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

[Navalwarrior]

View attachment 524219

Generally, in Russia, the P-40 was an important part of their arsenal in 1942 and 1943, the latter year in particular saw a lot of Soviet Aces scoring well particularly in P-40Ks, but by the third quarter it was indeed eclipsed by the locally made types. The Yak series production issues had been largely straightened out by mid '43 and more important from the Russian point of view, the La 5FN was ideal for their needs. They also still liked the P-39 (which they preferred over the P-40 and all other Lend Lease types) well into '44. The Soviets had over 40 P-40 Aces with 3 double Hero of the Soviet Union awards given to P-40 pilots. Most P-40 units became 'Guards' squadrons over time and were switched to Yak or La 5 series.

This is the end of that P-40 in Soviet Aviation article you linked: "Altogether the VVS VMF USSR received 360 P-40s of all models from 1941-1945, and lost 66 in combat (18 percent), the lowest loss percentage among fighters of all types. In conclusion, one fact should be noted: three Twice HSU (of 27) in Soviet aviation fought in the Kittyhawk: B. F. Safonov, P. A. Pokryshev (22 personal victories and 7 in group), and M. V. Kuznetsov (22 + 6). Pokryshev and Kuznetsov flew the Kittyhawk for more than a year. Many pilots became aces and HSU while flying the P-40, achieving good combat scores. A number of regiments gained their guards status while flying the P-40. On the whole this aircraft fought well, though the conceptual errors that were built into it significantly reduced the sphere of its effective employment."

View attachment 524220

In the Med 4 out of the 5 US P-40 Fighter Groups had high scores and excellent kill ratios in the first half of 1943 (borne out by Axis data), but by mid 1943 the Spit IX and (rarer but more useful) Spit VIII were clearly dominant over German fighters and the P-47 and P-38, and A-36 were also available in numbers, though not doing fantastic in air combat against the Luftwaffe. P-40F/L were still needed for medium bomber escorts and CAS through the end of 43. They seem to have had a lower loss rate than the other US types and the Spit IXs had limited range. P-40s were still scoring kills during Anzio in Jan / Feb '44, after which they were mostly used for FB.

The Americans had 18 P-40 Aces in the Med, and the RAF / Commonwealth had 46 (including 11 double aces on the P-40)

View attachment 524221

In the Pacific, per Robert DeHaven, range was basically the limitation on the P-40 and while they played a critical role in 1942, by mid 43 they were mostly being used for CAP etc., a little bit on raids. The Hellcat and the P-38 were the dominant fighters there. But P-40s were still shooting down significant numbers of enemy fighters in 1944. There were 30 US P-40 Aces in the Pacific plus I'm not sure how many Australian and New Zealand.


View attachment 524223
In the CBI the P-40K, M and N were the most effective fighters in the Theater. Shot down by far the most (over 900) enemy planes etc. There were 38 US P-40 Aces in the CBI (including 6 double Aces in the 23rd FG alone), plus 23 AVG aces and 3 Chinese.


In all of those Theaters on paper the P-40 should have been inferior by say, mid 1942 at the latest. But they turned out to have merits that were harder to precisely define than rate of climb or top speed. That is one of the things I've tried to figure out. It is however the real reason why they kept producing so many of them and why they were in such wide use. To some extent I think it came down to training and familiarity - tactics were developed for fighting the Japanese or the Germans and Italians by mid 1942 which were effective and remained effective.

Resp:
The P-40 certainly couldn't have been that bad of an aircraft with the number of Aces it produced. But I think air-to-air tactics (what not to do as well as what to do) were passed down from the veteran fighter pilots . . . as well as what part of a 'mission' P-40s flew. Also, the skill of enemy pilots, or lack of, likely played a part. But this could be said for all allied fighter pilots, regardless what they were flying toward the end of the war. The P-40 also had no serious flight characteristics, so new and inexperienced pilots lived long enough to gain experience/skills, as compared to a beginner in the P-38, for an example. It's time in service (combat in nearly every Theater by so many Countries) is phenomenal in my book. It thrived (may not be the best word) in all climates it was used in, except possibly Russia. It was 'the mule in the barn' while the Thorobreds were being refined! It is not my favorite WWII fighter, but a 2002 color photo of a refurbished P-40K in Aleutians' markings hangs on my office wall. I'd hate to think what the Allies would have done without it.
Thanks for the data you provided.

 

[Schweik]

Heres the power curves for the merlin XX series
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/merlin-xx-curve-c1.jpg
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/merlin-xx-curve-c2.jpg

It looks like the merlin XX is already down to 10 lbs boost @ 17.5 k, at 20k its down to 7.5 lbs, therefore the increased boost allowances won't have any affect on the P-40 F max speed of 354 mph @ 20,200 ft.

Well you have one chart which says 354 mph, I have this other chart which says 370 mph and notes it 'agrees well with US Army results' (reposted below in case you missed it)

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/Kittyhawk_II_performance_9sept42.jpg

I'll repeat the key passages:

"Following performance figures for Kittyhawk II have been obtained by B.A.C. pilot and agree well with U.S. Army results:

Level speeds
(a) Without air cleaner 370 mph at 20400 feet and 347 m.p.h. at 30,000 feet"

So where does that leave us?

First I am not an expert on the Merlin XX, I'll leave that part of it to others.

What I can say operationally is this. In a nutshell, this aircraft was configured in different ways depending on the mission. In North Africa, and in the islands in the Med like Pantelleria, Sardinia and Sicily, and in Italy until the Axis resistance lost a step, they were usually if not always configured for air to air combat - meaning 4 guns, removed extra fuel tanks, removed bomb racks, removed IFF, removed extra radio etc. That is your 8,000 - 8,400 lb fighter (or the factory P-40L at 8,080 loaded).

When they were doing more strafing missions (and this also varied by squadron) they put in 6 guns, more ammunition, the extra radiator armor, and so on. That is your 8,600 - 8,900 lb fighter.

This is all well established historical record. Nor was the P-40 the only aircraft to be modified this way. I already posted data in this thread showing that they took wing guns out of Hurricanes (20mm cannon) and Spitfire MK Vs (one of the .303 MGs) in the same Theater.

It's a pretty normal field modification to tailor the aircraft to the combat needs faced by the pilots. The enemy aircraft (Bf 109 F and G, MC 202 and 205 etc.) had some of the best climb and altitude performance of the war. Lightening the P-40F certainly helped deal with this in terms of rate of climb and altitude performance.

And the results are a matter of historical record, as quite a few of those Axis fighters fell to those 4 guns...

 

[Navalwarrior]

Well you have one chart which says 354 mph, I have this other chart which says 370 mph and notes it 'agrees well with US Army results' (reposted below in case you missed it)

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/Kittyhawk_II_performance_9sept42.jpg

I'll repeat the key passages:

"Following performance figures for Kittyhawk II have been obtained by B.A.C. pilot and agree well with U.S. Army results:

Level speeds
(a) Without air cleaner 370 mph at 20400 feet and 347 m.p.h. at 30,000 feet"

So where does that leave us?

First I am not an expert on the Merlin XX, I'll leave that part of it to others.

What I can say operationally is this. In a nutshell, this aircraft was configured in different ways depending on the mission. In North Africa, and in the islands in the Med like Pantelleria, Sardinia and Sicily, and in Italy until the Axis resistance lost a step, they were usually if not always configured for air to air combat - meaning 4 guns, removed extra fuel tanks, removed bomb racks, removed IFF, removed extra radio etc. That is your 8,000 - 8,400 lb fighter (or the factory P-40L at 8,080 loaded).

When they were doing more strafing missions (and this also varied by squadron) they put in 6 guns, more ammunition, the extra radiator armor, and so on. That is your 8,600 - 8,900 lb fighter.

This is all well established historical record. Nor was the P-40 the only aircraft to be modified this way. I already posted data in this thread showing that they took wing guns out of Hurricanes (20mm cannon) and Spitfire MK Vs (one of the .303 MGs) in the same Theater.

It's a pretty normal field modification to tailor the aircraft to the combat needs faced by the pilots. The enemy aircraft (Bf 109 F and G, MC 202 and 205 etc.) had some of the best climb and altitude performance of the war. Lightening the P-40F certainly helped deal with this in terms of rate of climb and altitude performance.

And the results are a matter of historical record, as quite a few of those Axis fighters fell to those 4 guns...

Resp:
Field modifications seem to be a common, if not important aspect of success. Ground Crews, as well as pilots, played an important part in the creative field modifications. The more I read, the more I learn of the ingenuity of airmen and ground pounders. Impressive!

 

[Schweik]

Hello All,
It always gets to be much more of a personal argument when one starts discussing the merits of one fighter aircraft as compared to another.
No aircraft is superior in every respect to its contemporaries no matter how much we have glorified them since WW2. Regardless of how much we like a particular aircraft, we should be able to acknowledge that every aircraft had its faults.

First let me say, I agree with this and don't worry, I was kidding I am definitely not opening another P-40 related thread and if I opened one on the Yak series it would be in praise of them. You are right people can take comparisons of aircraft personally, but I doubt there are that many dedicated Typhoon fans here. Something about P-40s in particular seems to rub sandpaper on peoples privates to an extent I am often amazed by. So I'm going to leave that topic alone for a while once this thread tapers off. There is probably already a hit out on me on the Dark Web over this one.

Nothing against you at all. I disagree with you a little but I'm definitely not mad about it. I was kidding.

I actually had not heard of the Merlin P-40 in Soviet service. As I see it, the advantage of the P-40F/L was above 15,000 feet at the cost of some low altitude performance and that does not sound like the kind of thing the Soviets would have liked.
The Merlin and later Allison was not nearly as tolerant of overboosting as the earlier engines.

Yeah I'm no expert on the Merlin but from what the others have posted, +16 lb is pretty good performance probably and for the Russian Front, a P-40 with higher altitude capability that would confer some advantages - namely it could fly top cover over the battlefield. I think they did have more maintenance trouble with the Merlins though for whatever reason. I don't know if any P-40F ever got into service in Russia I just found some mentions that some of the ones intended for the British were diverted to Russia, maybe 50 maybe 100. They may have been used for maintenance or spares or the boat carrying them could have been sunk. I haven't seen any mention of their use in Russia yet.

[Start another thread if you feel the need to. I believe the P-40K has SOME advantages over the Yak-1 and Yak-9D, but they are mostly in the areas of construction quality and refinement of equipment. Other than that, from a performance standpoint except at VERY low altitude, the Yak fighters are at least very comparable. You picked some of the lesser performing examples of those.
The problem with the P-40K is that it was a very heavy aircraft and except at Sea Level where the supercharger was able to supply enough boost to give it some serious performance, it didn't have enough engine power.

Yes I agree the Yak fighters were comparable, but they were (at least among) the best the Russians had. They probably climbed better, and had a bit better combat speed at medium altitude but a P-40K could out turn them, could dive much faster, was safer for the pilot, had longer range and had a lot more firepower (albeit the nose guns are more accurate). But in general this is what I would say, a P-40E was probably about as good as an early 1941 Yak and a P-40K was about as good as a later 1942 Yak, better than the other available planes (LaGG, MiG, I-16, Hurricane and so on) except the P-39 which seems to have been ideally suited for the Russians, and most importantly, a P-40K in the (Low Altitude) conditions of the Russian Front would definitely give a Soviet pilot a good chance to survive and deal death to the Germans. This is why so many high ranking Russian aces and HSU winners flew that specific subtype such as M. V Kuznetzov (seen here celebrating some victories in famous propaganda photos with a P-40K in the background) who ended the war with 36 individual (22 with the P-40) and 12 shared victory claims, Leonovich Ivan Semyonovich (28 victories, most in P-40), and Denisov Konstantin Dmitrievich who scored all of his 13 individual and 6 shared victories while flying the P-40K specifically.

This would not make it a "second rate" fighter in my book unless you also considered the Yak 1, Yak 9 etc. second rate. I wouldn't. I would say they were good fighters and at least some of the P-40s were closely matched.

