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

[Greyman]

Reading it more carefully, I think we both have it wrong. Here's the exact wording from the A&AEE report:

One quarter aileron was applied in one second (approximately), and as soon as the aeroplane had banked through 45°, one quarter opposite aileron was applied. The time was measured from the instant aileron was first applied until the aeroplane had rolled back through level flight to 45° opposite bank.

I'll amend my post above.

 

[slaterat]

Take a careful read on NACA 868. The chart that most peopple trot out from that report is not a measured roll rate for ANY of the aircraft on the chart.

It is the pb/2V roll helix angle calculated at 10,000 feet with 50 pounds of side force applied to the stick. In real life, most aircraft cannot meet the ideal helix angle, most didn't fight at 10,000 feet in Europe and, in combat, people applied whatever force was necessary to get the desired rersult or to hit the control stop, whichever happened first.

As a rough rule of thumb, the density of the air at 20,000 feet is one half that at sea level. So at 20,000 feet, you had to apply twice the aileron to get the same result as at sea level. Roll gets lot slower as you go up from there.

That information is not very evident if you just look at the chart. You have to read the report to find out the chart conditions. The conditions ar about 2 pages or so before the chart in the report.

So the chart isn't measuring real world roll rates. You learn something every day.

 

[slaterat]

Ok now I get it. Total roll measured would be 45 degrees down and then back 90 dgrees, for a total of 135 degrees. Timing would start from level flight an include stopping and reversing to the other direction.

Two things I have learned now.

 

[Greyman]

So the chart isn't measuring real world roll rates ...

Hmm, I think they are. Though admittedly "pb/2V roll helix angle" sails clear over my head.

Over half of the curves shown in the NACA chart I've seen from earlier wartime RAE reports.

*EDIT: Google to the rescue. Found the report here: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19930090943.pdf

The helix angle chart is the page before the one in question (page 39).

 

[Schweik]

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.

Fun unless he was against an experienced Spitfire pilot, in which case he was probably never heard from again and his 'experten' pals would be pouring out some schnapps on the tarmac in his memory that night.... Spitfire can easily out turn the 109. Wing loading is ~30% lower with a more efficient wing.

 

[Glider]

Thought this might be of interest. I mentioned that the Russians were very keen to get their hand on more Spitfires and P39's and were not asking for P40's. Also there were some observations that the Russians were not that keen on the Spitfire.

Attached is an internal memo held at the National Archives which shows just how keen the Russians were on getting their hands on Spits and P39's.

.

 

[pbehn]

Fun unless he was against an experienced Spitfire pilot, in which case he was probably never heard from again and his 'experten' pals would be pouring out some schnapps on the tarmac in his memory that night.... Spitfire can easily out turn the 109. Wing loading is ~30% lower with a more efficient wing.

You are obsessed with turning and rolling. Take one plane that is best at turning and rolling and another which has 30MPH advantage in speed. Now you are in one of the aircraft and spot a flight of four of the others, do you want to out turn and roll 4 enemy aircraft or just get out of their place?
. The ability to turn is just one aspect, you say "an experienced Spitfire pilot" any experienced pilot uses his advantages and minimises disadvantages. Turning performance is across the whole speed range not just the speed which produces the minimum turning radius, there were many German aces perfectly confident of taking on a Spitfire, they shot many down and lived to tell the tale.

 

[Schweik]

Thought this might be of interest. I mentioned that the Russians were very keen to get their hand on more Spitfires and P39's and were not asking for P40's. Also there were some observations that the Russians were not that keen on the Spitfire.

Attached is an internal memo held at the National Archives which shows just how keen the Russians were on getting their hands on Spits and P39's.

View attachment 522698

.

Yes we discussed Stalins memo.

Here is the history of the P40 in Soviet service

The P-40 in Soviet Aviation

A thorough account of the (brief) history of Spitfires on the Soviet front line

Spitfires over the Kuban

 

[Schweik]

You are obsessed with turning and rolling. Take one plane that is best at turning and rolling and another which has 30MPH advantage in speed. Now you are in one of the aircraft and spot a flight of four of the others, do you want to out turn and roll 4 enemy aircraft or just get out of their place?
. The ability to turn is just one aspect, you say "an experienced Spitfire pilot" any experienced pilot uses his advantages and minimises disadvantages. Turning performance is across the whole speed range not just the speed which produces the minimum turning radius, there were many German aces perfectly confident of taking on a Spitfire, they shot many down and lived to tell the tale.

I'm not going to speculate what you are obsessed with but once again you are trying to shift the argument a little. All I said upthread that started this particular side argument was that the Spitfire Mk V could out turn the Fw 190, I didn't say the Fw had no advantage - clearly it did.

Yes each pilot would use his aircrafts advantages and exploit his enemies weaknesses, turning was one of the main advantages of the Spitfire and it was no slouch at rolling either.

Me 109s couldn't out turn a Spitfire either, or to be more specific, certainly the 109E could not out turn a Spit I and no Bf 109 could out turn a Spit V. I stand by that there assertion you can love it or lump it bruh.

 

[Schweik]

You are obsessed with turning and rolling. Take one plane that is best at turning and rolling and another which has 30MPH advantage in speed.

By the way, if a 30 mph advantage in speed was always more important than turning and rolling ability, then the P-51B would be a much better fighter than a Spitfire Mk IX... is that what we really think? It would make a MiG 3 superior to the Bf 109E. It would make a P-39 far superior to an A6M. But that is not how it typically shook out.

 

[Shortround6]

Speed alone may not be good enough, but unlike most (or all?) of your examples the Typhoon could outclimb the P-40F by a fair margian. We can argue back and for a bit about when each type got approved for higher engine ratings

Once again climb rate is an indicator of excess power and as such indicates (but does not prove) better sustained turning performance.

And the Typhoon will out dive a P-40. Limiting speed with 8 under rockets and the launch rails is the dive limit for a P-40 Clean.

Some pilots may well have dived their P-40s at 500mph + contrary to the instructions in the manual but since the Typhoon was listed at 525 that pretty well covers it.

So the Typhoon is faster, climbs better, dives better (or at least as good) has better firepower (after they switch to the cannon)
yeah, I can see how rolling better means the P-40 is the superior fighter. not

 

[GrauGeist]

Thought this might be of interest. I mentioned that the Russians were very keen to get their hand on more Spitfires and P39's and were not asking for P40's. Also there were some observations that the Russians were not that keen on the Spitfire.

Attached is an internal memo held at the National Archives which shows just how keen the Russians were on getting their hands on Spits and P39's.

View attachment 522698

.

I don't mean to cast doubt on this document, but there is so much wrong in the image, I don't know where to start.
The object edges in the photo (pages, typewriter text, etc. are slightly blurred yet the signature is razor-sharp.
The typewriter text (and the ghost text from the other side) is aligned square to the photo's parameters yet the page it's supposedly typed on is canted by several degrees.
As the page is presented to the viewer, the text (including the -2-) should be to the right and slanted.

Not sure what's going on here, but it's not looking very legitimate, to be honest.

 

[Glider]

All I can say is that it's a photograph that I took at the NA of an original paper. Original doc's in the NA are often blurred as they were typed and to produce multiple copies the process produced the blurred effect. People often would write on their blurred original and that of course would be sharp.
Showing my age I can remember using carbon copies and duplicating machines at work..

If you wish I could post other examples of doc's with similar characteristics

 

[Glider]

By the way, if a 30 mph advantage in speed was always more important than turning and rolling ability, then the P-51B would be a much better fighter than a Spitfire Mk IX... is that what we really think? It would make a MiG 3 superior to the Bf 109E. It would make a P-39 far superior to an A6M. But that is not how it typically shook out.

this is a good example of your single track approach to a complex issue. In a dogfight there were other factors which have the Spit IX the advantage over a P51,namely climb, acceleration agility plus others.



ps thanks for the links to the P40 Russian site.

 

[Schweik]

this is a good example of your single track approach to a complex issue. In a dogfight there were other factors which have the Spit IX the advantage over a P51,namely climb, acceleration agility plus others.

Quite to the contrary. I was pointing out that speed alone does not trump all pther factors.

ps thanks for the links to the P40 Russian site.

You might also find this useful, esp pages 2 and 3

Conversations with N.Golodnikov

 

[Schweik]

Speed alone may not be good enough, but unlike most (or all?) of your examples the Typhoon could outclimb the P-40F by a fair margian. We can argue back and for a bit about when each type got approved for higher engine ratings

Climb rate for the P-40L was 3,300 fpm so not that wide a margin if any. Wikipedia says Typhoon climbs at 2,900.

Once again climb rate is an indicator of excess power and as such indicates (but does not prove) better sustained turning performance.

Quite a stretch, in fact I don't think even you believe what you are trying rather slyly to imply here. P-40L had a wing loading of 33 lbs per sq ft. vs 41 for the Typhoon.

And the Typhoon will out dive a P-40. Limiting speed with 8 under rockets and ...

Some pilots may well have dived their P-40s at 500mph + contrary to the instructions in the manual but since the Typhoon was listed at 525 that pretty well covers it.

I guess you missed my post about the Curtiss test pilot who personally flew the check out flights for over 2,000 P-40's and as part of the routine process dove them from 20,000 to 10,000 ft reaching "500+" mph each time, noting that "it was pretty much impossible to damage a P 40 in a dive."

Let me pose a question about diving. In a vertucal dive from 20,000' at 500 mph, how long does it take to reach Sea Level? How about a 70 degree dive? 45 degree?

So the Typhoon is faster, climbs better, dives better (or at least as good) has better firepower (after they switch to the cannon)
yeah, I can see how rolling better means the P-40 is the superior fighter. not

I think you see what you want to see.

P-40F and L pilots alone shot down nearly twice as many enemy aircraft as pilots flying Typhoons, even though more Typhoons were produced and the Typhoon was in combat longer.

The Typhoon was equipped with a very powerful engine and was heavily armed & fast.

It also had a 41' wingspan with a notoriously badly designed wing that was far too thick and created very high drag. This had all kinds of knock on effects.

It turned poorly with a high wing loading and had one of the poorest roll rates of any single engined fighter flying in 1943.

It was extremely heavy and suffered from catastrophic structural failures.

Usually a good fighter either rolls well or turns well. The P 40F could do both, and dive 500 mph. Pilots said they trusted it to get them home. How many Typhoon pilots said the same?

 

[Shortround6]

Climb rate for the P-40L was 3,300 fpm so not that wide a margin if any. Wikipedia says Typhoon climbs at 2,900.

First problem, you believe wikipedia.

How about comparing like to like instead of Typhoon climbing at 30 minute engine rating and P-40 climbing using WEP power.

 

[Schweik]

I believe that is 54 in which is take off power. WEP would be 65 in per the description by Lt.mobs up thread.

Possible the typhoon did out-climb the p40l but I don't think it was by any wide margin.

 

[Shortround6]

54 in is take-off power, but 48 in was the military power at 3000rpm and 44in at 2850 rpm was the max continous rating.

65inches would be just about 18lbs of boost. Not sure when that was approved (if ever) as opposed to a 14-16lb rating. For most of 1942 there was no official WEP rating and boost was limited to 9lbs after take-off. 1943 is a different story.

Comparing that level of boost to the Typhoons engine running at max continous is bogus.

Even an early Typhoon in combat would use 1-2 pounds more boost and several hundred more rpm than the power level used for the climb rate you posted. Later Typhoons used an additional 2lbs of boost and another 150rpm at full power.

 

[Glider]

Climb rate for the P-40L was 3,300 fpm so not that wide a margin if any. Wikipedia says Typhoon climbs at 2,900.

What I find irritating is your habit of going from one source to another depending on what is most convenient to your argument.
Yes, that is what Wiki Says. It also says that's at FS Supercharger at 14,300ft. What you don't say, is that matches exactly what the Williams site says, but this also gives a climb at 1,700ft of 3,840ft/min in MS supercharger.
This leaves your 3,300 ft/min claim for the P40L looking a lot less exciting. In particular when to achieve this, you have reduced the weapons to 4 x HMG is considered insufficient by the USAAF for most missions, the range is now considerably less, you have considerably less protection and your communication ability is reduced because you have taken out a radio.

I guess you missed my post about the Curtiss test pilot who personally flew the check out flights for over 2,000 P-40's and as part of the routine process dove them from 20,000 to 10,000 ft reaching "500+" mph each time, noting that "it was pretty much impossible to damage a P 40 in a dive."

If the P40 was safe at 500mph+ then the VNE would be 500mph+. It isn't, the VNE is 480mph and its that for a reason. The reason is when you start going over 480mph there is an increased danger that something is likely to go very wrong, very quickly. I would expect British test pilots to take the Typhoon past the 525mph limit because that's what test pilots do, they test the aircraft.
Submarines are always tested past their max dive limit, different application of the same principle.

I think you see what you want to see.

Correct, you do and the following is a classic example

P-40F and L pilots alone shot down nearly twice as many enemy aircraft as pilots flying Typhoons, even though more Typhoons were produced and the Typhoon was in combat longer.

Because the P40 operated in an environment where the Germans were more active and there were less Allied fighters to provide top cover. However you know this but will not acknowledge it.
When you do this analysis you may want to include how many of each type were shot down by fighters. I truly don't know the answer, but considering that the Typhoon pilots were normally at lower altitude, were probably jumped more often than the P40 and their pilots would have been trained more on GA combat than fighter combat I reckon they could hold their own.

The Typhoon was equipped with a very powerful engine and was heavily armed & fast.

It also had a 41' wingspan with a notoriously badly designed wing that was far too thick and created very high drag. This had all kinds of knock on effects.

Certainly the wing design wasn't a thing of beauty but it didn't stop it having an excellent performance and it did have one advantage. It helped it pull out of a dive

It turned poorly with a high wing loading and had one of the poorest roll rates of any single engined fighter flying in 1943.

It tuned well enough to get one good burst in when in test combat with a Spit Vb and I see no reason why it couldn't do the same with a P40. One burst from the 4 x 20mm into a lightened P40, with reduced armour is likely to be all you need.

It was extremely heavy and suffered from catastrophic structural failures.

Which were fixed and it didn't stop the VNE being 45mph faster than the P40. Two points you never acknowledge when posting. You just keep repeating that the Typhoon suffered catastrophic failures ignoring the fix

Incidentally, the Typhoon wasn't the only aircraft to have this problem, the 109F when first introduced had a similar problem and likewise this was also addressed.

Usually a good fighter either rolls well or turns well. The P 40F could do both, and dive 500 mph. Pilots said they trusted it to get them home. How many Typhoon pilots said the same?

The ones that got home