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

Clayton Magnet said:

Well, according to Erwin Leykauf, that was not the case...

"During what was later called the 'Battle of Britain', we flew the Messerschmitt Bf109E. The essential difference from the Spitfire Mark I flown at that time by the RAF was that the Spitfire was less manoeuvrable in the rolling plane. With its shorter wings (2 metres less wingspan) and its square-tipped wings, the Bf 109 was more manoeuvrable and slightly faster. (It is of interest that the English later on clipped the wings of the Spitfire.) For us, the more experienced pilots, real manoeuvring only started when the slats were out. For this reason it is possible to find pilots from that period (1940) who will tell you that the Spitfire turned better than the Bf 109. That is not true. I myself had many dogfights with Spitfires and I could always out-turn them. This is how I shot down six of them."
- Erwin Leykauf, German fighter pilot, 33 victories. Source: Messerschmitt Bf109 ja Saksan Sotatalous by Hannu Valtonen; Hurricane & Messerschmitt, Chaz Bowyer and Armand Van Ishoven.

Click to expand...

You are both right - it depends on the variant of the Bf 109 - and gondolas.

Roll is different than turn though keep in mind. "Maneuverability" in such accounts can mean either or both or something else entirely.

Glider said:

If the target moves you either track the change which is normally fairly easy to do as the change to the target is significant but to the attacking aircraft is a very minor change in angle and would normally involve the use of the rudder. If you cannot get a bead on the target as you rightly say, you simply pull up and have another go. Sooner or later one will line up.

A P40 would be a fairly easy target for the Typhoon. It has a massive speed advantage both in a straight line, and in a dive. It also has a massive advantage in the rate of climb. The P40 would have no reply to the Boom and Zoom tactic.

Click to expand...

Disagree, (not surprisingly) - the Typhoon has very little advantage in the dive if any, not enough to matter anyway- and BnZ strategy was pretty common for Luftwaffe fighters fighting against P-40 units in the Med. Something they stopped using because they realized how dangerous it was.

It did work sometimes but the Allied squadrons adopted strategies such as what I described. If an aircraft is diving on you (and therefore likely to be going faster) you have two options for evasion - turn very sharply which is what a Zero or a Hurricane would do, or dive yourself to pick up speed and roll, turn a little, roll (the same direction or the other way), turn a little more etc., it makes it much easier to evade. This is what Fw 190 pilots did when chased.

Both strategies are good for evading if you see the enemy fighter coming, but the second strategy makes it easier to chase them after they pass by.

P-40L actually has a better rate of climb at least down low, than a Typhoon by the way. 3300 fpm vs. 2740 for the Typhoon.

109 data and comparisons to some Allied aircraft. I don't know this stuff or how accurate it is, that's for you guys to quibble over Kurfurst - Your resource on Messerschmitt Bf 109 performance

Clayton Magnet said:

As previously stated, wing loading is great starting place, but only tells part of the story. Leading edge devices on the Bf 109, and trailing edge "butterfly flaps" on the Ki-43 and 84, contributed significantly to their respective slow speed handling and turning radius. The 109 was never a slouch in the turning department, if flown correctly. I suspect allied personnel testing captured examples never got the maximum performance out of the machines

Click to expand...

I think that is unlikely, the real issue is what version of the Bf 109. The Emil is pretty good in a turn, not as good as a Spit or a Hurricane but not bad either. Franz is very good, more competitive. Gustav not so much. And ... sorry for saying this Pbehn but it's the God's honest truth - particularly slow to turn if they had gunpods.

The Ki-43 and Ki-84 and N1K1 had automatic maneuvering flaps but many aircraft either had dedicated combat flap settings or had enough flexibility in their flap controls so as to be able to use them in combat.

The Bf 109 for example had combat flaps settings as well as those famous slats. The flaps helped tighten a turn.

Schweik said:

So this is purely speculative since they never fought so far as I know, but here are two possible alternative scenarios:

1. Typhoon dives down at P-40L, P-40L pilot doesn't see it, blasted by 20mm cannons torn to shreds. Dies instantly.
2. Typhoon dives down on P-40L, pilot is warned by his wingman or something, instantly rolls to the left* until he is upside down, and pulls a slight turn so that he's going downward and at an oblique angle to his previous flight path, and firewalls the throttle, picking up speed - Typhoon can't keep him lined up in his sights, no longer has a shot and overshoots, flies by. P-40L pilot keeps rolling until rightside up, puts the nose down and starts shooting as he chases the Tiffy down to the deck...

For a P-40 I'm sure you would assume that scenario #2 would be impossible but it's also probably what Fw 190 pilots did. To visualize scenario #2 start with a more or less linear flight path and then turn it into a cone with the target freeely moving around the edge in a spiral or back and forth. This makes them hard to hit.

However this is all speculative and for amusement purposes only I am not claiming to have any idea what would actually happen if a Typhoon had a dogfight with a P-40. I'm just trying to illustrate how a high roll rate works in these scenarios.

*I don't know how a Typhoon worked but several Axis fighters had a lot of torque going right so if as a US P-40 pilot they were diving on you a turn left was the standard escape technique.

Click to expand...

Your right option 2 is a fantasy. Standard tactic when bounced in any airforce was to climb into the attack. A typhoon diving into the attack could easily have a speed advantage of 120mph+ over a P40. It wouldn't have time to do anything clever.

Glider said:

Your right option 2 is a fantasy. Standard tactic when bounced in any airforce was to climb into the attack. A typhoon diving into the attack could easily have a speed advantage of 120mph+ over a P40. It wouldn't have time to do anything clever.

Click to expand...

I can't say I'm shocked you think that but it's not reality. They did also climb into the attack guns blazing but that was not the only strategy. Rolling into a Spit-S was actually a standard escape maneuver for P-40s in every Theater in the war and also used by basically every other fighter that could dive fast without problems.

Which strategy you choose depends on the Theater and the opponent and your own aircraft's capabilities. If your fighter doesn't turn that well you may not turn into the attack because you won't get your nose pointed in the right direction in time. Similarly you won't try a tight evasive turn if the other plane can out turn you.

Good roll rate is what gives you the option to react instantaneously. You can also skid and slip of course which is another go-to solution to being shot at. But rolling fast gives you other options very fast with no risk of going into a spin etc. and without losing speed.

How much time you had depends on how fast you were flying to begin with, how far away the attack was when spotted and so on.

The other strategy was to pull into a sharp turn or skid to avoid being hit.

I can transcribe multiple WW2 pilot accounts describing all three strategies being used quite reliably against Luftwaffe fighters.

Here is an example I have posted elsewhere around here before, by a 57th Fighter Group P-40F pilot named Lt. George D. Mobbs. The description comes from an entry in his diary he wrote right after the combat. He doesn't get into the specifics of rolling or skidding but does described evading while in a high speed dive, catching an enemy fighter after it made a pass at him and evading in a high speed chase. He also does turn into the attack firing at least once. His opponents were four Bf 109F-4s. In theory much faster, better performing fighters of course superior in every way. The source is this book , you can actually read the account here.

Another 64th FS [57th FG] pilot taking part in the 9 October mission was 1Lt George D Mobbs, who had a much rougher time of it. He recorded this description in his diary:

'We got mixed up and got to the landing ground ahead of the bombers, but went in to strafe anyway. That is, most of us did. I was on the outside, and just as we started to go down, for or five '109s started to attack me. I turned into them and got a short burst at one, but it was a 90 -degree deflection shot. Three of them kept attacking me, and I kept evading them, and occasionally getting a shot. Meanwhile, the rest of our aeroplanes had gone in to strafe and then flown out to sea, but I couldn't join them because the three German fighters kept on attacking me.

I was running the engine at 55 to 65 inches of mercury and 3,000 rpm, so I could pretty well stay with them. They would keep alternating the attacks between them. After a few minutes I got on one of their tails and was overtaking him. I didn't open fire until I was about 100 yards from him. I gave him a squirt and nothing happened. I moved over a little and changed my sighting, and on about the third burst his aeroplane burst into flames and fell off to one side. I was going to watch him go down so I would have a chance of getting credit for one destroyed, but one of the other jokers attacked so I was busy evading him. However, I spotted the first one moments later a few hundred feet below me, still spiraling down, but I never got another look at him after that.

I was still in a hole. The other two kept attacking, one after the other. Later, I got a few shots at one from directly behind and slightly above as we were diving. I could see the aeroplane jerk each time I pulled the trigger but saw no debris or fire from it., and I was driven away by the other one. attacking. I must have hit the Jerry, because I never saw him again.

Now I just had one to worry about, but on his next attack I finished my ammunition. He kept following and attacking, but with just him to worry about, I was making pretty good time back toward our lines. On another attack we met head-on, and I didn't think he fired his guns. I didn't see them, anyway, and i was already out of ammunition.

We were down pretty low by then - 1000 ft - and the German ack-ack had opened up at me. But I was going so fast that they were shooting behind me. I had everything forward. I was running awfully hard, and the ack ack was getting pretty close to the Jerry behind me. It was kind of amusing, because it looked as if I was going to make it back if my engine didn't quit. We were so low that I could see the ack-ack gun emplacements below.'

In fact the engine in 1Lt Mobbs' P-40F did hold together and the Bf 109 gave up the chase. The American returned safely to base, where he was awarded one Bf 109 probably destroyed for the mission. Four days later, Mobbs recorded his first of four confirmed victories during a scrap with 20 Bf 109s over El Alamein.
Mobbs probable claim was later downgraded to a 'damaged'.

Click to expand...

I looked up that second combat mentioned above on the 13th. On that day Kittyhawk I from 4 SAAF claimed 2 Ju 87, and P-40Fs from 57th FG claimed 2 Bf 109s, one by Lt George Mobbs. Actual German losses (per Shores MAW II P. 372) were two Bf 109F-4 and one Ju 87.

One question what is the VNE for a P40F/L. I don't think you have ever said as one who is very keen on the P40 here must be a chance that you have a set of pilots notes. The Pilots notes I saw for the Tomahawk said 470mph but that I would expect to be increased, but I don't know to what.

You do say that the Typhoon didn't have much advantage in a dive but I don't know what that advantage may or may not be.

Glider said:

One question what is the VNE for a P40F/L. I don't think you have ever said as one who is very keen on the P40 here must be a chance that you have a set of pilots notes. The Pilots notes I saw for the Tomahawk said 470mph but that I would expect to be increased, but I don't know to what.

You do say that the Typhoon didn't have much advantage in a dive but I don't know what that advantage may or may not be.

Click to expand...

Well I already posted the test pilot video of a 660 mph dive. We know that was a real test done by Curtiss aircraft company with a P-40D, though I assume that means something wrong with the pitot tube due to the high speed. Somebody else told me that for that test they covered the gun tubes and did some other faring over of things.

This training video says 485, this manual says 480

At speeds near 480 mph pilots reported having to use (rudder) trim tabs.

You have dozens of pilots like Bobby Gibbes in this case saying they could out dive Bf 109s, for example "Kittyhawk could out turn it quite comfortably and if the Messerschmitt boys came in and tried to dog fight, they were gone. We could dive away from them. If we started with same speed and they dived away, we could catch them in the dive."

I assume from so many comments like that that the actual combat speed limit is somewhat over the official manual VNE speed or the one from the later training movie, the airframe seems to be able to handle it. Of course diving at speeds like that is very risky regardless and you have to be careful about pulling out or going transonic.

But I have yet to find front line documentation about the fighter operations in the Med, the closest is Shores operational histories and some squadron histories but those are mostly operational / anecdotatal data not technical specs.

Thanks for that, so the P40 VNE is 480-485. However the VNE for the Typhoon is 525mph ( A.P. 1804 Pilot's Notes for Typhoon - Marks IA and IB Sabre II or IIA Engine - 2nd Edition)

Why do you continue saying that the Typhoon didn't have much of an advantage, when they clearly did?

The combat example wasn't the P40 fighting a Zoom and Boom attack. If it had been at the start of the attack when the P40 turned into the attack the 109's would have been gone as the P40 wold have been climbing and the 109 diving.

Put me in the "Roll-Rate Very Important for Boom n' Zoom attacks" camp.

Schweik said:

Disagree, (not surprisingly) - the Typhoon has very little advantage in the dive if any ...

P-40L actually has a better rate of climb at least down low, than a Typhoon by the way. 3300 fpm vs. 2740 for the Typhoon.

Click to expand...

As posted earlier, the dive limit on the Typhoon was 525 mph, while the Merlin P-40 was 480 mph (Pilot's Flight Operating Instructions, revised June '43).

Per the A&AEE: On the deck, a fully loaded (11,090 lb) Typhoon climbed at 3380 fpm at 1hr climb rating and 3840 fpm at 5min combat setting.

For what it's worth ... added another piece of information to my post here that appears to be somewhat at odds with the RAE measurements of the Typhoon roll - as seen in the NACA roll chart.

AFDU, FW.190 Trials vs. 4-cannon Typhoon, 9 Aug 1942
Dive

Schweik said:

Totally disagree. Rolling and turning are different things. You can roll without losing speed. Rolling (and turning, slightly) allows the attacking fighter to keep targets lined up.'

Click to expand...

Schweik,

If you are rolling you are creating drag and will slow. The harder the roll the more drag you will create the more speed you will lose. Same in pitch. The harder you pull the more drag you create, the more speed you scrub off.

Cheers,
Biff

Glider said:

Thanks for that, so the P40 VNE is 480-485. However the VNE for the Typhoon is 525mph ( A.P. 1804 Pilot's Notes for Typhoon - Marks IA and IB Sabre II or IIA Engine - 2nd Edition)

Why do you continue saying that the Typhoon didn't have much of an advantage, when they clearly did?

Click to expand...

Lol you people seem to be saying I make stuff up. I do not sir!

Because P-40 pilots routinely described diving at 500 - 550 mph. I don't know why limitations on the manual were so low (the early ones started as low as 450, then 460, then 480 then 485 that I know of) but I guess due to not wanting trainees to black out from G load. Maybe the Typhoon manuals were set too high seeing as how many lost their tails and broke up! I really don't know, but it was common knowledge among pilots. There actually is a Wartime RAF video talking about this with Tomahawks but it appears to no longer be on youtube.

However when I was researching the infamous 660 mph test flight, reading about Curtiss test pilots, I ran across this page:

Herbert O. Fisher - Wikipedia

According to this page, in the notes the standard checkout flight for a new P-40 was: "Fisher had a specialty, he would take an aircraft up to "20,000, strain the engine upward, then go inverted, throttle full forward, and nose it over, losing 10,000 feet or more at 500mph+. He knew it was almost impossible to tear a P-40 apart in a dive" It says "He flew 2,498 P-40s in his role as a production test pilot" so presumably he knew what he was talking about.

To be honest it never occured to me until many pages into this very thread that it was a controversial topic, it seemed to be widely known. Otherwise I would have made note of it when I ran across such mentions.

The combat example wasn't the P40 fighting a Zoom and Boom attack. If it had been at the start of the attack when the P40 turned into the attack the 109's would have been gone as the P40 wold have been climbing and the 109 diving.

Click to expand...

He is describing BnZ attacks. When he says "I couldn't join them because the three German fighters kept on attacking me." and "They would keep alternating the attacks between them. " and "After a few minutes I got on one of their tails and was overtaking him. I didn't open fire until I was about 100 yards from him." he's talking about in a dive after an attacking pass. And "The other two kept attacking, one after the other. Later, I got a few shots at one from directly behind and slightly above as we were diving. "

He's talking about the Bf 109s taking turns making passes at him, diving away, zooming back up to altitude and trying again. That is what they did. The 109s would BnZ until they ran out of "E" and could no longer safely extend, then they either had to disengage as best they could in a dive, or dogfight (either were dangerous options). A couple of times the pilot Mobbs managed to catch them in the dive and get some shots off.

I can post a lot of other examples that make it much clearer and more explicit, I posted that one because I had already posted it to another thread (in a different argument about manifold pressure*. But the reason I posted that one was so I didn't have to transcribe it.

Transcribing is a pain in the ass and I can tell you on this board, not appreciated if it suggests that goes against popular consensus here! But I'll see if I can find some examples of guys talking about diving over 500 mph.



By the way, it occured to me they have a P-40F at Duxford. Maybe it would be worth emailing them and find somebody who knows the pilot, he might be able to give us some technical specs.

*which we also discussed in this one, notable that he was flying at 55-65" Hg. That account is exceptional in particular because it's so rare for them to mention manifold pressure at all

BiffF15 said:

Schweik,

If you are rolling you are creating drag and will slow. The harder the roll the more drag you will create the more speed you will lose. Same in pitch. The harder you pull the more drag you create, the more speed you scrub off.

Cheers,
Biff

Click to expand...

Wouldn't you say pitch causes you to lose a lot more speed a lot faster than rolling?

Schweik said:

From a British test in late 1942 with a clipped wing Spitfire, standard wing spitfire and FW-190:
Turning circle at 20,000 feet:
Spitfire V, standard wing 970 feet
Spitfire V, clipped wing 1025 feet
FW-190 1450 feet (RAE Farnborough figures)
No info on time or speed however.

Maybe he has a link to the test?

Click to expand...

That is a minimum turn circle 970 ft is 320 yards, it is the absolute minimum, what speed do you think they were going to turn a full circle in 970ft? Turning performance starts as soon as you deviate from flying straight and level. From the early days of leaning into France cruising speed was increased, the maximum speed of these planes was around 400MPH, the turning circle progressively reduced as speeds reduced but the Spitfire Mk V coming up trumps on minimum turning circle of 300mtrs at 20,000 ft. means nothing. Over France a Spitfire Mk V had no means of escape against an Fw 190

Schweik said:

Wouldn't you say pitch causes you to lose a lot more speed a lot faster than rolling?

Click to expand...

Yes because you are moving the tail one direction while moving the nose in th

Schweik said:

Wouldn't you say pitch causes you to lose a lot more speed a lot faster than rolling?

Click to expand...

Yes because you creating more drag. Also realize that two otherwise identical aircraft with different C/Gs will bleed energy at different rates while doing the exact same maneuvers. The further aft the CG the better for sustaining energy but worse for stability . This is why the F16 is such a great BFM (dogfighting) machine. Aft CG also helps fuel economy at cruise speeds.

Cheers,
Biff

pbehn said:

That is a minimum turn circle 970 ft is 320 yards, it is the absolute minimum, what speed do you think they were going to turn a full circle in 970ft? Turning performance starts as soon as you deviate from flying straight and level. From the early days of leaning into France cruising speed was increased, the maximum speed of these planes was around 400MPH, the turning circle progressively reduced as speeds reduced but the Spitfire Mk V coming up trumps on minimum turning circle of 300mtrs at 20,000 ft. Over France a Spitfire Mk V had no means of escape against an Fw 190

Click to expand...

Your sentences get harder to read as you continue to write. Please show me anything that says a Fw 190 can out turn a Spit V. That was the first comparison I could find, but I think it's very well known that a Spit V could out turn a Fw 190.

Of course turning is not as abrupt at higher speeds, that is where you get the G load blackouts you were mentioning upthread. Turning at very high speed will quickly lead to heavy G loads which will begin to exceed what the pilot can take in a more or less vertical seat with no G-suit. But it's also true that as you start turning at higher speeds in a propeller aircraft, your speed decreases steadily.

Also they aren't going 400 mph in a Fw unless they are at a very high engine setting and flying strait and level (or down) for some time and at the right altitude. The Spit V top level speed was 360-375 mph.

Schweik, in dive speed anecdotes I would assume the pilot--for the benefit of the reader/layman--does a bit of math and give an approximate TAS figure. Do they specifically mention IAS?