Three reasons why the P-40 was a better fighter in the PTO than the Spitfire

[nuuumannn]

I wouldn't be risking my pretty Spits in the jabo role though - still plenty of rusty old P-40s around for that.

Precisely the point. The RAAF didn't bother in 1942 - 45, so why would you? You also have not mentioned that there were fewer Spitfires in theatre than there were P-40s and again you are not taking into account the clear definition the roles each type served in the RAAF.

The allies predominantly bombed low, where the Spit V was no more capable than the P-40 in the air to air role and lacked the range as an escort.

A bit irrelevant because as a fighter, regardless of what altitude your bombers are at, height is a precious asset. Not only that but the Spitfire could get to height faster than the P-40.

 

[parsifal]

Most will know the basic story of the Churchill Wing, but for those who dont, here is a version I agree with. I should preface this by saying there are many revisionist challenges to this conventional account, Ive even had it seriously argued that the Spits did not achieve a single victoy in 6 month of fighting. I reject those anglophobic rebuttals, for at least the reason that the Japanese in the TO were forced to abandon their daylight offensive, and this was due, mostly, to losses they were suffering. I think the following is a better, more accurate summation, but its up to each member to decide for themsleves.

Preliminary note. The losses mentioned here are "claimed" losses. Even today there is hot debate and disagreement about actual Japanese losses.

On the 6th Feb '43 the Spitfires of the "Churchill" Wing drew first blood, shooting down a Ki-46 Dinah recce bomber, but it was to be the 2nd Mar that they first faced Zeros. 21 A6Ms of the 202nd Kokutai escorted 9 G4M Bettys on a raid against Darwin. 20 miles off the coast, low on fuel, a flight of 6, 54 squadron Mk Vc Spitfires caught the raiders. A swift, confused, 8 minute dogfight ensued. Both sides claimed to have shot down several enemys, but in fact only one Spitfire and two Zeros were damaged.
Wg Cdr Caldwell noted that in tight, 160 mph turns, the Zero didn't get dangerously close until after the Spitfires' speed had begun to wash off after the second turn. He "easily evaded" the Zero with a downward break.

On the 15th Mar '43, returning from night ops and with their oxygen supply depleted, 452 sqn attacked a force of 50 Japanese aircraft, split evenly between fighters and bombers. Four Spitfires were lost, but four Zeros were shot down, three of the bombers destroyed and a further seven Japanese aircraft were damaged. It was a cold comfort, two of the Spitfire pilots downed were killed, including seven 'kill' ace Sqn Ldr Thorold-Smith, 452s CO.

On the 2nd May'43 another 50 'plane Japanese raid was met by all 33 of the Wings operational fighters. In a gruelling twenty five minute running battle the Spitfires had five of their number shot down, but took ten enemy aircraft in return, with many more damaged. However, a further ten Spitfires were lost to fuel shortages and mechanical failures! The press release from Gen. MacArthurs office stated they had suffered a "severe reverse". With no way of knowing how many of their damaged foes made it back to base there was no way to refute the report. Mud sticks. When the air war over Darwin is mentioned today, the loss of 15 Spitfires for just 10 enemy aircraft inevitably surfaces. Usually with an inevitable analysis about the accuracy of the 10 claimed by the Australians. Because the claimed Japanese losses does not inlude their "failed to return" losses and the Australian admitted losses do, it is not a valid comparson to compare admitted Australian losses to estimated Japanese losses. In terms of claims, the Spits lost 5 aircraft whilst claiming 10. If the overclaiming by the RAAF is consistent with the wartime norms, one can pretty estimate actual losses at about 8 aircraft during the combat. We don't know how many were lost in the flight home.

On 9th May '43 Spitfires operating out of a satelite field claimed two Zeros and damaged a third. The RAAF admitted the loss of a Spitfire in a landing accident.

28 May '43 six Spitfires met thirteen Japanese aircraft. They lost two fighters (one to fuel shortage), but claimed shot down two bombers and a third damaged.

It apparent that something happened in the Australian camp after the 28 May engagement. I don't have specific proof as such, but the loss exchange rate fundamentall
Changed from that date, as the following account shows

20th June '43 the JAAF dispatched 30 bombers and 22 Ki-43 Oscars. They were met by 46 Spitfires. RAAF claims were 9 bombers destroyed, 8 more damaged, 5 fighters were claimed shot down, 2 damaged without the Wing losing a single Spitfire.

28 June '43 a mixed bag of 18 Zeros and Bettys were bounced by 457 sqn. 3 Zeros were claimed destroyed, 2 bombers probably joined them, for no Australian loss.

30 June '43 Fenton, the base of the USAAF 380th BG, was attacked by 27 Bettys and 20 Zeros. 4 bombers were destroyed, 4 more probably destroyed, 3 Zeros were destroyed with 6 probables, for no Spitfires lost.

6 July '43 saw 26 bombers and 21 fighters being engaged by the Wing. 9 Japanese aircraft were destroyed, 2 Spitfires were shot down, but 6 more were lost to mechanical defects and fuel shortages again. I would put that down to a loss of flight discipline

The Japanese had finally had enough. They switched to night bombing. The Spitfires, almost 11,000 miles from their supporting factories, often heavily outnumbered and suffering from conditions that their desert fighters were never designed to cope with, had achieved the task Churchill set them. Yet here we are saying or claiming they were a failure. Im sorry, but I don't make the connection. Far from being defeated by the Zeros, they doggedly ground them down until they could no longer support further attacks. How is that any different to the countless other battles the Spitfires (or for that matter the P-40s) found themselves in 1940-43. They might not have been the magic bullet an adoring public wanted, but skill, courage and a superb fighter carried the day

 

[CobberKane]

Precisely the point. The RAAF didn't bother in 1942 - 45, so why would you? You also have not mentioned that there were fewer Spitfires in theatre than there were P-40s and again you are not taking into account the clear definition the roles each type served in the RAAF.


A bit irrelevant because as a fighter, regardless of what altitude your bombers are at, height is a precious asset. Not only that but the Spitfire could get to height faster than the P-40.

Re the first point; not sure what you mean here. The Spit V was there to be used, and top cover for the ground attacking P-40s is the obvious place for them as they did not have the ability of the P-40s in the ground pounding role. But if they weren't there to be used the P-40s were just as effective air to air at these altitudes anyway, and could have been assigned to top cover themselves, as in China


The Spits RoC might have helped re-engage more quickly after following the accepted tactics of breaking off rather than dogfighting Japanese fighters, but then again the P-40 could disengage and extend more quickly. In the washout, the P-40 was as good air to air as the Spit at these altitudes. and better air to ground. Away from its high altitude capability, which was what was needed over Darwin for sure, what could the spit offer that the RAAF test indicates the P-40 couldn't do as well or better?

 

[nuuumannn]

what could the spit offer that the RAAF test indicates the P-40 couldn't do as well or better?

You're asking that question now? After this entire thread? You read one performance report and that's it? You ignore everything else?

Okay. Faster rate of climb, higher ceiling, having Spit squadrons means that P-40 units can be released for service abroad as GA/fighters whilst the Spits can be used for air defence, their forte. Need I go on and repeat myself that the RAAF bought the Spitfire for the role it was intended - as an interceptor again. At that time that trial was carried out the RAAF had not evolved tactics to deal with the Zero satisfactorily so regardless of which aircraft they used, until better tectics were evolved, the results would not have differed much. The Spit's altitude performance came into its own once hit and run tactics were brought in.

 

[parsifal]

well according to a sumary of the no 2 OTU tests, the following observations can be made

The tests were conducted over 3rd to 5th of November 1942, at the No.2 Operational Training Unit in Mildura - a very hot dry open locale in western Victoria. Oversighting the tests was Wing Cmdr. Peter Jeffrey; the actual test pilots beng:

Flying the P-40E - Flt. Lt. Arthur and Flt.Lt. Jackson.

