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