Which is the better fighter, P-40F or Typhoon?

P-40 or Typhoon


  • Total voters
    25

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ok haha I guess you are right mate, must have been useless in 1942 but just fine in 1943 lol.

This is part of what gets people upset with you or challenge you so often,
In effort to disprove those "tropes" you hate you take things out of context and try to force the P-40 into the roles you claim the tropes said it couldn't do.

The P-40 was useless in escorting bombers over NW Europe in 1942 (so were the Spitfire, the Hurricane and the Typhoon)
The P-40s "success" as an escort was at escorting medium bombers over shorter ranges at lower altitudes.
Gee whiz, Ha Ha, a rather different mission profile isn't it?

This tangent started with me claiming that an escort for long range bombers was not technically possible in 1939-41 due to the state of the art in those years.

So unless you can show that those "escort Missions" the P-40s were flying in 1943-44 were at 15,000ft and over (to cover even British bombers, forget B-17s) and at ranges of 300-400 miles from the home airfields ( I won't even say they need to go to Berlin but they do need to cross the Rhine) then they are immaterial to this tangent discussion.
 
Resp:
You covered the "Bomber Mafia" of the USAAF (or USAAC) quite well. It was so bad that they forced Claire Chennault to resign from the service, when they caught him teaching advanced fighter tactics to young pilots. He pushed for incorporating 'drop tank' capability in fighters, but it got so heated that in 1939 the USAAC put a restriction on aircraft manufacturers from incorporating 'external fuel stores' (drop tanks) on all fighters built for AAC service! Insane! The US Navy had no such restriction. The sole exception, was the P-38, and it was because the test pilot at the time went to the chief engineers and told them to 'make them drop tank capable.' Lockheed initially declined, but the test pilot told them "this is going to be a long range war.!' So Lockheed redesigned those Lightnings on the production line for carrying external fuel stores as the P-38F! They were coming off the production line when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. These P-38s were the first USAAF fighters to England, as they flew across (w 2 drop tanks) the Atlantic via the Northern route to Europe using a B-17 for navigation.
In circa 1940, Chennault sent a full report on Japan's A6M to the Leaders of the USAAF and RAF, noting among other things, its 1,000 mile range. I can't speak for the RAF, but the USAAF simply tossed the report in a drawer when they saw Chennault's name. It was never shared with the pilots who would meat Japan's Air Force. Hap Arnold, Commander of all USAAFs . . . largely ignored the subtle reference when his staff began to use the term "ferry tanks" capability, when they were actually made as drop tanks (capable of feeding at high altitude and jettsonable by the pilot). There would have been no Yamamoto Shootdown if the P-38 (G model) was not drop tank capable.
 
This is part of what gets people upset with you or challenge you so often,
In effort to disprove those "tropes" you hate you take things out of context and try to force the P-40 into the roles you claim the tropes said it couldn't do.

I'm not claiming - and never did, they were suitable for escorting B-17s over NW Europe. The issue is that the 'Trope' goes a bit too far and kind of relegates them to a tertiary status. I'm trying to explain the nuance. I wasn't trying to ding you so much as simply point out something that usually slips by unheeded.

The P-40 was useless in escorting bombers over NW Europe in 1942 (so were the Spitfire, the Hurricane and the Typhoon)

Agreed

The P-40s "success" as an escort was at escorting medium bombers over shorter ranges at lower altitudes.
Gee whiz, Ha Ha, a rather different mission profile isn't it?

Agreed again.

This tangent started with me claiming that an escort for long range bombers was not technically possible in 1939-41 due to the state of the art in those years.

Agree with that too, pretty much.


Well I think they did escort at about 20,000 feet and a bit more - keep in mind these were the Merlin P-40F/L, critical altitude somewhere around 19,500 ft, so some of them were flying high cover, usually one squadron out of three, and that could be as high as 25,000 or even a little higher, while they others would be down around 12 - 15,000 ft, closer to the medium bombers at 8-10,000 ft.


So I'm again, not trying to be pedantic I just want to make clear what their mission actually was - since few people are aware of it, namely escorting medium bombers at a fairly long distance (I'm not sure precisely how many miles I'd have to check where the bases were etc.) all by themselves without (necessarily) any higher cover from other fighters. The reason for this is the different characteristics of their main fighters.

They did of course also sometimes fly fighter bomber missions and low altitude sweeps with cover from Spitfires, or later from P-47s sometimes, but that wasn't their only mission despite the shorthand that you can read in dozens of books and websites that all they did in the Med was fighter bomber work from day one.

With history in general, it is in the shorthand where we tend to miss a lot of important nuance, and incidentally I kind of wonder if that is true for the Typhoon as well -for all it's faults it clearly was a dangerous weapon and if they claimed 80 or 90 Fw 190s they must have been flying some combat missions as a fighter not just a fighter bomber.
 

All quite reasonable but also as you know, bombing campaigns from Italy started to coincide closely with the 8th AF stuff after a while, though that had a lot more to do with P-38s and P-47s and later P-51s than P-40s which were not used for TransAlpine raids so far as I know, though they were part of raids into Yugoslavia.
 
