Which is the better fighter, P-40F or Typhoon? (1 Viewer)

Schweik
.
Fair enough, I did not deduct the weight of the front wing tanks. So, you sent me digging to another source

From America's Hundred-Thousand (AHT) by Francis Dean

Empty Weight: P-40F 6576 lbs. P-40L 6485 lbs
Basic Weight: P-40F 7089 lbs, P-40L 6840 lbs (includes guns, trapped oil and gas, gun sight,)
Gross Weight P-40F 8678 lbs P-40L 8120 lbs (includes pilot, gas. oil, and ammo)

Eagledad

Schweik said:

P 40L has more than just the two guns and ammunition removed. They took out the forward wing tanks, radiator armor and some other stuff. I've already pointed this out a few times.

I've seen that stat block many times but it looks like something made for public release. it's alll low ball figures.

Click to expand...

Are figures like the markings on a sports field, they become less accurate with time? Are we now at a stage where the only stats allowed are ones you like the look of? When you start removing guns to improve performance you are conceding performance is lacking, in terms of the thread subject, the 4 cannon of the Typhoon had approx. 3 times the hitting power of 4 MGs and no one discussed removing them even though they were much heavier and caused much more drag.

pbehn said:

Are figures like the markings on a sports field, they become less accurate with time? Are we now at a stage where the only stats allowed are ones you like the look of? When you start removing guns to improve performance you are conceding performance is lacking, in terms of the thread subject, the 4 cannon of the Typhoon had approx. 3 times the hitting power of 4 MGs and no one discussed removing them even though they were much heavier and caused much more drag.

Click to expand...

Resp:
I believe it may be more of a psychological advantage rather than an actual one; although the figures do actually change, their impact may have almost no effect. Ground crews normally wanted to help in any way, so some may have suggested changes, which were incorporated.
I nearly always allowed my guys leeway in how they prepared for a mission (ground or water). It does have an effect on morale, which is GOOD. One issue is the idea that 'one' extra round 'could' determine whether you lived or died. This is one area that loading magazines (springs do wear and become weak) two rounds (M-4, M-16, etc) less (28 in 30 rd) for long guns, and one round less for pistols (M-9 or M11) actually helps ensure feeding. Therefore, they stayed combat ready. So I guess 'reducing' as they did for the P-40s, actually did help in this situation by increasing the reliability of the weapon. However, I am sure some men did load them to the 'max.'

To be fair the P-40 carried by far the heaviest amount of guns and ammo of it's generation and power (claims of 1700hp at sea level aside)
It carried (full or overload ammo) under 30lbs less than the 4 cannon Typhoon with much less power.
It carried over 100lbs more than a 109G-6 with 20 gun pod under each wing and there are plenty of complaints about the climb and handling of the gunboats even if the speed wasn't too bad.

I don't mind that they yanked a pair of guns, four .50s still puts out a fair amount of firepower compared to the MC 202, the 109F-4, most Japanese fighters and good number of Russian ones.

What tends to bother me is restricting the ammo to 235-201 rounds per gun (15-18 seconds firing time) and yanking 23% of internal fuel and then telling me what a great escort fighter it was.

As far as four gun vs six gun F4Fs go. the six gun planes had 240 round per gun and the 4 gun planes could (but maybe weren't) be loaded with 430 round per gun. Just something to consider when somebody drags out the they used four guns in the later F4F argument.

Shortround6 said:

To be fair the P-40 carried by far the heaviest amount of guns and ammo of it's generation and power (claims of 1700hp at sea level aside)
It carried (full or overload ammo) under 30lbs less than the 4 cannon Typhoon with much less power.
It carried over 100lbs more than a 109G-6 with 20 gun pod under each wing and there are plenty of complaints about the climb and handling of the gunboats even if the speed wasn't too bad.

I don't mind that they yanked a pair of guns, four .50s still puts out a fair amount of firepower compared to the MC 202, the 109F-4, most Japanese fighters and good number of Russian ones.

What tends to bother me is restricting the ammo to 235-201 rounds per gun (15-18 seconds firing time) and yanking 23% of internal fuel and then telling me what a great escort fighter it was.

As far as four gun vs six gun F4Fs go. the six gun planes had 240 round per gun and the 4 gun planes could (but maybe weren't) be loaded with 430 round per gun. Just something to consider when somebody drags out the they used four guns in the later F4F argument.

Click to expand...

Its just the endless whataboutery adding or taking off guns fuel ariels bombs racks armour etc. The P-40 was of its time, it was a great early war design, then its time came to an end.

Also...are these weights listed for factory fresh aircraft or ones on the front lines?

Have they been painted and if so, one, two or more coats? Have they had battle damage repaired (patches over bullet holes)?

Is the pilot's weight approximate and is the pilot wearing gear for Europe or the Pacific (layers of clothing under coat versus shorts and a light shirt)?

GrauGeist said:

Is the pilot's weight approximate and is the pilot wearing gear for Europe or the Pacific (layers of clothing under coat versus shorts and a light shirt

Click to expand...

If we are worried about the weight of the pilots clothing somebody has really dropped the ball in aircraft design department

Weight of boots, coveralls and heavy coat in an 8000 lb airplane?

Yeah, my SUV gets better gas mileage when I wear summer clothes too

I would note that the weight of the P-40F in AHT is noted as being 109lbs above the contract guarantee weight, Curtiss may have had to pay a penalty or the plane was skating on the thin edge of not being accepted (or both?) but if two planes on the flight line are 100lbs apart when empty yanking a few do-dads out of both of them is not going to change speed at which the pair (or group of four?) can climb or turn.

Well, I thought I'd add that because it's getting down to nitpicking.

However, paint does add weight to an airframe, though not as much as on larger types like a B-17, where a single coat could add 300 pounds to it's weight.

Its not so much whataboutism is just catching up to the level of detail as most other important aircraft in the war.

If you read the histories of the Spitfire are a variety of other UK -type's there is all kind of detail about boost levels + 9 + 12 + 14 + 16 etc., and how they affected performance right? These things were not around in the really old spitfire books I have , the nuanced stuff seemed to emerge later as result of research a lot like what's going on here.

It's not an excuse it's just a wartime reality.

But most of the history for the later model P 40's like the F , L or K - the most important types in a lot of ways, and operational history in general in the middle of a war it's pretty lacking for the P40.

Which is something I've been trying to rectify and draw attention to. If you notice closer they look at what little available data there is that we're getting to what I said originally because I've already done all this searching. Unfortunately there's just not enough yet.

Shores has helped us a lot on operational history and but we are still very lacking in technical data.

Sorry if that is slightly garbled I'm at work xmas "party" on my phone via voice to text LOL.

Navalwarrior said:

Resp:
I believe it may be more of a psychological advantage rather than an actual one; although the figures do actually change, their impact may have almost no effect. Ground crews normally wanted to help in any way, so some may have suggested changes, which were incorporated.
I nearly always allowed my guys leeway in how they prepared for a mission (ground or water). It does have an effect on morale, which is GOOD. One issue is the idea that 'one' extra round 'could' determine whether you lived or died. This is one area that loading magazines (springs do wear and become weak) two rounds (M-4, M-16, etc) less (28 in 30 rd) for long guns, and one round less for pistols (M-9 or M11) actually helps ensure feeding. Therefore, they stayed combat ready. So I guess 'reducing' as they did for the P-40s, actually did help in this situation by increasing the reliability of the weapon. However, I am sure some men did load them to the 'max.'

Click to expand...

That's a good point but I think it's actually not just psychological but also tactical. It's very good to give some flexibility to the fighter pilot's especially as their job a lot more individualized then say Infantry. They fly out as a squadron but a lot of times they're going to be coming home alone or in a pair

The thing with lightening the aircraft is not unusual in World War II and the reason in that theater is because they were up against probably the fastest climbing axis aircraft of the war and one of the two or three best climbing propeller fighters in wide production ever.

Taking out two guns, 4-500 rounds of .50 cal(by the way the p40L apparently only had two hundred rounds per gun out of the factory, -check your sources) the radiator armor (which I have eight books mentioning that I can cite on request), forward fuel tanks and the gas that would go in them clearly does reduce the weight by several hundred lbs even according to your own figures.

And that 400 or 500 lb did seem to make a difference though it was only something they would bother with if they're up against a lot of enemy fighters.

I think it's just an adaptation to the theater. And some other theaters and at different times in the med they might be trying to put more bombs on or more ammunition or whatever, some other places they were adding extra navigation equipment in a field and so forth

Schweik said:

Its not so much whataboutism is just catching up to the level of detail as most other important aircraft in the war.

.

Click to expand...

You misunderstood my point S/R I commend your heroic efforts to bring discussions back to reality.

I find it interesting that with the P40 it seems to have been a not unusual practice to take out a fair amount of equipment including two guns, ammunition and a radio. There is only one reason why people take out such critical equipment and that is to remain competitive with the opposition. Clearly the pilots believed that four guns gave them a better chance of hitting the target, rather than have six guns which cannot be fired at the target.
There are a number of examples where four HMG were sufficient notably the P51B but there is a reason why the P51D was equipped with 6 x HMG, namely because it was better.

In the report on the Operational Suitability of the P40N it says the following:-
c. The fire power of four (4) present slow firing .50 caliber machine guns is considered insufficient for the majority of combat missions where heavily armored enemy aircraft are encountered, or for most ground strafing missions.

I think this view shows why the P51D and P40 were given six x HMG

Back to the original objective of the Thread Which is the better fighter the P40F or the Typhoon?

Speed
P40 seems to max out at approx. 370mph give or take depending on source
Typhoon max's out at about 415 mph give or take

Climb
P40 about 3,300 ft/min (lightened) About 2,200 ft/min (Normal)
Typhoon about 3,800 ft/min

Time to 15000ft
P40 7.25 mins
Typhoon 4.9 mins

Time to 25000ft
P40 14.25 mins
Typhoon 10.0 mins

Dive IAS
P40 I am not sure on this number but the Tomahawk I was limited to 470mph, no doubt this was improved but I don't know to what level
Typhoon Again I don't know the actual number but they did tests on opening the new bubble canopy at 500mph so it was more than that. Pilots notes I understand say 525mph but haven't seen them myself

Range
P40 with drop tank was over 1000 miles theoretically
Typhoon with drop tank 1090 miles
An observation on the use of the Typhoon as an escort. They were often used to escort Mosquito's because their cruising speed was very high. P51's often had problems escorting Mosquito's because the cruising speed of the P51 with drop tanks was much slower. As a result the Mosquitos had two choices, slow down making them much easier to intercept, or leave the escort behind. With the Typhoon they didn't have that problem, plus Mosquitos often flew at low to medium altitudes where the Typhoons were more than capable.

Firepower obvious I know but its worth mentioning
P40 - six or four HMG
Typhoon four x 20mm approximately equivalent to twelve HMG

Payload
P40 the max I have seen is 1,000lb but open to correction
Typhoon 2,000lb

Protection
P40 as original protection but some was often removed to help performance
Typhoon this was considerably enhanced and included armour to the floor and sides of the cockpit.

Agility
An unknown but the following was from the AFDU report on the Typhoon
The aircraft was compared to the Spitfire Vb between 15,000 and 26,000 ft for dogfighting, both aircraft weighted for full warload. The Typhoon while not quite as manoeuvrable as the Spitfire could get in a good burst in the initial stages of the turn. During the turn it was always found that the Spitfire could always turn more tightly than the Typhoon and if the Typhoon was behind the Spitfire could get on the tail of the Typhoon in about two turns. The paper then goes on to recommend that against the Spitfire the Typhoon should uses its greater speed and dive in a similar manner to the 109F.
I have read very similar reports when the Hellcat is compared to the Zero in particular the ability to get a good burst in the initial stages of the turn.

Summary
The Typhoon is considerably faster, has a significantly better climb, almost certainly dives faster, has double or triple the firepower depending on how you want to play it and carries double the payload. The Typhoon seems to have a similar range and far more protection. Agility is the unknown but its clear the Typhoon was no slouch. It wasn't a Spitfire but then again neither was the P40. Its quite possible that the P40 was more agile than the Typhoon but the Typhoon could as noted by the AFDU almost certainly have time for one good burst and then use its speed climb and dive to follow German tactics and dictate the combat.

Note
Nearly all the above are from the Mike Williams web site and the P40 figs are for the P40F. On the Typhoon the tests were done up to end of 1943 before there were considerable additions to the boost settings and better fuel. However they are also before the additional protection was added to the floor and sides of the cockpit, so my working assumption is that one would counterbalance the other.



Everyone can make there own choices but the above are the facts as best I can tell. For obvious reasons I would take the Typhoon every time.

I think most of that is accurate, minor quibble on dive speed but it probably doesn't matter that much, the only area I would really debate on is "agility". I think this can be partly measured as we do usually know the roll rates and the wing loading, and we have some published figures for turn times for the P-40, presumably those could be find for the Typhoon too since they did tests?

Roll rate might actually be the bigger factor relative to "agility", turning is another thing. Handling is also a factor. Turning is an option, agility gives you options.

Overall though, one thought occurred to me - almost all of these same advantages could be said to exist for the Bf 109G-6 but that aircraft seems to have suffered worse at the hands of P-40F/Ls than earlier marks of 109 or the MC 202. I'm guessing the dive speed (and retaining the ability to roll fast especially) being high enough to evade or disengage from enemies at least some of the time, turning giving another more reliable if less permanent evasion option, and also together meaning that any time a P-40 was in a higher E state, however rare it was, it would be very hard for the target to escape... all contributed to victories. Maybe beyond that it was just tactics or training? I don't know.

What matters to their combat performance as far as turn rate and roll characteristics - Agility if you will- of the Typhoon vs. P-40 was probably more how each of them matched up to their opposition, Bf 109s, MC 202s (and some 205s) and Fw 190s for the P-40, more Fw 190s and Bf 109s for the Typhoon. How would a Typhoon evade a Bf 109 or Fw 190 that was on it's tail? How did they measure up in a dogfight?

However the only way to settle this to my satisfaction (which probably doesn't matter to anybody but me) would be to get some kind of operational history of the Typhoon so it can be compared to what we have now (via Shores mainly) on the operational history of the P-40F/L. So we can get some idea of how close of a comparison it actually was - how many Typhoon squadrons active for how long, how many missions they flew, how many losses and so on.

So, its 1942/43 and my task is defend the UK against low level Fw 190A fighter bomber raids. Naturally, I chose the Typhoon, with all its faults, because of its high speeds at low altitude and if the Fw 190A climbs to escape then its medium altitude speed is equivalent. If I'm in the Med escorting twin engine bombers then I would chose the P-40F/L, it is more agile than a Typhoon and has none of its problems, yes its slower but that doesn't matter because the enemy is after my bombers so they have to come back to me. If I wanted to mount standing patrols as in the UK to intercept low level Fw 190A raids then I'd use the P-40K with override boost giving 1750/80 hp. The Spitfire LIX/XVI of 1944 with 150 grade fuel gave about 1720 hp at sea level and had a top speed of 355 mph there, so I would expect the P-40K to be able to match both that and the speed of a Typhoon at low altitude. If I wanted to intercept Axis bombers in either the UK or the Med then it has to be a Spitfire Vc/IXc as they had cannon. The P-40F/L and Typhoon are being used in different roles and are not really comparable.

Typhoons did also apparently shoot down a fair number of Bf 109s, I forget how many.

I bet a firewalled P-40K was fast on the deck at 70" boost but I am not sure it would be faster than a Spit IX. Maybe the Typhoon but I wouldn't hold my breath. More maneuverable than a Typhoon at 300+ mph almost certainly.

In performance I don't think its an issue the Typhoon is better, on service record it also isn't an issue the P-40 was indispensable in the early years. Whatever the pros are of the Typhoon, with hindsight there were much better things that could have been done.

It's really too bad it took so long to create the Tempest but it did finally arrive. If they had that in say, early 1943 it would have wrought havoc on the Germans.

We really need more records especially on the performance, turn roll etc. And more clear documentation on how they kitted them out in the field. Where do they find all these wonderful records on WWIIAircraftperformance.org? I know what University archives etc. to check for very detailed documents on other historical periods centuries ago, and you'd be amazed what you can find, a lot has been digitized. But I don't know where to look for stuff for WW2 stuff. A lot of the memos and records I have seen are disappointingly vague.

I'm thinking about writing some people with a couple of the squadron or fighter group organizations and see if they have any records they'd be willing to share.

Schweik said:

It's really too bad it took so long to create the Tempest but it did finally arrive. If they had that in say, early 1943 it would have wrought havoc on the Germans.

Click to expand...

For that Hawkers need to know in 1940 that the thick wing of the Typhoon is a problem. In 1941 they start design on the Tempest, first fly it in 1942 and it enters service in 1944. I think the timescales are the best you can get.