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

[Schweik]

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?

All the pilots are talking about is IAS I would assume.

 

[wuzak]

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.

The RAE tested the 109E against the Spitfire, flown by service pilots, and found they could out-turn the Spitfire.

However, when an experienced test pilot flew the Spitfire, the roles were reversed. It seems that the service pilots were reluctant or incapable of taking the Spitfire to its limits, either because of lack of skill or experience.

So I would be unsurprised that many Spitfires were lost to 109s in the BoB because they were out-turned.

 

[Schweik]

Maybe the Typhoon could get over 500 mph in a shallower and therefore safer dive. Most of the (many) anecdotes I've read of P-40s going 500+ mph, including the one above, mention vertical or near vertical dives. At 500 mph you can go from 20,000 feet to the ground in around 20 or 30 seconds I would assume, right? Giving time to accelerate call it two or three minutes before you are down at Sea Level. You can't even initiate a dive that steep unless you are pretty high up.

 

[pbehn]

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.

This is getting tiresome, as glider who flies a glider has posted a glider can out turn a combat aircraft and I have seen gliders turning with the inner wing describing a 20 -30 mtr diameter circle. When the RAF were issued with Mk IX spitfires and pilots encountered FW 190s they first engaged in a climbing fight, when they could beat the FW190 in a climb they knew they could also in a turn, they are essentially the same thing in different planes.

 

[Schweik]

• This is getting tiresome,
• as glider who flies a glider has posted a glider
• in a climb they knew they could also in a turn, they are essentially the same thing in different planes.

I know I'm not drunk because I haven't had a beer yet even though it's Friday on the weekend before Christmas, which is probably a mistake and I shall soon rectify it.

I say again - (and I agree it's tiresome) show me some evidence that a Fw 190 could out turn a Spit V. If you can I'll learn something and all your creepy malice will be worth enduring.

 

[pbehn]

So I would be unsurprised that many Spitfires were lost to 109s in the BoB because they were out-turned.

Well I would too if the pilot knew what they were doing right up to the limit. On a race circuit I have seen a rider brake earlier than me, but not as hard as I was breaking, let the brakes off too early and fly off the circuit in a blaze of crap, With the 109 it depended how much you were prepared to push things once the LE slats deployed, as I understand it, for the aces in the LW that was when the "fun" started for others it induced a sense of panic.

 

[Schweik]

The RAE tested the 109E against the Spitfire, flown by service pilots, and found they could out-turn the Spitfire.

However, when an experienced test pilot flew the Spitfire, the roles were reversed. It seems that the service pilots were reluctant or incapable of taking the Spitfire to its limits, either because of lack of skill or experience.

So I would be unsurprised that many Spitfires were lost to 109s in the BoB because they were out-turned.

I believe that, the same thing happened with Spits, Kityhawks and Hurricanes in the Med. Pilots were afraid to pull G's because they thought the wings would fall off or they would get in a spin they couldn't recover from. Some of the guys who later became aces like Nicky Barr, Bobby GIbbes and Clive Caldwell figured it out on their own and spread the news so to speak on this and many other things like deflection shooting (and for example techniques of bearing down so as to not pass out when they were pulling G's) This is one of the reason they started doing a lot better by the middle of 42, it took them about 6 months to figure out how to get he most out of their planes, and change to finger 4 from 'vic' formations.

Also some of the battles in the BoB were hairballs so large it would have been very very hard to even track all the enemy fighters let alone turn with them intelligently.

 

[pbehn]

I know I'm not drunk because I haven't had a beer yet even though it's Friday on the weekend before Christmas, which is probably a mistake and I shall soon rectify it.

I say again - (and I agree it's tiresome) show me some evidence that a Fw 190 could out turn a Spit V. If you can I'll learn something and all your creepy malice will be worth enduring.

at what speed? The evidence is this, the Mk IX, tell me what speed your combat is when the circle is 370ft? The evidence, if you want more, is the tragic loss rate of Spitfire MkVs over France. You see turn rate didn't matter a damn, it just allows you to circle until you run out of fuel or hit the ground.

 

[Schweik]

at what speed? The evidence is this, the Mk IX, tell me what speed your combat is when the circle is 370ft? The evidence, if you want more, is the tragic loss rate of Spitfire MkVs over France. You see turn rate didn't matter a damn, it just allows you to circle until you run out of fuel or hit the ground.
View attachment 522618

Ok but which is it? One argument at a time right? Is it that the Fw 190 could out turn the Spit V or that turn rate didn't matter a damn? Or both?

 

[pbehn]

Ok but which is it? One argument at a time right? Is it that the Fw 190 could out turn the Spit V or that turn rate didn't matter a damn? Or both?

If you were over France in a Mk V and you met a FW 190 you had a small chance of getting home. If the MkV slowed the turning fight down to where he had the advantage he was treated to a glorious changing view of the French landscape, but he couldn't get home, because that involves flying in a straight line, which is why, many posts ago I said speed and rate of climb were decisive.

 

[Schweik]

Well now we are back where we started. That is at least a coherent argument, and we do certainly know that Spit V's had trouble with Fw 190s over France. That much I agree with. And going home requiring flying in a strait line, there is something to that too.

However I don't think it proves your thesis that speed and rate of climb are decisive. That depended on the Theater and the specific aircraft involved. The two strategies - agility vs. speed, and a few others besides have been with us throughout the history of air combat, from WWI to the most recent conflicts. You are oversimplifying the reality.

 

[slaterat]

This is a quote from the AFDU report on the FW 190, comparing to the Spit V,

" In terms of Manoeuvrability, the FW was superior in all aspects , except that of turning circles... Other than utilizing the Spitfire's(v) superior turn performance, the most effective defence when attacked by a FW was to enter a high speed shallow dive, which forced the Fw into a long stern chase . Although it caught up eventually , a considerable distance was covered, and it was thought that this tactic was liable to draw the 190 too far from its base."

 

[slaterat]

The sudden appearance of the FW 190 helped save the Typhoon program but also probably caused its rush into front line service. From flying to the Limit, " For a period of twelve months ( until the arrival of the Spit 9 in appreciable numbers in late 42), it (the Typhoon) was the only aircraft on the RAF's inventory capable of dealing with the Focke-Wulf Fw 190"

 

[slaterat]

As for the NASA roll chart , it is cut off at 380 IAS, and at that point you see many planes roll rates drastically falling , but the Typhoon's is still fairly level. Remember ADFU testing showed the Typhoon still with an acceptable roll rate at 460 IAS, a speed at which the P-40 ailerons are " locked solid" and it must be heavily trimmed nose down. " Testing also demonstrated that " at 440-450 the the pilot was unable to exert enough force on the controls to prevent it from coming out of the dive and yawing to the right". Also " At speeds above 400 IAS the , elevator and rudder forces needed to hold it in a dive were very heavy" Kittyhawk I

In high speed dives it is the Typhoon that has the advantage in control and maneuverability over the Kittyhawk.

 

[Schweik]

As for the NASA roll chart , it is cut off at 380 IAS, and at that point you see many planes roll rates drastically falling , but the Typhoon's is still fairly level. Remember ADFU testing showed the Typhoon still with an acceptable roll rate at 460 IAS, a speed at which the P-40 ailerons are " locked solid" and it must be heavily trimmed nose down. " Testing also demonstrated that " at 440-450 the the pilot was unable to exert enough force on the controls to prevent it from coming out of the dive and yawing to the right". Also " At speeds above 400 IAS the , elevator and rudder forces needed to hold it in a dive were very heavy" Kittyhawk I

In high speed dives it is the Typhoon that has the advantage in control and maneuverability over the Kittyhawk.

Yeah but I think that is rubbish. Pilots described the P-40 as having very good high speed controls. Aileron did have to be trimmed out, and many P-40 pilots mentioned having a strong right leg to hold the rudder steady in a high speed dive, (there was a joke about this) but they could still roll and turn when the 109 and Zero couldn't (due to controls and / or torque). It's one of the main reasons so many P-40 pilots survived the war. I believe I have some quotes that talk about this.

As for the Typhoon and the Fw 190, Tiffy had the speed to put it back in the game, but the Fw still had several advantages. Much better roll we've discussed, also more guns, I think more and better armor, and probably most important, less drag. 34' wings instead of 41', I think a bit less drag. Translates to more maneuverability and a higher combat speed I suspect.

Typhoon has a lower wing loading though for most variants so can probably out turn it.

 

[slaterat]

In 42 the Typhoon and the FW 190 are pretty close. At 5000' and 20,000' their speeds are virtually the same but at 10,000 ' the Typhoon has a 30 mph advantage. As for fire power I'll take the 4 hispannos over the 190s cannon and mgs, although they both are quite heavily armed. Climb and roll rate go to the 190, turn rate to the typhoon and dive rate might be too close to call, it depends on which report you read. They are a very close match it would come down to pilot skill.

 

[Greyman]

AFDU figured the Fw 190 would pull away from the Typhoon initially in the dive, but the Typhoon would eventually catch up.

I'd say the four Hispanos were better than the two Oerlikons and two Mausers on paper - but the Mausers being nicely placed right next to the fuselage make it a wash. Machine guns are a good bonus too.

Re: the NACA chart - I take your point, slaterat, about the flatness of the curve and the extrapolation out to 450-500 IAS ... but you'd think that if the Typhoon was the worst rolling fighter--by a healthy margin--that the RAE had ever tested, that fact would pop up over and over. That really doesn't seem to be the case.

 

[slaterat]

Greyman,
You are right there is something fishy about that roll chart. It gives the Typhoon 30 degrees/sec @ 380 IAS with 50lbs stick force. Testing by A&AEE on P5212 gave between 46 and 56 degrees/sec @ 240 to 460 IAS with 1/4 aileron. So that would be at least 46 degrees/sec@460 IAS with 1/4 aileron. I would like to see the full table on the A&AEE test as it would have the stick force applied.

 

[Greyman]

EDIT: figures edited re: later posts

You might be reading the test incorrectly. Are we looking at the same one? (3rd Part of Typhoon Trials, Fuel Consumption, Handling and Diving Trials, 18th December 1940)

I get 23 to 28 degrees per second throughout 240 - 460 mph IAS. But - that's with a standing start and a full stop/direction change on the clock. So the A&AEE roll rate tests here aren't too far behind the NACA roll chart (at high speeds), and that's with the rolling velocity being stopped twice while the timer is running. And with only 1/4 aileron ...

The test involved:

- (stopwatch started) apply 1/4 aileron within one second​

- rolling 45 degrees​

- applying 1/4 opposite aileron​

- rolling 90 degrees opposite direction until banked 45 degrees (stopwatch stopped)​

The test noted that even at 460 IAS the force required for 1/4 aileron was 'moderate'.

As an aside - to Biff's very point a few posts ago the trial noted that during the test sequence outlined above, the Typhoon lost about 10 mph IAS when carried out at 400 mph and 440 mph, and lost 20 mph when carried out at 460 mph.

 

[slaterat]

Yes i think it is the same test. The explanation of the test in "Flying To the Limit", is

The method of testing aileron response involved placing the aircraft in a 45 degree bank, then applying one quarter opposite aileron, and measuring the time taken to roll back to level flight to 45 degrees the opposite bank.

So the stop watch would be timing a 270 degree roll from 45 degrees down one side to 45 degrees down the other side.

I don't know what testing protocol is the correct one