I ma quite sure that the RAF was very happy to get rid of the Typhoon and use the Tempest. An island nation with a fighter that could not be ditched was enough reason right there.

And I think that some US pilots were not too impressed with the Ki61. Capt William L. Shomo, for one.
 
Resp:
I know P-40s were used in the MTO as escort, as well as ground attack by USAAF groups such as the 99th. They certainly were shorter distances than the missions flown in the ETO, and if flown at or around 20,000 ft . . . were for a very short duration (my opinion only). I also suspect that the fighter pilots had more freedom inre to the term 'escort.'
 
Resp:
I know P-40s were used in the MTO as escort, as well as ground attack by USAAF groups such as the 99th. They certainly were shorter distances than the missions flown in the ETO,

99th FS did a little of both I think but other than that I agree

and if flown at or around 20,000 ft . . . were for a very short duration (my opinion only).

Why would you assume that? These were Merlin engined P-40s, 20,000 ft was the critical altitude for that aircraft... I don't get it.

I also suspect that the fighter pilots had more freedom inre to the term 'escort.'

Definitely true. 24 victory RAF Ace Billy Drake mentioned in an interview, referring to Kittyhawk escort operations : "Escort was a brand new role, weren't quite sure how to do it. The main idea was don't formate closely like Germans in the Battle of Britain but to be 'in the area'. Floating air cover."

I think this was actually pretty standard for escort flights in the Med, though it started out more rigid in Northern Europe they did also shift to that 'looser' type of escort mission there as well, right?
 
In the BoB Luftwaffe escorts did fly 'in the area'. When bombers pilots complained the escorts were told to fly closer to the bombers.
 
I ma quite sure that the RAF was very happy to get rid of the Typhoon and use the Tempest. An island nation with a fighter that could not be ditched was enough reason right there.
I am afraid that is off the mark. The RAF were happy to switch to the Tempest because it was a better aircraft, arguably the best Low / Medium altitude fighter of the war. Ditching ability had nothing to do with it. The Hurricane was a dreadful plane to ditch in and we used those on land and as a carrier fighter
 
Resp:
You answered your own question in that 20,000 ft was the critical altitude. Also, it takes a while to get to that altitude, and if the missions were not too distant, one would be at the maximum altitude for a very short duration. Also, just because one can, doesn't mean they did. I spoke to a B-17 pilot who flew missions in late 1944 to the end of the war from Italy, where he rarely flew above 20,000 ft. Why? There was no need.
 

I think you are confusing critical altitude with ceiling. It only took them 8-10 minutes to climb to that altitude depending on boost setting.
 
I think you are confusing critical altitude with ceiling. It only took them 8-10 minutes to climb to that altitude depending on boost setting.
Follow up:
A formation of fully fueled, to include drop tank, P-40s takes how long to get to 20,000 ft?
 

Another issue with your chart -

Please note this wartime document from WWIIaircraftperformance.org here

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/Kittyhawk_II_performance_9sept42.jpg

Top speed for Kittyhawk II (that is RAF designation for P-40F) is 370 mph at 20,400 ft and 347 at 30,000 feet.

You seem to be showing a top speed of 360 mph at 17000 at 54" boost and what looks like it's going to be about 320 mph at 30,000
 
Follow up:
A formation of fully fueled, to include drop tank, P-40s takes how long to get to 20,000 ft?

Maybe 20-30 minutes, depending how many units? I think the climb up was often done during flight across from Tunisia to Sicily, Sicily to Sardania or in a later era, Corsica to Anzio.

Forming up over, or waiting for bombers might take longer though.
 
While I agree the P-40 was an adequate aircraft in many theatres and in many air forces I have never really understood the absolute love affair that mostly Americans have for this aircraft. The only parallel I can draw is always having something special for your first girlfriend. She may not have been the prettiest or smartest or "best performer" but the first is always special.
 
I think Americans are of decidedly mixed opinion on the fighter - the Flying Tigers legend is very popular but most US aviation enthusiasts don't like the P-40 very much and prefer more glorious mounts like the P-51, P-47 or the Corsair. Most Americans focus on what was going on during the final victory in 1945 and what was the fastest etc. Americans like "winners". Quite a few Americans also really prefer Luftwaffe planes if we are honest about it. There are a few die hard 'fans' of the Hawk like myself out there, people who like underdogs or have read some of the revisionist narrative and find it interesting, but most of what little you find in terms of American literature that is pro-P-40 comes from pilots who flew it, and their praise is usually at odds with the rest of the book.

Almost nobody knows about it's actual record, I didn't myself until I started posting here about a year ago.

Brits usually like the Spitfire or sometimes the Hurricane or Mosquito or some other English plane.

I think a lot of the 'love' for the P-40s, at least in terms of what you can find in books, comes from the Australians, New Zealanders and to a lesser extent (more mixed) the Russians. Some Chinese aviation guys like the P-40 too. Anzac guys like the P-40 for obvious reasons - some of their top aces flew it.
 
Resp:
Maybe because it brought them home. In reading about the 78th FG of the 8th AF, most of these P-47 pilots didn't want to transition to P-51s. Only later, after flying them (and often getting multiple kills in a single mission) did they change their view.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread