The Typhoon was commissioned as a fighter to replace the Hurricane and Spitfire, but advances in fuels and engines meant that it never really did replace the Spitfire apart from a brief period. At the Dieppe raid there were 3 squadrons of Typhoons but 4 squadrons of Spitfire MkIXs escorting B-17s. it also saw the use of the Allison Mustang. So from 19 August 1942 the RAF already had better fighter options in terms of altitude performance range and speed. If the Typhoon couldn't carry a big payload it would probably have been shelved, as it was it was a massive waste of resources.
- Status
- Thread starter
- #262
So the conventional wisdom goes. However I don't think they went into their bombing campaign completely blind. They did know how the German bombing offensive went and why they switched to night bombing, and what happened to English daylight bombers and why the British had switched to night bombing, and then explicitly to area bombing in early (February) 1942, followed by the "Dehousing" policy memo in March of that same year. Some time between them and the first US fighter escort of a B-17s mission later in 1942, it had begun to dawn on some of them that there would be a need.
The American Army Air Force generals, and the bomber mafia specifically, still believed in their doctrines like "the bomber will always get through" and their perceived super weapons especially the B-17 and the Norden Bombsight, and they still believed in precision daylight bombing. But a nagging counter narrative was already taking shape even in 1941. The British were doing their best to talk the Yanks down from the ledge (as they saw it) and give up the idea of bombing in the daytime altogether. By mid 1942 this was becoming a rather heated argument. In theory B-17s were so extraordinary they could get the job done, but combat experience all through 1942 did not indicate any aircraft that could attack German targets alone in the daytime, except maybe Mosquitos.
The middle position between night bombing and unescorted daylight bombing is escorted daylight bombing. So they were hedging their bets a bit in supporting the development of fighters which looked like they could perform escort duties, in spite of the long and painful development cycle of both planes (P-38 and P-47). P-38s incidentally were being used to escort B-24s and B-17 in the Med from mid November 1942 and all through 1943. The first escort mission by P-38s was on 19 November 1942, they escorted a group of B-17s bombers on a raid over Tunis. I think it was already quite clear in early 1943 that B-24s in particular needed escorts over Tunisia and later Sicily and Italy etc. They were surprisingly effective at wiping out air bases - I think more German and Italian planes were destroyed on the ground by the heavy bombers in winter 1942/43 than by any other single method in that Theater. But they needed help to survive, they were taking losses even with escorts.
The proof that escorts were required over Northern Europe may not have been irrefutable until after Schweinfurt etc., but remember at the time of Schweinfurt many of the raids were already being escorted, it's just that the best targets were beyond the range of the escorts, tempting them to send the bombers out alone in the last leg of their trip. The Regensburg raid was escorted by 87 P-47s from the 353rd and 56th Fighter Groups as far as Belgium. The Schweinfurt raid had 88 P-47s and 96 Spitfires watching their backs on the way in,. They were then met in "withdrawal support" by different fighter groups (totallying 93 P-47s and 95 Spitfires for Schweinfurt) on the way back out again. The P-47s of the 56th Fighter Group were escorting bombers (so called "Ramrod" missions) from 29 April 1943. 78th Fighter Group were flying escort missions from Duxford also from April 1943.
So it's not like the notion of escorting B-17s and B-24s was new in 1944. That is just a shorthand version of a more nuanced reality. Given that they were flying heavy bomber escort missions with P-38s in the Med from November 42 and with P-47s in April 43, I think they conceived of the idea of using them in that way maybe a little earlier than that.
Last edited:
Just a couple notes on the performance difference between these two aircraft.
By August of 43 the Typhoon with the bubble canopy could make 398 @ 8.800' and 417 @20,500 TAS
This compares to 320 @9,800 and 370 @19,270' for the P-40F that's an 80 mile an hour advantage down low and 47 mph at 20k for the Typhoon
all numbers from WWII Aircraft Performance
Carbon monoxide poisoning occured in other WW2 era fighters as well, notably the F4U which, which when operating for the the FAA, had the same requirements for oxygen at all times when the engine was running. Strange how this almost never gets mentioned. In any case, its probably just the smart thing to do when you have a 2000 hp engine spewing exhaust in your face.
Total loss of Typhoon aircraft due to loss of tail was 25 aircraft, or less than 1%, which, when you consider the urgency of the war effort, wasn't a lot, and has been greatly over played in the post war record of the Typhoon. It also proves that the remedies worked.
By August of 43 the Typhoon with the bubble canopy could make 398 @ 8.800' and 417 @20,500 TAS
This compares to 320 @9,800 and 370 @19,270' for the P-40F that's an 80 mile an hour advantage down low and 47 mph at 20k for the Typhoon
all numbers from WWII Aircraft Performance
Carbon monoxide poisoning occured in other WW2 era fighters as well, notably the F4U which, which when operating for the the FAA, had the same requirements for oxygen at all times when the engine was running. Strange how this almost never gets mentioned. In any case, its probably just the smart thing to do when you have a 2000 hp engine spewing exhaust in your face.
Total loss of Typhoon aircraft due to loss of tail was 25 aircraft, or less than 1%, which, when you consider the urgency of the war effort, wasn't a lot, and has been greatly over played in the post war record of the Typhoon. It also proves that the remedies worked.
Made some graphs cause I can't stop myself. Most information here at: WWII Aircraft Performance
Kittyhawk II - FL220 - Merlin V16501 - 8,910 lbs
Speed: 48 inch, 3000 rpm (combat, 5 min) 54 inch, 3000 rpm (estimate by me)
Typhoon Ib - R7700 - Sabre II - 11,070 lbs
Speed: +7 lb and +9 lb, 3700 rpm (combat, 5 min)
Typhoon Ib - R8805 - Sabre II
Speed: +7 lb and +9 lb, 3700 rpm (combat, 5 min)
Kittyhawk II - FL220 - Merlin V-1650-1 - 8,910 lbs
Climb: 48 inch, 2850 rpm, 2990 rpm at 20,000 ft. (max climb, 30 min)
Typhoon Ib - R7700 - Sabre II - 11,070 lbs
Climb: +6 lb boost, 3500 rpm (max climb, 1 hr limit) 1942 rating
Typhoon Ib - R8762 - Sabre II - 11,090 lbs
Climb: +7 lb boost, 3700 rpm (max climb, 1 hr limit) 1943 rating
For the later Typhoon I placed the older A&AEE Typhoon curve onto the two speeds given. This wasn't an official A&AEE test like all the rest. This machine incorporated all of the modifications that were put into production:
My P-40 knowledge is pretty low, but it seems like the F started out with a 5 min combat limit of 48 inches, raising to 54 inches, and finally 61 inches (?). I hope to get more information and take a stab at estimating the higher boost speeds.
Kittyhawk II - FL220 - Merlin V16501 - 8,910 lbs
Speed: 48 inch, 3000 rpm (combat, 5 min) 54 inch, 3000 rpm (estimate by me)
Typhoon Ib - R7700 - Sabre II - 11,070 lbs
Speed: +7 lb and +9 lb, 3700 rpm (combat, 5 min)
Typhoon Ib - R8805 - Sabre II
Speed: +7 lb and +9 lb, 3700 rpm (combat, 5 min)
Kittyhawk II - FL220 - Merlin V-1650-1 - 8,910 lbs
Climb: 48 inch, 2850 rpm, 2990 rpm at 20,000 ft. (max climb, 30 min)
Typhoon Ib - R7700 - Sabre II - 11,070 lbs
Climb: +6 lb boost, 3500 rpm (max climb, 1 hr limit) 1942 rating
Typhoon Ib - R8762 - Sabre II - 11,090 lbs
Climb: +7 lb boost, 3700 rpm (max climb, 1 hr limit) 1943 rating
For the later Typhoon I placed the older A&AEE Typhoon curve onto the two speeds given. This wasn't an official A&AEE test like all the rest. This machine incorporated all of the modifications that were put into production:
- tail wheel doors
- internal mass balance rudder
- cannon fairings
- whip aerial
- 4-blade propeller
- shrouded exhausts
- sliding hood
- general improvement of finish, fits and paintwork
This wasn't a production machine, and it seems a more representative late Typhoon would be about 5-7 mph slower.My P-40 knowledge is pretty low, but it seems like the F started out with a 5 min combat limit of 48 inches, raising to 54 inches, and finally 61 inches (?). I hope to get more information and take a stab at estimating the higher boost speeds.
Last edited:
There were/are several long and informative posts about the P-38 and P-51 here. If you wanted a high altitude long range fighter plane first flying in 1939, only a twin engine would do it hence the P-38. If you want a single engine long range fighter based on the Merlin you get it in mass production in 1943. Taking the best case scenario without completely re writing history compared to what actually happened could advance things by (perhaps) months not years. The B-17 was used at Dieppe escorted by Spitfire IXs (August 1942). There were some unescorted raids which may have given a false sense of security, its easier to hit a French port than a German city for obvious reasons. In addition to the use of escorts the bombers used also changed especially regarding front turret armament. The aeroplane is only one issue, aeroplanes need pilots and runways. To escort a mission deep into Germany required any waves of fighters, meaning you need thousands of planes and thousands of pilots, to be effective those pilots need circa 200 hrs on type and miles of runway. Whatever a bomber mafia may or may not have thought and said, things could not really have been done much quicker anyway, the engines planes fuels people and infrastructure just wasn't there and had to be put there. In addition many hard lessons had to be learned as far as actually mounting missions and just as importantly calling them off.
The Ki-61 managed to be a long range fighter without 100/130 grade fuel (even without 100 oct), with aerodynamics of yesterday (16% thick wing of 2R profile) and also yesterday's 1-stage supercharger. IIRC no one in Allied camp regarded the Ki-61 as a push-over.
MIflyer
Major
Undoubtably the Tempest took over for the Typhoon when the unit was not disbanded. That book I cited said that when the unit was disbanded they were first told to leave their Tempests in Germany and then fly Spitfires out of a narrow short strip surrounded by rubble to ferry them back to England. This worried the commander a great deal since only he and one other pilot had flown a Spitfire before! They all made it, though.
Kinda get the impression that the RAF were glad to see the back of the Typhoon don't you?
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
Come on Tomo.
GIve the Americans 500 Ki 61 in late 1942 or early 1943 and how far would they have gotten into Germany?
Or Use hundreds of Ki 61s in 1942 to escort British bombers past the Ruhr in daylight.
How well would it have worked?
There are all kinds of figures for fuel capacity of the KI 61 but a lot seem to be around 150 US gallons internal. The P-40 held 148?
A P-40 had theoretical range of over 1000 miles with a drop tank, (75 gallon?) but it was useless as an escort fighter over Europe in 1942.
The Ki 61 wasn't a pushover but it wasn't really a viable escort fighter for 4 engine bombers either.
the Ki 61 did use one of the highest aspect ratio wings on WW II fighter for good cruise efficiency
Ki 61 carried 199 US gals of internal fuel, plus 2 x 50 US gals in drop tanks.
My point about Ki-61 is that it used aerodynamics from late 1930s and engine from 1939. The Ha-40 was no better engine than V-1710-39, or even than -33. Merlins can do it even better, without need for 130 grade fuel and more than 1-stage S/C. So I'd say that Ki-61 with Merlin would've escorted British bombers over Ruhr already by 1939. Let's not forget that need for escort was there years before USAAF appeared over Europe, and it was not USAAF that needed them. A term '4 engined bomber' does not equal to B-17, while escort altitudes were not always 25000 ft. Especially before late 1942.
- Thread starter
- #272
Elegant graphs but there are a few things off on your P-40 stats. Some of this is understandable because it's hard to find much online about the F or L variants.
- I think your weight is really high here (original factory production? it's closer to max gross weight (i.e. with external fuel tank etc.) P-40F normal loaded weight (with 6 guns) is 8,500 -source and -source, P-40L normal loaded weight is 8,079 lb - source. The stripped P-40F as actually used in combat should be similar to that.
- Climb boost setting is undoubtedly low at 48" - takeoff power rating is supposed to be 54" (giving 1,300 hp) and they routinely took off at higher settings than that, pilots often mentioned climbing at WEP particularly during interceptions.
- Initial rate of climb is supposed to be 3,250 for the P-40F (with six guns), 3,300 ft / min for the P-40L- source
- Thread starter
- #273
I think Ki-61 could pose a challenge for a Bf 109E or F ... much more maneuverable plane. However they were not introduced until 1942 right?