Flying the Spitfire Mk.Vc - Flt. Lt. Foster and Flt Lt. Wawn.

All pilots involved were experienced combat pilots, with Arthur, Jeffrey, Foster and Jackson all being aces - Foster (9) flying Spitfires over Europe, Arthur (8) and Jeffrey's (6) flying P-40's in the Western Desert and Jackson (5) flying the P-40 against the Japanese over Port Moresby, New Guinea.

The results of the tests were as follows:

1. The Spitfire was fitted with a Volkes Filter

2. As the Spitfire was fitted with VHF, and the P-40 with HF, no R/T between them could be used.

3. The Spitfire tested suffered from negitive 'G' cutout, a typical Spitfire trait.

4. The Tests were carried out at heights between ground level and 20,000ft.

5. Results:

a) Spitfire had the greater rate of climb at all heights - the difference becoming greater as height increased above 13,000ft.
b) Spitfire is far more manoeuvrable at all heights.
c) Kittyhawk is faster in level speed from 0 to 16,000ft. Above 16,000ft Spitfire is faster and again the difference becomes greater as height increases. Estimated speed advantage of Kittyhawk up to 16,000ft: 0ft - 15mph; 12,000ft - 20 to 25mph; 16,000ft - 5 to 10mph.
d) Kittyhawk accelerates, both in dive and on increase of throttle on the level, far more quickly than the Spitfire.

6) Combat 1 - commenced at 13,000ft (equal height) and lasted for 5 to 7 minutes, in which time the fight was practically a stalemate. At the end of this period height was reduced to 4,000ft when the Kittyhawk pilots decided he had nothing to gain by staying and so broke off by diving away. Thus, in combat up to 16,000ft, the Kittyhawk has the distinct advantage in that the pilot can commence the fight and discontinue it at will. In such a combat the Kittyhawks tactics are to hit and run, and then come again.

7) Combat 2 - commenced at 20,000ft (equal height) and lasted less than 2 minutes. Spitfire quickly gained dominate position on the tail of the Kittyhawk and couldn't be shaken. Kittyhawk pilot broke off by diving away.

8) Combat 3 - Commenced at 16,000ft (height advantage to Kittyhawk) an lasted 14 minutes. Kittyhawk made repeated dive and zoom attacks with the Spitfire alternatively breaking hard to avoid and climbing for advantage where possible. Fight reduced to 9,000ft with neither pilot gaining a decisive advantage.

9) Combat 4 - Commence at 16,000ft (height advantage to Spitfire) and lasted 11 minutes. Spitfire pounced on Kittyhawk and attempted to gain a position on tail. Kittyhawk used speed advantage in first level flight and then shallow dive to gain separation and then climb for advantage. Spitfire countered by climbing hard. Gaining advantage Spitfire used climb and dive tactics to force the Kittyhawk to make repeated diving breaks to avoid. At 7,000ft Kittyhawk used superior roll rate to scissor behind the Spitfire, who countered with steep climb. Kittyhawk then used speed advantage to again gain separation and fight was broken off.

10) Visions - the vision in the Spitfire with the hood closed is better than the Kittyhawk, but it is a definte disadvantage that the hood cannot be opened at speeds above 160mph particulary when searching up-sun.

11) The flying characteristics of the Spitfire make it more suitable for Operations:
a) it is easier to fly.
b) Take-off run is much shorter and so could be operated from smaller landing grounds. Note - ithe Spitfire does not handle hard dirt strips as well as the Kittyhawk.
c) Mixture and boost are automatically controlled.
d) It is not necessary, as it is in the Kittyhawk, to alter rudder and elevator trims over great speed changes.

All these facts greatly reduce the pilot's problems and so increase his fighting efficiency.

The report concluded by recommending that as the large Volkes air filter on the Spitfire cost 20-30mph in top speed, it should be removed inoperational service - or at least an alternative found. Also mentioned was the effect of the Spitfires rough paint finish on performance but the general feeling of the report was that the Spitfire was perahps the better fighter, especially at altitude.

The report also mentioned being surprised at just how well the Kittyhawk managed to hold it's own against the Spitfire in combat, concluding that in combat against an opponet it highlights the importance of using one's aircraft strengths to advantage.

 

[parsifal]

so the answer is....the Spitfire had strengths that the P-40 lacked, and vice versa. not shown in these tests is the firepower advantage of the Spit over the P-40

 

[nuuumannn]

Yep, Parsifal I agree, but the real answer to how the RAAF fighters would defeat the Japanese (which was the reason why the Spitfire was bought in the first place, not for comparison with the P-40) was, like Joe pointed out earlier; tactics, tactics, tactics...

 

[CobberKane]

You're asking that question now? After this entire thread? You read one performance report and that's it? You ignore everything else?

Okay. Faster rate of climb, higher ceiling, having Spit squadrons means that P-40 units can be released for service abroad as GA/fighters whilst the Spits can be used for air defence, their forte. Need I go on and repeat myself that the RAAF bought the Spitfire for the role it was intended - as an interceptor again. At that time that trial was carried out the RAAF had not evolved tactics to deal with the Zero satisfactorily so regardless of which aircraft they used, until better tectics were evolved, the results would not have differed much. The Spit's altitude performance came into its own once hit and run tactics were brought in

.

Nuuumaann, I'm not asking what the Spitfire offered compared to the P-40 in respect to particular aspects of it's performance. I know it offered better climb, and better turn and much better altitude capacity. As you say, that's why the RAAF bought it - as an interceptor. There those attributes were vital. In any other role the P-40 had attributes of it's own that enabled it to do the tasks required in the PTO itself. I asked "Away from its high altitude capability...what could the spit offer that the RAAF test indicates the P-40 couldn't do as well or better?" If someone can give me examples that happened - for instance, Spitfires being successful in intercepting raids where the P-40 would have been in its operating zone, but was too slow in the climb to contact the enemy - I'd like to hear. Faster rate of climb, higher ceiling are only as good as their application to the situation at hand, and according to the RAAF at 16000 ft or below these attributes did not confer any superiority over the Spitfire air to air.
Regarding my basing my opinion only on the RAAF report - yes, because it's the only report I've seen. If you have any conflicting reports from the people who flew these aircraft they would be very welcome.

 

[nuuumannn]

But what difference does it make, Cobber? Like has been stated, until the RAAF changed its tactics against the Japanese, the points in the test were irrelevant, but for what its worth, the Spit had a greater rate of climb at all heights and was far more manoeuvrable at all heights. Points worth remembering and which any Spitfire pilot would take advantage of against a P-40, if any such combat was to take place.

Of interest, as an aside, in the original document written by Wg Cdr Peter Jeffrey, OC 2 OTU, Mildura, the Spitfire was referred to throughout the document as the Capstan and the original spelling of 'Vokes' was used.

 

[wuzak]

The Spitfire in that test was a Vc. This would mean it was fitted, at least at some stage, with 4 x 20mm cannon.

We know that the cannon cost performance, due to extra drag. I assume that the 4 cannon Spits had even more drag penalty than the 2 cannon Spits.

Did the RAAF remove the outer cannon for operation service? Apparently the outer guns were unreliable because of inadequate heating, and woul dsometimes be removed.

 

[nuuumannn]

The Spitfire in that test was a Vc. This would mean it was fitted, at least at some stage, with 4 x 20mm cannon.

Wuzak, the Aussie VCs had the 'C' (or Universal) wing with the capacity to fit the two Hisso cannon in each wing, but it appears that almost (but not certain) all were fitted with the 'B' wing armament of a 20 mm cannon and two .303s in each wing. The second, nominally outboard cannon position was unoccupied. Since I've never seen any pics of Aussie VCs fitted with two cannon in each wing, I suspect this work was done at the MUs before the aircraft left the UK. I've also read that the vast majority of VCs built were, in fact fitted with the 'C' wing with 'B' wing armament.

