Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Is it meaningfull to compare a ground attacker (Typhoon) and a fighter (P-40)? They have different operational profiles.
Typhoons were fighters that were later used as fighter-bombers.
Originally the Typhoon (and Tornado) were supposed to supersede the Hurricane and Spitfire.
In terms of performance, the Typhoon is superior to the P-40F in most respects.
It climbed better at lower to medium altitudes.
Was faster at all heights.
It had better firepower.
It had better load carrying capability.
On the downside, its ceiling was slightly lower and high altitude climb was less. The engine was unreliable at the start, but that was improved over time.
It had some structural problems, but a fix was found and implemented for them.
You mentioned the Fw 190 Jabos. The Typhoon could track them down - the P-40F, probably not.
The Typhoon could catch and destroy V-1s. P-40F probably not.
The Typhoon was also used to escort Mosquito FBs on occasion. I doubt the P-40F could have kept up.
Your first question is moot. Many more P-40s were built (though not P-40Fs), they served in more theatres over a longer period and had more opportunity for aerial combat.
From a performance perspective I think the Typhoon was better in every way except for roll-rate and turning ability.
I don't know how many claims (such things aren't my bag) by catching Jabo raiders and turning those into a very dangerous activity for the LW it made a significant effect. Armour was fitted below and around the pilot and cooling system prior to D-Day as I understand it. Apart from N Europe I believe some were sent to the middle east but the Sabre engine was a complicated beast to operate on the other side of the world, the Typhoon was basically out of service as soon as the war ended.So any idea how many air-to-air victory claims were made by Typhoon pilots?
Were Typhoons ever deployed against the Japanese?
When was all the armor added?
S
Both the Typhoon and the P-40 were built as air superiority fighters and both pretty much could not hack it and were relegated to mostly ground attack. Both had only single stage superchargers and in Europe that was unacceptable, especially after 1941, not only due to high altitude performance but also due simply the need to pack enough horsepower under the hood.
The Typhoon was a better air superiority fighter than the P-40 for the time period it was in service but that did not mean it was nearly as good as the Spit IX, P-38, P-47, or P-51. It is difficult to compare the two because they are different generations. The P-40 is a contemporary of the Hurricane. The P-40F and P-40L were out of production before the Typhoon became operational in large numbers. P-40F's and L's were re-engined with V-1710's when the original Merlins wore out and there were no replacements available.
The Typhoon was not a very popular aircraft with its pilots. The poor reliability of the engine was a big factor but not the only one. I recently read a book by a Spitfire pilot who was posted to ferry airplanes within Great Britain because of some problems he had while flying the Spitfire. He liked ferrying Typhoons and the other pilots were all too happy to let him have all of them. When delivering a Typhoon to one unit he made a typical tight fighter style pattern and once on the ground was lectured that he should never do that with a Typhoon - bring it in on a long and slow final approach. On the other hand he said that when he flew Typhoons operationally they used the tight fighter pattern.
Aside from the engine problems the Typhoon had a tendency for the tail to break off in a dive; reinforcement helped but the problem never seemed to go away entirely. The Typhoon vibrated badly; they found that for some reason the 4 blade prop helped that, which is the reason for the change. The Typhoon was terrible at ditching, diving under right away; pilots usually did not get out. When they were flying over the Channel to attack targets before D-Day the pilots were every mindful that if the engine started acting up or took combat damage they might well be better off to take their chances evading the Germans in France than risking a Channel crossing.
The author of the book described having an engine problem on a mission over France and trying to get home. The engine quit over the Channel and since he was expecting it he very carefully came down and dragged the tail first to slow down. But the problem was not that big airscoop but the wing shape and it dove under once the wing hit; he narrowly escaped and spent the night out there, was rescued in the morning.
Of course, the Typhoon plus anti-armor rocket was a great combination, although losses were severe, since the aircraft had to fly a nice straight approach to fire the rockets. However the RAF really had no other choice. The Spitfire was terrible fighter bomber and the Hurricane too low in performance. The Typhoon replaced the Whirlwind in a couple of RAF units and those pilots seemed to prefer the earlier aircraft, where they could cross the Channel with one turning and one burning if required with more confidence.
I think that all in all the RAF would have been much better off with the P-47 if it had been available in sufficient numbers - which it might have been if Curtiss had focused more on the P-47G and less on the P-40. In the CBI the RAF replaced the Hurricane with the P-47, not the Typhoon. Of course the P-40 pilots also would have been better off if they had been equipped with P-47's, too.
The Tempest seemed to have fixed all the Typhoon's faults, except maybe the engine, and if that quit at least you could ditch it and survive.
Today the P-40 is a popular warbird. I don't think anyone is flying any Typhoons.
The Tempest seemed to have fixed all the Typhoon's faults, except maybe the engine, and if that quit at least you could ditch it and survive.
One of the things that I'd really like to know is if the Typhoon really was a better air superiority fighter than a P-40F or L, I'd like to see evidence other than raw performance figures, like how many enemy aircraft were destroyed by Typhoon pilots. as for example high top speed with poor roll and turn characteristics isn't necessarily a recipe for success. The P-40 was not, incidentally, a contemporary of the Hurricane in terms of design, the Hurricane is an older design and peaked a bit earlier too, though all three aircraft, Hurricane, Typhoon and P-40 served during overlapping periods.
You seem fixated on aerial victories.
When that is, largely, a measure of opportunity.
What were the victories per sortie?
How many enemy encounters per sortie?
So any idea how many air-to-air victory claims were made by Typhoon pilots?
Were Typhoons ever deployed against the Japanese?
When was all the armor added?
S
What were they doing with Typhoons all that time before D-Day?