Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Yes the enduring criticism of the p40 as being slow has always puzzled me. The Spitfire V witch seems like a fair mark to use as comparison to the best of my knowledge had a top speed of about 370. The Bf109 E slightly less, the F slightly more. The A6m 335 to 350 depending on subtype and whose numbers you believe.
All in the balpark of the p40 F/L or most models for that matter. Some a bit more, some a bit less but I have never heard criticism that the A6m or the Spitfire MkV for example were" slow".
There certainly are some lagit criticisms to be made of the p40 but I don't see how being slow is one of them.
Under 10,000 feet the Spitfire IX (Merlin 61, +15 lb-boost) appears to have roughly 20-30 mph on the Kittyhawk (v1720-39, 42-in boost).
With the Merlin 66 (+18-lb boost) it's around 30-40 mph.
They mention running the p40f & L at 55 to 65 in remind me what that translates to in lbs of boost?
In Mediterranean Ait War volume 4 there are a lot of P40 L lost to engine trouble. I don't know if that has to do with overboosting or not sometimes it seems to be on days when they didn't even face any air combat
Off topic yes but I had to do it. My brain is too right-sided for a bunch of numbers.
Kittyhawk IA
- A&AEE curve placed on data sheet FTH max speed at 42-inches (to the benefit of the P40)- thin line is my estimate (probably optimistic) of 60 inches based on A&AEE tests of Mustang ISpitfire IX
- A&AEE, Merlin 61, +15 poundsSpitfire IX
- A&AEE, Merlin 66, +18 pounds (thin line +25 pounds)
View attachment 524456
What a surprise, not.
The "famous memo" does mention that very problem. see page 2, second paragraph.
Of course some of the engine trouble may have been due to ingesting dust/sand.
True but it handles like an overloaded bus...
It does though the All8son memo is referring to later higher gear ratio engine variants, ala V-1710-81 /P-40M, and isnt appliccable to (Merlin engine) P-40 L anyway.
Though we know they overboosted those too...
I would also view the ability of the P-40 to dive to catch faster aircraft with a bit of suspicion. I am sure it was done, but perhaps not at the speeds given in this thread? or as easily as it is being presented?
we already have a debate about whether the P-40 could dive at 480 mph IAS or at 500+ mph IAS.
The manual that says 480 IAS was the red line also says that 5000-8000ft of altitude is needed to recover from a high speed dive.
So how much higher does the P-40 have to start out to be able to hit even 450mph in it's dive to catch the tip and run raiders?
Not every dive is vertical dive (or close to it) and considerable speed can be picked up in a less than 45 degree dive.
Perhaps a speed of only 420mph was needed to catch some of those planes, I don't know, but lets stop quoting max possible from a higher altitude than most P-40s aside from the F and Ls flew at.
Hello Schweik,
The Merlin P-40F/L may not have been as effective as the Allison P-40 on the Eastern Front.
It was slower at low altitudes by quite a lot because the Allison tolerated quite a bit more "overboosting" and would not have climbed quite as fast because it had less engine power and more weight.
The Merlin did give an advantage but it was above about 15,000 feet or so.
My own opinion is that the P-40 was a second rate Air Superiority fighter by 1942 and treated accordingly:
In other words, in places where it continued to serve as a front line fighter, it was because the opposition was not considered of the highest caliber or where there simply wasn't anything comparable that was available. If there was anything else available, it got a secondary role.
Note that by the time the P-40M and P-40N came out, the P-40M was not even in use by US forces except as trainers. The ones that did enter combat did so as Lend-Lease aircraft.
This is getting a bit off topic from the discussion of Merlin P-40's though.
- Ivan.
Metal fatigue is metal fatigue. The RR engine may react a bit differently but it will follow the same general pattern, while exceeding the design limits of the parts by 20-25% for a short period of time might not cause immediate failure it might shorten up the time to failure by 10-20 times (not percent).
On the Allison increasing the stress on the crankshaft by 25% above what it would tolerate forever for all practical purposes (10 million cycles) could cause failure in 200,000 cycles.
I don't mind the extra boost making up a good part of the speed where the extra boost existed.
What really bugs me is the assumption that the extra boost was available or useful at a range of altitudes.
It gets trotted out like like a magic talisman in just about every one of these discussions.
No loss of hundreds of horsepower when climbing 4-5000ft above sea level. No loss of power when climbing??
The 57in or 60 in limits were realistic for the Allison they didn't disappear when the plane banked, or slowed while climbing.
Clearly the US Test Pilots don't agree with you
The didn't like its longitudinal stability or the vibration from the engine but the Summary is very clear
Conclusion
The Typhoon has proved to be a very useful fighter bomber. Good high speed and maneuverability at low altitude coupled with sufficient firepower and exceptional load carrying ability make it an formidable weapon.
Other comments
Trim adjustments are slight for speed or power. (see observation on the P40N below)
The aircraft has an ideal gentle stall with proper warning
All control forces are reasonable up to 450 IAS where the ailerons become heavy
Manoeuvrability and Aerobatics
In General handling during manoeuvres and aerobatics is very good. Radius of turn is short and the aeroplane rolls well although aileron forces become heavy.
Its interesting to this last one to the same report done on the P40N
Aerobatics
Normal aerobatics may be performed, but require excessive strength on the controls due to high stick and rudder force
Another comment on the P40N
Gun Platform
Unsatisfactory due to change in rudder trim due to speed
So which of these is closer to handling like an overloaded bus?