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.
Kevin J said:
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.
Click to expand...

Sydney Camm was hard headed, the wing was already too thick on the Hurricane. Didn't they have wind tunnels? They should have figured that out sooner IMO. Hindsight is 20/20 I guess.

Rate of climb on the Tempest 4,700 ft / min (vs 2,700 for the Typhoon)
Top speed: 435 mph at 19,000 ft. (lower but still quite respectable 412 mph for the Tiffy)
Wing loading 37.75 lbs / sq ft (40.9 for the Tiffy)
Power/mass 0.21 (still quite good on the Tiffy at 0.20)
Range 720 miles (510 for Typhoon)

Looks like a much more agile and 'sprightly' Typhoon. And the tail doesn't fall off.
 
Last edited:
Schweik said:
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.
Click to expand...

And as we keep saying, this does NOT tell you what you think it does as it it doesn't tell you the types of mission flown, the type/quantity/quality of opposition and so on.

AS a sort of example from my shooting days, another competitor (George) had a rifle chambered for a hot benchrest cartridge, the 6mm PPC which uses short, light bullets 60-70 grains. Problem was that benchrest matches are usually shot at 100 or 200 yrds and we were firing at 300yds. Over several years (3-4 at least) at one match per month from April to Oct/Nov He won a large share of the matches and I won a large share. It took us a while but finally most of the regulars noticed that George did better on calm days (little or no wind) while I did better on slightly windier days. George's gun/ammo may have been just a hair more accurate but out of 40 shots the wind would blow 1-3 of his light bullets out of the ten ring ( I had seen him shoot enough 400s out of 40 shots to believe that he could do it most days), my heavier bullets (6.5mm 120 grain) did get blown around as bad. I might have 0 or 1 shot blown out.
Which gun/cartridge was better at 300 yds??
At 100 yds George would probably beat me most of the time. I shot my rifle in 600yd matches which George would never do (not with that rifle anyway)

It doesn't matter that we shot the same number of matches over the same time period and won a similar number of times. There were differences between the guns/cartridges that became more apparent at other matches/ locations/distances.

focusing in air to air kills from the same number of squadrons for a similar time period (but not the same one?) in a different environment may not give you the answer you think it does.
 
I realize that some things are impossible to fully quantify in a comparison, trust me. I'm regularly making that point myself especially vis a vis history.

However,

You could get pretty close in this case and the more details that come out the more interesting it gets. What else are we doing around here? I guess I could work on something more important than wasting time in forums but forums are fun. And real data does sometimes emerge from these kinds of discussions
 
Kevin J said:
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.
Click to expand...

He just needs to peek at a) aerodynamics theory books & papers from UK, USA and Germany (UK papers plainly saying that wing of thickness above 15% gets too draggy) and b) racers & race winners from 1930s, both from UK (from Supermarine, De Havilland and Percival) and abroad. Supermarine went with 13% thick wing far eariler than Typhoon emerged, and Mosquito was also thin-winged A/C.
 
Schweik said:
Sydney Camm was hard headed, the wing was already too thick on the Hurricane. Didn't they have wind tunnels? They should have figured that out sooner IMO. Hindsight is 20/20 I guess.
Click to expand...

The whole Gloster?Hawker organization did NOT have wind tunnel at this time, I don't think any private English company did in years leading up to WW II or for the first few years.
And not all wind tunnels are created equal, the ones that could actually tell you anything about 400mph airflow were non-existent at this time.

Poor Sydney believed the guys at the RAE and was lead down the garden path. So were they guys at Bristol when they thought the Beaufighter could do 360-370mph with under 1400hp engines.

The Big wind tunnel (british didn't have full size tunnel?) that the P-39 and others were tested in was good for around 80mph of wind speed?
There were only one or two "high speed" tunnels in the US (out of 13?) in 1939-40 and they had "throats of around 8 or 10 feet so you had to use models and scale the results up.
By the end of 1945 the US had over 40 wind tunnels.


20/20 hindsight is wonderful.
 
Like I said, he was hard headed. Spit wing was so thin though it did cause some other problems like how to fit the big guns, though they worked it out...
 
Shortround6 said:
Poor Sydney believed the guys at the RAE and was lead down the garden path. So were they guys at Bristol when they thought the Beaufighter could do 360-370mph with under 1400hp engines.
.
Click to expand...

Beaufighter might be my next Troll adventure in revisionist history here, as it really comes out smelling like a rose in the operational history in the Med as depicted by Shores. He even noticed this himself and commented on it a couple of times, he clearly likes the Beaufighter (unlike the P-40). I like the Beaufighter as well. Maybe not as fast as they hoped but pretty damn lethal all the same.

It really seems to have wrought havoc in the Maritime zone with a lot of claims that were actually linked to real kills.
 
If you look at the RAAF victory statistics for their last year of the war in the Pacific, it should become clear that the Beaufighter was the best fighter they had as it shot down the most Jap planes. LOL.
 
That "estimate" of 370 mph is one reason the Whirlwind had a low priority or was canceled. for t least a short period of time it was thought they would have two twin engine, four cannon fighters that could do 360-370mph and they thought it was a duplication of effort.

For all of the good stuff the Beaufighter did, it was NOT a 360-370mph airplane.
 
Anything carrying 4 cannon and 6 0.303mgs and also able to launch torpedoes and rockets can make a mess of things. The Beaufighter was overshadowed by the later Mosquito in many roles but was a good plane.
 
a few corrections if I may.

Glider said:
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
Click to expand...

for a good part of it's career the Typhoon seems to have been an under 405mph fighter,
Build quality,finish (paint?) and other problems in addition to the engine.

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

The Typhoon had about 14 seconds of firing time a P-40 with 235 rpg had about 17 1/2 seconds.
There was room in the amo bins for increased ammo on the inner and middle guns though (only about 5 extra round for the outer?) about 260- 270 more rounds total.
Not a big differnce and disappears with the reduced ammo "light load"

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

This is one of the biggest quagmires.
The Typhoon started with a 500lb under each wing and required quite a few modifications to be considered satisfactory with the pair of 1000lb bombs. Bigger brakes on the main wheels, a solid tailwheel to prevent blowouts, most Typhoons cleared to use 1000lb bombs had 4 blade props (take off problems on short strips?) and had the Tempest horizontal tail surfaces. Needed them for the bombs or to counter act all the extra armor I have no idea.

P-40s are all over the map. From NONE (?) on the P-40B to a 500lb bomb on the P-40C (and the six 20-40lbs under wings are rarely mentioned) to the manual for the P-40N claiming the plane could carry a 1000lb under each wing PLUS a 500lb under the fuselage No data whatsoever on take-off or climb with such a load.
P-40s did carry a pair of 1000lbs on occasion in Italy and apparently in the Pacific or CBI although details there are lacking. At least one use in Italy seems well documented.
Photos do exist of P-40s with six 250lb bombs Two under the fuselage and two under each wing on the same rack. We know it was done, we don;t know what they took out or what they didn't put in (fuel?) to compensate for the big bomb loads. The raid in Italy was something like 30-40 miles from the airfield. I have no idea if they could go significantly further.

Just saying it was done.
 
Schweik said:
How did they measure up in a dogfight?
Click to expand...

I found these two excepts complimented each other quite well:

AFDU Report:
The manoeuvrability of the FW.190 and the Typhoon was compared during one flight at 2,000 feet, the Typhoon being flown by a very experienced test pilot from Hawkers, and it appeared that there was little to choose between the two aircraft in turning circles. The opinion of both pilots was that it was doubtful whether either aircraft would be able to hold his sights on sufficiently long for accurate sighting. It should be borne in mind, however, that the pilot of the FW.190 was reluctant at the time to risk stalling the aircraft in the turn at such low height, and it is therefore possible that the turn could have been tighter.


Osprey's Typhoon and Tempest Aces of World War 2 (Sqn. Ldr. Desmond Scott, 486 Sqn., 24 June 1943):
"I had engaged in mock combat with the 190 in the skies above Sussex and was surprised by its speed and manoeuvrability. But was confident I could get the better of it, providing we remained below 10,000 feet. Above that altitude it was a different story. The higher we went the more like a carthorse I became. However, since we were essentially on low-attack ops, our chances of becoming embarrased at 10,000 feet or above were remote."

His chance to put his findings to the test came in the afternoon. Returning from escorting Typhoon fighter-bombers to Abbeville, and pursued by Fw 190s which were unable to close, the formation was suddenly attacked by two more which seemed to appear from nowhere;

"I quickly broke to starboard. The Fw 190s foolishly dived under us towards the sea, and gave us the immediate advantage. I took a quick look round while sprinting down after them. Fitz, my No. 2, was hanging on to my tail, and I could see nothing else close to me except our own Typhoons. Within seconds I was firing directly down on a Fw 190. He turned to port close to the water. My deflection was astray -- I could see cannon shells splashing in the sea just behind his tail. Suddenly we were at the same level and locked in a desperate battle to out-turn each other.

I applied the pressure to get my sights ahead of him, but kept losing my vision as the blood was forced away from my head; a little less pressure on the control column would bring my sight back into focus. I could see him looking back at me on either side of our tight circle. I knew he was experiencing the same effects, and although I could feel my aircraft staggering, I continued to apply the pressure. I was beginning to gain on him, but I was still well off the required deflection. With my heart pounding in my throat, I applied some top rudder to get above him. Just as I did so, his wings gave a wobble and he flicked over and hit the sea upside-down.

I saw a great shower of spray his aircraft sent up, but not much else. I blacked out, went out of control myself, and recovered from my downward plunge just clear of the water. According to Fitz I had spun upwards. It could have easily been the other way, and both my Luftwaffe opponent and I would have finished up in the water."
 
Last edited:
The Peregrines were the Elephant in the room for the Whirlwind.
 

1944 may be 1 or 2 years too late to combat Fw 190A raiders.

The P-40K may have matched the Spitfire LF.IX near sea level, but probably not at 10,000ft or above.

It still does not match the Typhoon, the Tempest, P-51, Spitfire XII or Spitfire XIV at low level.
 

My guess would be that the P-40K in 1942 would almost match the A-36A for speed in 1942, 344 mph at sea level and 364 mph from 5 to 15 thou feet, or be pretty close, so maybe 10 mph less, and with over boost maybe a little faster at sea level, so add back that 10 mph at sea level. That's still fast enough to catch the Fw 190A raiders. I agree, certainly not as fast as the other fighters you mentioned at all altitudes, but this is 1942 not 1943/44 so the P-40K would probably be a fast fighter low down, second only to a P-39D-2/K/L and as fast as a Typhoon.
 
Last edited:
The cube law says that to take a P-40 from 287mph using 1010hp at sea level to 344mph you need 1738hp. play with the numbers as you see fit.
at 5000ft you need 1743hp to go 364mph. The Allison with 8.80 gears was down to about 1450hp at 5000ft with no ram and even adding in 2500ft worth of RAM you are still at 1560hp,

adjust as you see fit but it doesn't look good
 
pbehn said:
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.
Click to expand...
Reap:
Agree. It served well enough in all theaters it was assigned. Curtiss upgraded the P40 within its design limits. It held the 'line' until newer and more advanced designs were built. I also believe it gave pilots time to build on their combat experience which benefitted them when they graduated to newer fighter designs.
Thanks to all who took time to discuss this fine fighter. I learned much. I will re-read the data over the next few days to get a better idea of what constitutes the Merlin Warhawks.
 
I think you'll find that 1750/1780 hp is exactly what you can get out of a V-1710-39/63 from later in 1942. Thanks for your confirmation. http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/V-1710_Service_Use_of_High_Power_Outputs.pdf
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Paper comparing the flight performance of the P-40E Warhawk and the A6M2 Zero
Replies
8
Views
1K
Ivan1GFP
I
G
Better Dambusters
2
Replies
25
Views
2K
GTX
W
The scarcity of fighter to fighter FW-190A pilot combat accounts...
2 3
Replies
52
Views
3K
GrauGeist
M
P-61 Performance
Replies
15
Views
1K
Snautzer01
How good a plane was the P-40, really?
23 24 25
Replies
493
Views
41K
Think Tanker
Menu
Log in
Register