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

[Schweik]

Rein (reign) what in, compare the low level fighter Typhoon's standard armament to your supposedly specifically anti bomber Bf 109.

Just for perspective - Bf 109 is a ~6500 lb fighter with a 32' wing span. And thin wings.

Typhoon is a ~11,000 lbs fighter with a 41' wing span. Thick wings.

So yeah it's a lot easier for a plane that big to carry four big guns. And it also a cinch for the smaller plane to out-turn the big one (unless weighed down with the gun pods).

By the way Fw 190 had the four 20mm cannon plus two machine guns (heavy machine guns on the A-8). And still managed to roll like it was on ball-bearings...

 

[wuzak]

I may be wrong here, but the 109 was never great in turns.

 

[fubar57]

 

[Schweik]

Typhoon wing loading 40-41
Bf 109 wing loading 36-38
Spit wing loading 25-30
Hurricane wing loading 28-30

 

[GrauGeist]

By the way Fw 190 had the four 20mm cannon plus two machine guns (heavy machine guns on the A-8). And still managed to roll like it was on ball-bearings...

The A-8 had two MG131 (13mm) MGs in the cowl and two MG151/20 in either wing root - but - depending on the subvariant, they could (and many did) have the MK103 30mm cannon in the outboard wing position on the A-8/R2 and A-8/R8 models that replaced the MG151/20.

 

[wuzak]

Spitfire IX: 30.6lb/ft²
Spitfire XIV: 35lb/ft²
Supermarine Spitfire variants: specifications, performance and armament - Wikipedia

As that chart shows, the XIV and IX (XVI) had the same turn radius, despite the XIV having about 16% higher wing loading.

 

[pbehn]

Typhoon wing loading 40-41
Bf 109 wing loading 36-38
Spit wing loading 25-30
Hurricane wing loading 28-30

The ability to sustain a turn depends on much more than wing loading.

 

[Milosh]

The A-8 had two MG131 (13mm) MGs in the cowl and two MG151/20 in either wing root - but - depending on the subvariant, they could (and many did) have the MK103 30mm cannon in the outboard wing position on the A-8/R2 and A-8/R8 models that replaced the MG151/20.

No, the outer wing cannons were MK108s (A-8/R2/R8). The MK103s were tried as underwing pods but never implemented.

 

[Shortround6]

Typhoon wing loading 40-41
Bf 109 wing loading 36-38
Spit wing loading 25-30
Hurricane wing loading 28-30

If you have a large disparity in wing loading then you probably don't have to look any further. If the difference is only a few percent or single digits then the difference may not give you an accurate picture.

 

[BiffF15]

View attachment 522571​

Great chart, but is it for instantaneous or sustained. The one thing that might be a little misleading is by how much better or worse each aircraft was relatively. I suspect the differences between the Spit ix and the Fw190 was probably no more than a few hundred feet (in other words not much).

Cheers,
Biff

 

[pbehn]

If you have a large disparity in wing loading then you probably don't have to look any further. If the difference is only a few percent or single digits then the difference may not give you an accurate picture.

I agree but power and drag also are important. There is an encounter posted on this thread between a Typhoon and an Fw 190 where the Typhoon pilot says he was greying out and suspected his opponent was too, both planes turning ability was therefore set by the pilot.

 

[Schweik]

I agree but power and drag also are important. There is an encounter posted on this thread between a Typhoon and an Fw 190 where the Typhoon pilot says he was greying out and suspected his opponent was too, both planes turning ability was therefore set by the pilot.

And flaps, that was one of the secrets of the Ki-43

 

[Schweik]

Oh and P-40 wing loading: 31-35

 

[pbehn]

And flaps, that was one of the secrets of the Ki-43

Don't forget gondolas!. A P-47 can out turn a Bf 109 if you go high enough because the Bf 109 no longer produces enough power/lift to stay there, that could be considered academic if not for the fact that the P-47 was frequently seen at high altitude.

 

[Schweik]

Don't forget gondolas!. A P-47 can out turn a Bf 109 if you go high enough because the Bf 109 no longer produces enough power/lift to stay there, that could be considered academic if not for the fact that the P-47 was frequently seen at high altitude.

No argument from me! P-47 was at it's best up high. Not so great down low except for engine power.

 

[pbehn]

No argument from me! P-47 was at it's best up high. Not so great down low except for engine power.

So it is obviously more than wing loading.

 

[Schweik]

Altitude does play a role, at lower altitude smaller planes do better (because thick air) at very high altitudes bigger planes with bigger wings do better.
Engine power does also matter especially up high.

But wing loading is the main factor.

Gondolas never help...

One thing that did occur to me about the Typhoon, seeing as a lot of the stats seem to be for late war planes, Typhoon wing loading might include that infamous 400 lbs of extra armor, which probably would make a difference. Might want to check the weights for the earlier (pre Fighter Bomber) Typhoon marks.

 

[Milosh]

During Bodenplatte, a P-47 chased a Bf109 around the slag heaps and shot it down. The 109G-10 was flown by an experienced pilot.

 

[P-39 Expert]

View attachment 522571​

Excellent attachment, really puts maneuverability into focus.

 

[pbehn]

Altitude does play a role, at lower altitude smaller planes do better (because thick air) at very high altitudes bigger planes with bigger wings do better.
Engine power does also matter especially up high.

But wing loading is the main factor.

Gondolas never help...

One thing that did occur to me about the Typhoon, seeing as a lot of the stats seem to be for late war planes, Typhoon wing loading might include that infamous 400 lbs of extra armor, which probably would make a difference. Might want to check the weights for the earlier (pre Fighter Bomber) Typhoon marks.

Wing loading is only an important factor when power and thrust are equal. The Fw 190 could out turn a Spitfire MkV but not a Mk IX, the more thrust you have the higher speed you can turn at or the more drag you can overcome in a tight turn. This is why such encounters always descend to the ground, pilots trade height for energy. If the issue was as simple as wing loading designers would just put bigger wings on.