Its interesting to note that in North Africa the Spit-bomber, based on the VC was actually quite successful and introduced by Keith Park himself; "The reason I introduced the Spit-bomber was that the enemy was ignoring our fighter sweeps over his aerodromes in the south of Sicily. I used Hurricane bombers at first and the enemy reacted by sending up his fighters to intercept. As a result of flying trials we found that the fitting of 2 x 250 lb bombs to the Spitfire slightly increased the take off run, but slowed down the rate of climb by about 10%. There was practically no difference in the speed at level flight, and in the dive the speed was increased owing to the higher wing loading."

 

[nuuumannn]

Away from its high altitude capability...what could the spit offer that the RAAF test indicates the P-40 couldn't do as well or better?" If someone can give me examples that happened - for instance, Spitfires being successful in intercepting raids where the P-40 would have been in its operating zone, but was too slow in the climb to contact the enemy - I'd like to hear.

This is patently obvious even without examples, Cobber. With a superior rate of climb at all altitudes to the P-40, the Spitfire could easily do this. In fact, if you re-read that assessment you will see that the only advantage the P-40 holds against the Spitfire in a combat situation is its faster dive speed. What advantage in a combat arena could this possess, except to escape?

Let's look a scenario based on the information provided in this report. Scenario One: P-40 attacks Spitfire. P-40 at higher altitude than Spitfire initiates attack by diving toward the Spitfire. If the P-40 does not finish the Spitfire in its first pass, the P-40 has one of two options; either disengage by using its superior dive speed and outrunning the Spitfire, or turn back toward the Spitfire. Taking advantage of his aircraft's superior climb rate, the Spitfire pilot could initiate a climb away from the P-40, which, once established in a climb, would find itself at a disadvantage since the higher it goes, the slower it gets. The Spitfire could maintain a higher rate of climb to altitude where it could then escape by speeding away, while the P-40 would struggle to catch the Spitfire at any height above 13,000 ft.

This leads to Scenario Two: Spitfire attacks P-40. At any altitude, the Spitfire could use its superior climb speed to draw the P-40 into chasing it. Once established in the climb the P-40 would begin to slow and lose energy, at which point the Spitfire could use its superior manoeuvrability and turn in toward the P-40. The P-40 would be at a considerable disadvantage as any attempt to turn away in a climb would result in either the Spitfire turning inside it and gaining a favourable firing position, or the P-40 stalling owing to a high angle of attack and speed loss. The only manoeuvre the P-40 could do in order to survive would be a bunt and dive away, but doing this whilst in the climb would result in a sudden loss of energy, which the Spitfire could capitalise on since it has the advantage of higher speed in the turn and subsequent dive toward the P-40, which would place it in a favourable firing position. The Spitfire's cannon armament would come into its own in this scenario as the P-40 dived away.

In conclusion the only way the P-40 can defeat the Spitfire is a fast single pass dive from altitude. At any height, the Spitfire could use its superior climb rate to accelerate away from the P-40, or initiate a turning fight, where the Spitfire will gain the advantage owing to superior manoeuvrability.

The Imperial Japanese Navy pilots flying the Zero learned to defeat American fighters by luring them into a climb and turning in on them since the Zero's low stalling speed enabled its pilots to manoeuvre when the American aircraft suffered a loss of control or the pilot lost concentration owing to following the Japanese fighter through his gun sight.

 

[CobberKane]

This is patently obvious even without examples, Cobber. With a superior rate of climb at all altitudes to the P-40, the Spitfire could easily do this. In fact, if you re-read that assessment you will see that the only advantage the P-40 holds against the Spitfire in a combat situation is its faster dive speed. What advantage in a combat arena could this possess, except to escape?

The report found that as well as being able to out-dive the Spitfire, below 16000ft the P-40 could out-roll it, out-accelerate it and was faster. These are not advantages in a combat situation?

Let's look a scenario based on the information provided in this report. Scenario One: P-40 attacks Spitfire. P-40 at higher altitude than Spitfire initiates attack by diving toward the Spitfire. If the P-40 does not finish the Spitfire in its first pass, the P-40 has one of two options; either disengage by using its superior dive speed and outrunning the Spitfire, or turn back toward the Spitfire. Taking advantage of his aircraft's superior climb rate, the Spitfire pilot could initiate a climb away from the P-40, which, once established in a climb, would find itself at a disadvantage since the higher it goes, the slower it gets. The Spitfire could maintain a higher rate of climb to altitude where it could then escape by speeding away, while the P-40 would struggle to catch the Spitfire at any height above 13,000 ft.

Lets take a look at the same scenario playing out a different way. The Kittyhawk pilot is not 'lured' into climbing and discovers he does have options beyond diving away or turning back. He can make repeated attacks by booming and zooming while the Spitfire must break away and climb when it is able, which after quarter of an hour of combat is still not enough to enable it to turn the tables. Which is, of course, exactly what happened in the test.

This leads to Scenario Two: Spitfire attacks P-40. At any altitude, the Spitfire could use its superior climb speed to draw the P-40 into chasing it. Once established in the climb the P-40 would begin to slow and lose energy, at which point the Spitfire could use its superior manoeuvrability and turn in toward the P-40. The P-40 would be at a considerable disadvantage as any attempt to turn away in a climb would result in either the Spitfire turning inside it and gaining a favourable firing position, or the P-40 stalling owing to a high angle of attack and speed loss. The only manoeuvre the P-40 could do in order to survive would be a bunt and dive away, but doing this whilst in the climb would result in a sudden loss of energy, which the Spitfire could capitalise on since it has the advantage of higher speed in the turn and subsequent dive toward the P-40, which would place it in a favourable firing position. The Spitfire's cannon armament would come into its own in this scenario as the P-40 dived away.

Or: Spitfire attacks P-40. Inconveniently P-40 again does not play to the Spifire's strengths by climbing or turning but annoyingly uses his speed and dive advantage to separate. Both aircraft climb for advantage, Spit being the better climber gets higher and initiates repeated boom and zooms, which the P-40 avoids by breaks, as the Spitfire did in scenario one. P-40 manages to use superior roll to get behind Spitfire, but Spitfire able to climb away. P-40 ends the fight by using its strengths to disengage. Which is what happened in the report

In conclusion the only way the P-40 can defeat the Spitfire is a fast single pass dive from altitude. At any height, the Spitfire could use its superior climb rate to accelerate away from the P-40, or initiate a turning fight, where the Spitfire will gain the advantage owing to superior manoeuvrability.

An alternative conclusion, and the one reached when the aircraft were tested: Below 1600 ft the Kittyhawk is able to fight the Spitfire to a stalemate, and has the distinct advantage of being able to engage and disengage at will.

The Imperial Japanese Navy pilots flying the Zero learned to defeat American fighters by luring them into a climb and turning in on them since the Zero's low stalling speed enabled its pilots to manouevre when the American aircraft suffered a loss of control or the pilot lost concentration owing to following the Japanese fighter through his gun sight.

[/QUOTE]

And the American fighters learned the hard way not to be lured in to climbing and turning fights, but to use their advantages in speed, dive and roll at speed to combat the Zero and Oscar successfully.

I suspect we might actually be at cross purposes here. I was asking what the Spitfire offers that the P-40 does not in terms of use in the PTO against a common enemy. I was not concerned with the specific advantages the aircraft have compared to each other

 

[nuuumannn]

The Kittyhawk pilot is not 'lured' into climbing and discovers he does have options beyond diving away or turning back. He can make repeated attacks by booming and zooming while the Spitfire must break away and climb when it is able, which after quarter of an hour of combat is still not enough to enable it to turn the tables.

Nope, read the report again. it stated the following: "Combat - commenced at 13,000 ft and lasted 5 - 7 minutes". In reality P-40 could only make one diving pass successfully. The P-40 pilot has a slower rate of climb to get back above the Spitfire, so do you think the Spitfire pilot would just fly straight and level while the P-40 pilot is dragging his arse back above it? Use your brains! The Spitfire pilot would initiate a climb away while the P-40 is entering a climb and the scenario I proposed would result.

P-40 manages to use superior roll to get behind Spitfire

Not true. Here is a quote directly from the report: "The tests were carried out at all heights between ground level and 20,000 feet. Result: Capstan has greater rate of climb at all heights - difference becoming greater as height increses above 13,000 ft. Capstan is far more manoeuvrable at all heights"

Rolling is not going to get you behind an enemy aircraft, a superior turn rate will, however. Spitfire would not use boom and zoom, but a turning fight where the scenario I proposed would result again. The only thing the P-40 can do is break away and end the combat, but as I said, the Spitfire's cannon armament gives it advantage in range at which it can engage the P-40.

Quote from the test; "Combat - commenced at 13,000 ft and lasted 5 - 7 minutes in which time fight was practically a stalemate." In reality any Spitfire pilot smart enough would climb above that altitude where its advantages come to the fore, leaving the P-40 floundering.

Below 1600 ft the Kittyhawk is able to fight the Spitfire to a stalemate, and has the distinct advantage of being able to engage and disengage at will.

Not necessarily true in a realistic scenario, despite what the report states. At any altitude the Spitfire could out turn and outclimb the P-40, enabling it to break off or initiate combat and any Spitfire pilot worth his smarts would take advantage of this. Like I said, how can a superior dive speed benefit in an attack if the only means of utilisng it is by diving away? If the object is to destroy the enemy aircraft, diving away is of no use at all.

And the American fighters learned the hard way not to be lured in to climbing and turning fights, but to use their advantages in speed, dive and roll at speed to combat the Zero and Oscar successfully.

True, but for the purposes of demonstrating a one-on-one combat between these two aircraft I used that description. It proved very successful for the Japanese for over a year and even once the Americans got the ascendency over the Japanese, nothing they had could outmanoeuvre the Zero - nothing, so its advantages were still there and Allied pilots were warned not to engage the Zero in a turning fight.

I was asking what the Spitfire offers that the P-40 does not in terms of use in the PTO against a common enemy.

And if you re-read through the entire thread you'll find the answer, Cobber.

 

[CobberKane]

In response to my mentioning that in your first scenarion the P-40 could make repaeted attacks on the spit:

Nope, read the report again. it stated the following: "Combat - commenced at 13,000 ft and lasted 5 - 7 minutes". In reality P-40 could only make one diving pass successfully.

Nuuuman, you specifically stated that the P-40 was above the Spitfire and initiated the attack. In the report this scenasio had the P-4 able to make multiple attacks of the spitfire

In response to my mentioning the P-40 used roll to get behind the Spit:

Not true. Here is a quote directly from the report: "The tests were carried out at all heights between ground level and 20,000 feet. Result: Capstan has greater rate of climb at all heights - difference becoming greater as height increses above 13,000 ft. Capstan is far more manoeuvrable at all heights

"

Again, from the report "At 7,000ft Kittyhawk used superior roll rate to scissor behind the Spitfire". How much more explicit can that be?

Rolling is not going to get you behind an enemy aircraft

,

See above

....a superior turn rate will, however. Spitfire would not use boom and zoom, but a turning fight where the scenario I proposed would result again. The only thing the P-40 can do is break away and end the combat,...

From the report: "the Kittyhawk has the distinct advantage in that the pilot can commence the fight and discontinue it at will"


"

but as I said, the Spitfire's cannon armament gives it advantage in range at which it can engage the P-40.