- Thread starter
- #274
Perhaps in theory, but! Sometimes historical facts get in the way of theories. P-40s were not only "not useless" but were probably the main "go-to" escort fighter for medium bombers over Italy in 1943 and early 1944.
Italy is Europe right?
For example, as of 10 July 1943 the 325th Fighter Group, equipped a that time with P-40Ls, was attached to the US 2686th bomb wing, consisting of 3 bomber groups flying B-26s, as their main escort asset. Source Christopher Shores MAW IV, p 155
Maybe you meant it was useless as a high altitude escort fighter or as an escort fighter to four engined bombers.
Don't mean to be pedantic here but I"m trying to correct a very persistent myth that P-40s were only being used for ground attack or low level army cooperation with Spitfire high cover etc. P-40s squadrons were venturing out on their own over Axis territory all through 1943, engaging the best Luftwaffe and Regia Aeronautica fighters that were available to the enemy and winning.
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
A lot of what you say is true but I thought the extra 50 gallons (difference between your 200 and my 150 gallon) was an overload ferry tank , not always fitted? Or different, larger tank in one location?
Some of these overload tanks were dangerous to use in combat (P-40 with longer heavier engine in the front could fight with full or nearly full rear fuselage tank that caused Hawk 75s to spin/crash) or P-51s had to burn off some of the fuel in the rear tank.
Trouble with the Merlin in 1939 is that it was an 880hp engine for take-off on 87 octane gas, Lots of luck getting out of a 1939 British fighter field with 300 gallons in/under your fighter with that amount of power even if you have a constant speed propeller. Adding 1200lbs of gas is also going to do wonders for the tires sinking into the grass airstrips.
Yes a lot of these little, niggly problems can be solved (fit the escorts with two speed Merlin X engines for better take-off and fatter tires) but at the cost of weight/drag.
To do the job of escorting as it should be done ( and this did take a while to work out) you can't fly at the same height as the bombers at the same speed. At least some of the escorts need to be 3-5000 ft higher and moving faster.
Some of these overload tanks were dangerous to use in combat (P-40 with longer heavier engine in the front could fight with full or nearly full rear fuselage tank that caused Hawk 75s to spin/crash) or P-51s had to burn off some of the fuel in the rear tank.
Trouble with the Merlin in 1939 is that it was an 880hp engine for take-off on 87 octane gas, Lots of luck getting out of a 1939 British fighter field with 300 gallons in/under your fighter with that amount of power even if you have a constant speed propeller. Adding 1200lbs of gas is also going to do wonders for the tires sinking into the grass airstrips.
Yes a lot of these little, niggly problems can be solved (fit the escorts with two speed Merlin X engines for better take-off and fatter tires) but at the cost of weight/drag.
To do the job of escorting as it should be done ( and this did take a while to work out) you can't fly at the same height as the bombers at the same speed. At least some of the escorts need to be 3-5000 ft higher and moving faster.
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
A P-40 had theoretical range of over 1000 miles with a drop tank, (75 gallon?) but it was useless as an escort fighter over Europe in 1942.
.
It doesn't appear that P-40s were escorting anything over Italy in 1942, whether or not you count Italy as part of Europe or not.
.
It doesn't appear that P-40s were escorting anything over Italy in 1942, whether or not you count Italy as part of Europe or not.
- Thread starter
- #279
Ok haha I guess you are right mate, must have been useless in 1942 but just fine in 1943 lol.
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
Yes, it was a way of differentiating NW Europe from "Southern Europe"
It is 730 miles from Brussels to Rome and with France and Spain in the way the possibility of mutual support or easy transfer of forces was not practical.
For instance many of the early P-40s used in the NA Campaign based in Egypt were offloaded in central west Africa, flown across Africa to South Sudan(?) and then flown North to Egypt.
It is 730 miles from Brussels to Rome and with France and Spain in the way the possibility of mutual support or easy transfer of forces was not practical.
For instance many of the early P-40s used in the NA Campaign based in Egypt were offloaded in central west Africa, flown across Africa to South Sudan(?) and then flown North to Egypt.
- Status
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
