk IA built, with most of them (about 1,500) again going to the British, a few hundred were sent to Java and the Philippines shortly before being destroyed largely on the ground by the IJA and IJN, as well as about 300 which arrived too late so were diverted into the hands of the Australians* (but some of those sank in their crates inside transport ships on the way). A (to me) unknown number were sent to New Zealand, but probably no more than 100, and another 300 or so to the 23rd FG (former AVG) in China. The British also sent probably a couple of hundred to the Russians though some of those only after they had been used (and a little worn out) in the Middle East. They originally had the same engine (V-1710-39) as the P-40D but some were actually re-engined in the field or at maintenance depots with the V-1710-73, though that may have only been done in Australia / New Guinea. Later run P-40E had two wing hard points and the centerline external fuel tank /r bomb hard point. They were able to carry up to three 250 lb bombs or more rarely, two 500 lb bombs for short hops. About halfway through the production run they changed the method of ammunition storage which reduced stoppages during high G maneuvers.

The last variant in this closely related sub group is arguably the P-40K / Kittyhawk III - About 1,300 were made. 600 were sent to China (most ending up with the 23 FG but some also with CATF). 192 were sent to England with most of those ending up in the Middle East. 42 were sent to Australia, 22 to New Zealand and 25 were given or sold to Brazil, with most of the remaining 400 or so going to various units in the Pacific, and a few dozen being used briefly by the 57th FG in the MTO. At least 110 were sent to Russia from the US, possibly the British sent some of theirs as well. The K had a different ("rotary valve") cooling system and was given first a fin, then a lengthened tail (by 20") to improve stability. They had some kind of improved exhaust stacks. They used a different version of the M2 browning and like the late run E model had a different method of ammunition storage which reduced stoppages during high G maneuvers. They could routinely carry three 500 lb bombs and on occasion carried two 1,000 lb bombs for short missions.


Apparently in Australia they fitted several P-40E with V-1710-73

Allison also sent replacement engines which were probably midway in performance / toughness between -39 and -73. As you know there were at least two different modifications made to the crank shaft and they also made a change to the crank case and some other parts.

The official approval for the change in boost was lagging behind field conditions, but those were by British / Commonwealth units anyway for the most part over whom USAAF policies didn't matter so much. No US units flew P-40D or E in the Med. The need for overboosting wasn't as urgent in the Pacific though they did it there too of course (as noted in the infamous Allison memo).

* the Australians promptly lost about half of these during training accidents and in landing accidents while ferrying them in several flights from Southern Australia to the Darwin area and then Port Morseby.
 
Last edited:

Have to agree with this, the '41 era MkV's didn't really offer anything over the Mk11 to be honest, the Mk111 on the other hand would have been the best fighter in the world bar none if it was adopted. Likewise the Australian MkV's were a whole new misery, low boost engines in worn out air frames flown by novice pilots using outdated tactics, they were lucky the Japanese gave up.
 
It's a mystery as to why the Australians were operating the Melrin 46s at a 9lb boost limit at the time of the test.

The RAAF didn't raise the boost pressure until February 1943, and only to 12psi, all RAF Merlin 45 and 46's had been cleared for 16 psi in July 1942.
 
Note that the report points out that the Spitfire suffered from having to use the Vokes tropical filter, which added drag and also reduced engine performance. Besides, it was incredibly ugly!

The Merlin used an updraft carb, which meant the air flowed from the bottom of the carb upwards. The British arranged the air intake of both the Spitfire and Hurricane to feed air to the carb with a minimum of hindrance, thereby enabling additional pressure to the engine from the ram air effect. The first noteworthy thing that Sir Stanley Hooker did at RR was pint out that from the theory standpoint the angles used in that installation were less than optimum.

But that meant the engine installation on the Spitfire and Hurricane had no air filter and so one had to be added externally.

In contrast the V-1710 used a downdraft carb, with air entering from the top, and so the air going to the carb had a ways to go to get there - and filters could be installed in that intake duct. Both the P-40M/N and P-51A had provisions for air filters and the Merlin Mustangs continued that feature when they had to move the intake duct to the bottom of the cowl.


 

Attachments

  • Curtiss P-40M-N-Intake131.jpg
    332.5 KB · Views: 33
  • P-51DAirIntake-124.jpg
    338.4 KB · Views: 34
and you use prototypes, practically hand built, for test the over boost to use on mass production engine, this is strange, but i'm not a technician
however all would be easy if we know the title and the collocation of the original document
AFDU was running tactical trials with Spitfire IX No.BS.543 equipped with a Merlin 66 against Mustang X No. AM.203 fitted with a Merlin 65. Test results are dated 9th February 1943. The Mustang was being tested with the Merlin 65 at 18 inches boost in May 1942.

also the original document states " Sabre IV in Typhoon II. Due for production in September 1942." The paper was written in 1942.
 

The first Mustang fly with a Merlin was in October '42, a Mustang X so i've many doubt that a Mustang can be test a Merlin65 in May '42
 

I seriously doubt that the 23rd FG received that many P-40Es and P-40Ks.
 
The first Mustang fly with a Merlin was in October '42, a Mustang X so i've many doubt that a Mustang can be test a Merlin65 in May '42
Indeed. I read the date notation in American format (m/d/y) rather than English (d/m/y). The tests started in December 1942.
That still doesn't change the fact that 5e memo was written In 1942.
 
I seriously doubt that the 23rd FG received that many P-40Es and P-40Ks.

23rd Fighter group had mostly P-40E and P-40Ks. Most of their Aces flew P-40K, according to the Osprey book.

Some of the P-40E and Ks sent to China went to Chinese units (Chinese American composite group squadrons, 3rd and 5th FG), some went to India to the US 51st FG, and a few apparently to the 81st FG though maybe after already being used by the 23rd.
 
Does anyone have a link to the original report of the test from the OP? I thought i had a link but I can't find it.
 
This essay states that the lower performance with the Volkes filter was exaggerated
http://darwinspitfires.com/index.php?page=the-vokes-air-filter-controversy
 
There is a world war II vintage typed memo of the actual test results and descriptions I've seen it but I lost track of it.
 
do you know title and collocation of the memo?
The memo refers to the Typhoon II which was renamed the Tempest in Feb 1942. So you're claiming that a year later the writer was unaware of the name change. The memo also notes that the Sabre IV will go into production in September 1942. The Sabre IV was the power plant for the Tempest I. Neither the engine nor the airframe went into production. Again a half a year later the author didn't know that. And your case is based on?
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread