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

Glider said:

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

Click to expand...

I do apologize as I meant no personal offense, the image just struck me as very odd.
Perhaps dealing with documents more from the digital age in recent years, I've become accustumed to the exact formatting and have forgotten about how documents could vary from typewriter to typewriter, or documents that came off a teletype could be a bit off...and yes, the old "Ditto" machines with their purple or blue-black text along with the unique smell that permeated the paper for days on end.
And using Carbon paper was a joy especially if the forms were triplicate (or more), where you had to nearly do bench-presses to ensure the writing tranferred across all copies.

Again, my apologies

Shortround6 said:

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.

Click to expand...

The diary excerpt I posted where the pilot rather casually mentioned going from 55" to 65" Hg boost was from October 1942. So clearly they were doing it by then with or without official approval.

You seem to have a hard time understanding or accepting this but in WW2 quite often innovations in how to run the aircraft were coming from the field and then filtering back up to the manufacturer and the Generals, who later updated their policies to adapt to the front line reality. How much later basically depended on how good the company and the administrators were. This was by no means unique to the P-40.

But it was routine with the P-40, partly perhaps because they were deployed far out in the field very distant from the home office as it were, and perhaps partly because the C/O's of those Fighter Groups flew missions with the other pilots so their lives were on the line the same as everybody else.

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.

Click to expand...

Ok well, here is the thing, I don't know what the correct figure is for the Typhoon. I'll address the larger issue here in my next post.

For whatever it's worth ive read at least a half a dozen examples of pilots diving the p40 500 and change without problems and a qoute from at least 1 pilot in 1944 that the p40 could still" outdive anything with a propeler".
I am however of the opinion that the Typhoon was a better plane overall as one would expect from a later design so certainly not any bias on my part talking here.

Ok before I delve into responding to the latest attack on my character and the very fabric of reality, let me make one small general point about statistics and figures for WW II aircraft. When you are looking up performance statistics for most WW2 fighters whether in Wikipedia, "Bobs big book of airplanes" or something a little more refined like Americas 100,000 they typically list those statistics in a very haphazard manner.

For example if you look up P-40 stats you will almost always find numbers for the P-40E - which tells you nothing at all if for example you want to know about USAAF units fighting with them in the Med. Engine power in a stats block may be listed for continuous, military, takeoff, or boosted / WEP power depending on the aircraft. For example on the Fw 190 they often show the power with water injection, whereas for some reason on the Hawker Hurricane it usually shows continuous or military power. When it comes to the Merlin XX I've seen the same engine listed as a 1,185 hp (military, I think?), or 1300 (takeoff) or 1,480 hp (WEP) engine. Of course it's all three, but this doesn't make it to the shorthand.

We don't normally compare like with like consistently or, in our shorthand, look at the real numbers. Wikipedia is particularly bad about this.

Now for certain aircraft, I believe due to arguments just like this one we are having, much more detail eventually emerged. You can find a lot out about boost settings on various different marks of Spitfires or wing slats on Bf 109s even on Wikipedia now, and all the other variegated details that make the real picture begin to take shape. Part of the reason I start discussions like this is in the hope of more such data emerging for more types of aircraft. Get it?

I spent enough time looking into the P-40 specs and history that I believe I have a grasp of the real numbers now. I've posted my sources, or at least the ones you can easily check online. If we really wanted to settle this argument somebody needs to do the same for the Typhoon and not just cherry pick the best performance stats at maximum boost and in the optimal configuration used for 3 weeks in 1944, but whatever the main actual battlefield

And yes by all means somebody please post an operational history of the Typhoon. Maybe we could narrow it down to a month or two to compare sortie rates to losses, victory claims, and maybe even actual verified victories where possible. That can be done for the P-40 via Shores though it will be a tedious process (I say will rather than would because I do plan to do this for the Bf 109 vs P-40 thread at some point, I just don't know when).

In the Summer of 1942 the Sabre engine in the typhoon was rated at 3500rpm and 6lbs boost for 30 minutes. That was the power level used for climbing tests. Full power was 3700rpm and 7lbs of boost.
By the summer of 1943 they were testing and approving 3700rpm and 9lbs of boost for combat.

Low altitude climb for the Tiffy using those throttle settings was about 3800fpm. And it could reach 20,000ft in 7 minutes. This for an approved level of power. Not what a particular squadron or pilot/ crew chief did. Granted the Sabre engine was not particularly tolerate of abuse or tinkering by squadron mechanics.

While Merlin XX series engines did finally get approved for 18lbs of boost (65-66in) it took a while as I believe the supercharger drive system had to be beefed up to handle the increased load.

Edit. The Sabre IIB engine used in late Tempests and the last 500-600 Typhoons (late 1944 and 1945 production) were rated at 3850 rpm and 12 pounds boost but this is well after the time period in question.

There were Sabre II engines, Sabre IIa engines and Sabre IIb engines, Some Typhoons were built with one and then re-engined with another and some IIas could converted to IIb standard with a strengthened reduction gear and a modified boost control. But this would be 1944 or later.

Also from the whatever its worth desk, just because people have different sets of performance stats on an aircraft doesn't mean that EITHER of them is cherry picking information. God knows there is oceans of conflicting information on most planes.
I've always tried to look at different aircraft with a dispassionate eye as far as performance even though I do have my favorites but still much of the info I have gleaned from what I have read over the years turned out to be baloney. And who knows maybe much of what I believe now will turn out to be bogus in the future.
That is kind of the point of this forum after all. Or at least one of the points is to get to the bottom of things and well all be better off for it.
Just my 2 cents.

michael rauls said:

Also from the wherever its worth desk, just because people have different sets of performance stats on an aircraft doesn't mean that EITHER of them is cherry picking information. God knows there is oceans of conflicting information on most planes.
I've always tried to look at different aircraft with a dispassionate eye as far as performance even though I do have my favorites but still much of the info I have gleaned from what I have read over the years turned out to baloney. And who knows maybe much of what I believe now will turn out to be bogus in the future.
That is kind of the point of this forum after all. Or at least one of the points is to get to the bottom of things and well all be better off for it.
Just my 2 cents.

Click to expand...

Agree 100%, that is basically what I was trying to say.

On the subject of turning.

Wing loading is an important indicator.
However it is not the only thing going on.
Unless somebody can explain how the Typhoon, with its higher wing loading has a slower stall speed?

I am not claiming the Typhoon can out turn the P-40 but the difference between them might not be as bad as the wing loading alone would suggest.

Now for sustained turning, each airplane has a combination of speeds and turn radius it can sustain over long periods of time while neither losing speed or altitude. Some planes can turn much harder (smaller radius) but only at the cost of bleeding off speed until the plane stalls or by doing a spiraling decending turn.

Planes with higher climb rates usually have more power/energy to fight this speed loss without having to lose altitude.

I would note that a Spitfire I might have lucky to sustain a 3 g turn at 10,000 ft without losing altitude and that is at speed well under 300mph.
We all know that a Spit mkI can turn much tighter than 3 Gs. It just can't do it at high speed or without losing altitude.
The 109E happened to be worse.

Hope that explains things.

Shortround6 said:

In the Summer of 1942 the Sabre engine in the typhoon was rated at 3500rpm and 6lbs boost for 30 minutes. That was the power level used for climbing tests. Full power was 3700rpm and 7lbs of boost.
By the summer of 1943 they were testing and approving 3700rpm and 9lbs of boost for combat.

Low altitude climb for the Tiffy using those throttle settings was about 3800fpm. And it could reach 20,000ft in 7 minutes. This for an approved level of power. Not what a particular squadron or pilot/ crew chief did. Granted the Sabre engine was not particularly tolerate of abuse or tinkering by squadron mechanics.

While Merlin XX series engines did finally get approved for 18lbs of boost (65-66in) it took a while as I believe the supercharger drive system had to be beefed up to handle the increased load.

Edit. The Sabre IIB engine used in late Tempests and the last 500-600 Typhoons (late 1944 and 1945 production) were rated at 3850 rpm and 12 pounds boost but this is well after the time period in question.

There were Sabre II engines, Sabre IIa engines and Sabre IIb engines, Some Typhoons were built with one and then re-engined with another and some IIas could converted to IIb standard with a strengthened reduction gear and a modified boost control. But this would be 1944 or later.

Click to expand...

Ok if that's all correct then I concede Typhoon is faster climbing than the P-40L, the latter took 9 - 11 minutes to get to 20,000 ft depending on power settings used.

GrauGeist said:

I do apologize as I meant no personal offense, the image just struck me as very odd.
Perhaps dealing with documents more from the digital age in recent years, I've become accustumed to the exact formatting and have forgotten about how documents could vary from typewriter to typewriter, or documents that came off a teletype could be a bit off...and yes, the old "Ditto" machines with their purple or blue-black text along with the unique smell that permeated the paper for days on end.
And using Carbon paper was a joy especially if the forms were triplicate (or more), where you had to nearly do bench-presses to ensure the writing tranferred across all copies.

Again, my apologies

Click to expand...

No apology needed,we're spoilt these days.

Shortround6 said:

On the subject of turning.

Wing loading is an important indicator.
However it is not the only thing going on.
Unless somebody can explain how the Typhoon, with its higher wing loading has a slower stall speed?

I am not claiming the Typhoon can out turn the P-40 but the difference between them might not be as bad as the wing loading alone would suggest.

Now for sustained turning, each airplane has a combination of speeds and turn radius it can sustain over long periods of time while neither losing speed or altitude. Some planes can turn much harder (smaller radius) but only at the cost of bleeding off speed until the plane stalls or by doing a spiraling decending turn.

Planes with higher climb rates usually have more power/energy to fight this speed loss without having to lose altitude.

I would note that a Spitfire I might have lucky to sustain a 3 g turn at 10,000 ft without losing altitude and that is at speed well under 300mph.
We all know that a Spit mkI can turn much tighter than 3 Gs. It just can't do it at high speed or without losing altitude.
The 109E happened to be worse.

Hope that explains things.

Click to expand...

Spitfire I through V was one of the most tight turning fighters of the War, only the Japanese fighters and the biplanes could out turn them and not all of those.

Most turning fights in WW2, and even some with Jets in later eras, descended downward over time if they continued to turn. Turning for a really long time though might not be necessary, for example it only took two "circuits" for a P-40 to get on the tail of a Bf 109 in typical circumstances, according to several Russian and Australian pilots anyway and I suspect a Spit could get on the tail of any German plane quicker than that. Depending on E states a 109 might have an advantage initially, in which case for example flaps might come into play* and both aircraft could end up in a descending spiral.

Turning is for a lot more than a sustained fight. It's an asset which can be used offensively and defensively - if for example a plane is making a pass at you, one of your options is you can turn sharply to throw off their shot - especially if they are faster they won't be able to pull lead - or turn into them to go head to head in a game of chicken**. Conversely if you are chasing, a better / tighter turning circle allows you to pull lead faster and thus get your shot off more quickly which is very important in air combat (so you can shoot him before his wing man gets you for example).

However if a P-40 is outnumbered like in the anecdote I posted from Lt Mobbs, he can't keep turning long enough to get a shot as he'll probably have to reverse his turn to deal with the next attack. It becomes a game with each side pushing their luck. This is also another example of why roll is so important because you may instantly need to switch from turning right to turning left in that situation, and I think it's one of the two reasons why the Hurricane wasn't really viable as a fighter after 1941 but the P-40 was still in the game well into 1944.



By the way, I don't know if anyone cares but one common tactic used by the very successful 325th Fighter Group in the Med, and specifically over Sardania in a few battles where they seriously owned Italian and German fighters, was to send in an initial attack as bait, the latter would dive away from contact, 'pulling' pursuers under a second group which would dive down to get them. The 'bait' would then heave into tight banking 180 degree turns and join the fight. Mayhem ensued.



* for the P-40, Spits didn't have those kind of flaps settings probably because they didn't need them
** common tactics against Ki-43, A6M, Bf 109 and MC 202 but you wouldn't want to try that against a Fw 190 or a Typhoon

double post- wouldn't allow me to delete for some reason

Another example - one typical tactic used by Bf 109 pilots late into the war was to fly rolling scissors. Bf 109 with powerful engines and high hp to weight ratios could keep turning even if they didn't turn that sharp, and had a good roll rate at medium speeds, so against a better turning fighter they could do rolling scissors, even better in a pair if possible (similar to a Thach weave) and could be quite effective. This is a way that power can help with maneuverability.

Two words - Joachim Marseilles......he flew a 109 and shot down quite a few P-40s.

Scoreboard here. I gave up after counting 32 P-40 kills. Interesting that on three consecutive days he shot down 4 of them. He also shot down a whack of Hurricanes. I can't verify the accuracy of the article, it was posted late November 2014. Hans-Joachim Marseille

Thanks for posting this pbehn, it's a great point. My reply:

pbehn said:

Two words - Joachim Marseilles......he flew a 109 and shot down quite a few P-40s.

Click to expand...

• So what? There were plenty of P-40 aces who shot down plenty of German fighters, including numerous experten.
• Second, according to the other experten themselves, Marseille had a skill for attacking RAF fighter circles that few if any of the others had. He also apparently overclaimed a lot and actually shot down much more Hurricanes than he realized. But there is no denying he was a deadly and gifted fighter pilot.
• Third, Marseille himself didn't live long enough to face American P-40s so far as I know. There was a slight overlap, the first US squadron became active in the Theater in August of 42, Marseille died in Sept 42.

This is the thing about war, there are badasses on both sides. One guy may be a real killer but then runs into another badass on the other side. The experten are a fascinating subject, apparently just 16 German pilots accounted for half of the Luftwaffe victories in North Africa. But about half of them were killed in North Africa, mostly by P-40 pilots.


Some concrete examples since I know my word wouldn't be taken on this.

Australian Ace Clive Caldwell (28 confirmed victories, 22 in the P-40) defeated no less than four experten during his career, killing two.

• Took on experten Werner Shorer (114 victories) and his wingman (both flying 109E-7s) alone in a Tomahawk on August 1941, killing the wingman and heavily damaged Shorers fighter forcing him to disengage
• Shot down and killed Hauptmann Wolfgang Lippert (30 victories) a squadron commander of JG 27 on 23 November. Lippert survived bailing out but died of his wounds a few days later.
• Shot down and killed Erbo Graf von Kageneck (69 victories) of JG 27 in Dec 1941
• Shot down Lt. Hans Arnold Stahlschmidt of JG 27 (flying a 109F-4) on Feb 1942 in a famous long range (800 meter) shot from a Kittyhawk Ia.

James Francis "Stocky" Edwards (19 confirmed victories, probably actually got 22 according to German records) shot down and killed two experten,

• Otto Schultz (51) victories, was strafing a Hurricane he had shot down* (his final victory) on June 6 192 while two other JG 27 pilots orbited over him, when Edwards, racing home at low level in a Kittyhawk III spotted him and blasted him out of the sky. The wounded Hurricane pilot still trapped in his wreck, saw the whole thing. This is probably my favorite air to air combat story of WW2 by the way.
• Edwards shot down and killed experte Gunter Steinhausen (40 victories) September 6 1942 after he too shot down a Hurricane

As a bonus, three days before he got Steinhausen, Edwards shot up and damaged the aircraft of Hans Joachim Marseille himself on Sept 3 1942. Marseille died later that month

As another bonus, Edwards later flew Tempests from March 1944

* This was standard practice for Otto Schultz, he liked to make sure he killed who ever he shot down and liked to thoroughly strafe the wrecks.

fubar57 said:

Scoreboard here. I gave up after counting 32 P-40 kills. Interesting that on three consecutive days he shot down 4 of them. He also shot down a whack of Hurricanes. I can't verify the accuracy of the article, it was posted late November 2014. Hans-Joachim Marseille

Click to expand...

Things started to improve when tropicalised Spitfires arrived to escort the P-40s.

fubar57 said:

Scoreboard here. I gave up after counting 32 P-40 kills. Interesting that on three consecutive days he shot down 4 of them. He also shot down a whack of Hurricanes. I can't verify the accuracy of the article, it was posted late November 2014. Hans-Joachim Marseille

Click to expand...

Marseille was a strait killer, and did shoot down dozens of P-40s among other allied fighters, but he wasn't always accurate in his claims. For example his most famous combat on Sept 1, 1942, he claimed 17 aircraft shot down all fighters. Per the site you linked:

1 Sep 1942 Hans-Joachim Marseille flew three sorties and shot down a total of 17 enemy aircraft (two Hurricane and two Spitfire fighters between 0826 and 0839 hours while escorting Stuka dive bombers to El Taqua in Libya, seven P-40 fighters between 1055 and 1103 hours near Alam Halfa, and five Hurricane fighters between 1747 and 1753 hours while escorting bombers toward El Imayid). His score at the end of the day stood at 121.

So his totals are:

7 x Hurricanes
2 x Spitfires
7 x P-40s

Other German experten also claimed kills that day, Steinhausen claimed 1 Hurricane, Stahlsmchmit claimed 2 Hurricanes, and other German pilots (all from JG 27) claimed 3 more P-40s, two more Hurricanes and a Spitfire, for a total of 26 victory claims.

Actual Allied losses that day were 7 x Hurricane IIb and IIcs shot down, another 3 crash landing, 2 x Spitfire Mk V shot down and one crash landed, and one P-40F* 57th Fighter group attached to 2 SAAF) force landed at base.

Source is Mediterranean Air War Volume II, page 327 and 328

Total 10 Hurricanes, 3 Spits and 1 P-40 for 14 planes, still a very bad day but about half what was claimed. They also lost 2 Baltimores and a Boston reportedly to flak but these would be hard to confuse for bombers.

* this proves i was wrong Marseille did possibly encounter US P-40s and may have shot one down!

EDIT: I should add - the Germans lost 3 x Bf 109 F-4s, 1 Bf109 E-7, and a Ju 88, and the Italians lost an MC 202 on the same day.

By the way this is a (to me) amazing photo of Caldwell standing in front of his badly damaged P-40 after his epic battle with Shulz and his wingman. Note the fuel leaking out of the rear fuselage tank, the flat tire and cannon hole in the right aileron and right wing trailing edge. I think they said he had over 100 bullet holes in the plane. P-40s were tough no doubt. But also maneuverable enough to survive that kind of battle. This is why at least some of the pilots who flew them (including Caldwell) liked the P-40 so much.

Marseilles was an extraordinary pilot with a method of attack that was probably unique, he would drop into a Lufbery circle flying slower on a tight radius and fire with huge deflection, it is for others to explain why P-40s would form up in Lufbery circles when only faced with Bf 109s.