And the disadvantage of running out of ammo much sooner (cue debate about the relative merits of .50s v 20mm, sigh)

Quote from the test; "Combat - commenced at 13,000 ft and lasted 5 - 7 minutes in which time fight was practically a stalemate." In reality any Spitfire pilot smart enough would climb above that altitude where its advantages come to the fore, leaving the P-40 floundering

.

And if the P-40 doesn't try to climb after him we are back to the fourth scenario in the test, where the P-40 evades attack from above and breaks off at will. Perhaps that's why the combat veteran flying the Spitfire didn't do it - that or he wasn't "smart enough"

At any altitude the Spitfire could out turn and outclimb the P-40, enabling it to break off or initiate combat. Like I said, how can a superior dive speed benefit in an attack if the only means of utilisng it is by diving away? If the object is to destroy the enemy aircraft, diving away is of no use at all.

Out-turning your opponent will not allow you to break contact, just avoid betting hit (which is certainly important). I can see how in a level engagement the Spit might break away by climbing, but I suspect it might give your oponent a better free shot that the P-40's tactic of diving, particularly given the Spits negative G cut out. And when the P-40 initiated combat from above the Spits superior climb was insufficient to prevent the P-40 from making multiple attacks before diving away at the tiime of it's choosing. In any case, having gained a height advantage We are back to the fourth scenario in the repot, which resulted in - a stalemate

True, but for the purposes of demonstrating a one-on-one combat between these two aircraft I used that description. It proved very successful for the Japanese for over a year and even once the Americans got the ascendency over the Japanese, nothing they had could outmanoeuvre the Zero - nothing, so its advantages were still there and Allied pilots were warned not to engage the Zero in a turning fight.

Just as, no doubt, the Japanese were warned not to try outdiving the allied fighters, whose advantages remained just as constant.

Bear in mind here that I am not trying to say the Kittyhawk was a better air to air weapon than the Spitfire below 16000ft - just that it was as good, both in direct comparison and against the Japanese fighters thay faced.

Use your brains!

Sorry, I'm tyring. And avoiding invective, too.

 

[stona]

The oft quoted 30mph reduction in speed was not what the Aussies discovered when they ran trials with a "Capstan" aircraft fitted with a Vokes filter against one fitted with a locally manufactured approximation to the standard temperate air intake.
There was much wailing and gnashing of teeth in Australia about what should be done, and whether the trade off in reduced engine life was worth the less than expected gain in speed.

These are just some of the relevant documents generated in Australia regarding the filters. I was surprised that the Aussies had no drawings from Supermarine for the Spitfire and had to seek the drawings for the temperate air intake which they wished to copy from England.

Cheers

Steve

 

[Greyman]

Only a loss of 3.5 mph due to the tropical cowling and filter? Pretty surprising. A look at the data at wwiiaircraftperformance.com somewhat agrees as well. I judge only a loss of about 4-6 mph under 17,000 feet (though measured on two different aircraft).

And here all this time I thought the Bf 109 and its tropical equipment were far more efficient, but they appear to be about the same.

 

[stona]

It is important to note that the Australians were aware that the testing was not exactly rigorous (as at Farnborough or Boscombe Down) because they had neither the means nor facilities. They made practical trials as best they could. They were also well aware that their version of a non tropicalized filter/cowling might not be as efficient as the Vickers Supermarine original, these were experienced airmen who knew what they were doing, they were just a very long way from London, Eastleigh or Castle Bromwich.

In 1939 Australia had effectively no native aircraft industry at all. The Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation was embarking on the Wirraway project and de Havilland Australia was nailing together parts imported from the UK.

The RAAF did seek and receive the relevant drawings and "official" performance figures from the UK, via its overseas HQ in London.

As an ex rugby player I have had cause to call Aussies many things, but "daft" is not one of them

Cheers

Steve

 

[oldcrowcv63]

Its all a fallacy, I tell you! A fallacy!

I agree, Climate change only happens in the Fall and I have the data to prove it.

 

[Glider]

Excellent documents Steve