Of course the Russians didn't have that many P-40Ks. And ultimately the Yak 1b / 9 / 3 series and La 5 / 7 series became the perfect fighters for the Russian Front, ideally tailored to the conditions and superior to any P-40 for that Theater. But I think what made the P-40 superior in one sense, was that while the P-40 could fairly easily be adapted by Soviet pilots and ground crew to conditions in Leningrad, Crimea or Murmansk, it could also be adapted by American pilots and groundcrew to conditions in Rangoon, Kunming, and the Himalayas, by British and Australian pilots and ground crew to conditions in Alexandria and Syria, by American and Australians to conditions in New Guinea, the Solomons and Darwin (and as far north as Alaska), and by Americans and British fighting in Tunisia, Sardinia and Italy. How good would a Yak 1 perform over Darwin or Rangoon? I don't know honestly so it's not a facetious question, but I do consider the Yak series to be more specialized.

I think it may not have been the best fighter in all of those Theaters and certainly not for the whole war but it was pretty competitive, more than is generally acknowledged, in all of them and as I have pointed out a few times, shot down a lot of enemy aircraft and destroyed a lot of enemy ground and Sea targets well into 1944. That is what made the P-40 (in my opinion) a damn good fighter.

This is why when comparing speeds to the Spitfire Mk.IX, I was saying that 10,000 feet or even 6,000 feet was too high and the comparison should be made at Sea Level if the P-40 was to have any advantage.

I really don't think the P-40 is competitive in general against the Spit IX which has both excellent performance and maneuverability though it is interesting to learn that they may have been competitive in speed down low.

The P-40M did see service in the Asia and Pacific but as a Lend-Lease aircraft to Australia and New Zealand.
You comment that the P-40M was quite heavy but its basic weight was 6899 pounds as compared to the 6880 pound basic weight of the P-40K.
A difference of 19 pounds is meaningless.

Some P-40M were apparently diverted to 23rd Fighter Group and some other US units by what means I don't know, such last minute diversions of Lend Lease were not unusual. Both the M and the K were quite heavy, the difference is that the K was kind of a 'hot rod' at least at low altitude while the M was designed to have better high altitude performance at the expense of a much more tepid engine regime. I think the M was only really suitable for FB missions, unfortunately the Soviets and British got a lot of them. Both P-40M and K of course may have been partly stripped by the Russians as they had done with earlier Tomahawk and Kittyhawk variants though I don't know if they did.

The problem with the P-40L and its weight reduction is that it was at the cost of durability of components with many aircraft requiring extensive service before they were fit for use. Often the older components were swapped in as replacements and so went the weight savings.
Figure that the Merlin added quite a bit of weight to the aircraft.
Basic Weight for a P-40E was 6702 pounds and for an otherwise identical P-40F was 7089 pounds.
Note that the lightened P-40L had a basic weight of 6840 pounds which is only 40 pounds less than the P-40K.
Gross weight is about 400 pounds less because it carries a lot less fuel and ammunition.

I think you are confusing the 'stripped' so called "high altitude interceptor" early version of the P-40N with the P-40L. The P-40N had several parts exchanged for new and lighter types - aluminum radiators instead of brass, a smaller cheaper wooden seat, removed some instruments, smaller wheels, removed battery and starter (replaced by an external starting system) different hydraulic system and many other changes. Many of these such as the starter were put back in in the field and the radiator and oil cooler may well have been replaced with brass ones for all I know. I know that some pilots complained about the starters in particular and in places like Burma they added extra navigation gear. But they also sometimes lightened them such as for 'Hump' missions over the Himalayas.

The P-40L by contrast did not have any different radiators or anything, they just had all the field stripping already being done on the P-40F by ground crew done in the factory. These are the items I already mentioned: extra forward wing fuel tank(s) removed (and the fuel that went with it), some armor under the radiator, two guns and some ammunition, some oil and so on. These all could be and were added back in whenever there was a reduced threat of enemy fighters. But the stripped version was how they were often used in the heavy air combat over Tunisia, Pantelleria, Sardinia, Sicily and so on where the US fighter groups racked most of all their victories in the first 6 months of 1943.

The reason why Shortround6 commented about maintaining performance while climbing and banking is because at least according to the Allison memo, 70 inches Hg could not be achieve without a LOT of ram effect and only very near Sea Level or by significantly exceeding RPM limits.

- Ivan.

I believe that was speculation, guessing, and it's worth noting that some Soviet pilots like Golodnikov specifically mentioned raising the RPM a little. However I have always suggested that the slightly lower but still very high ratings from 60" to 66" could be and were used. The 60" rating was eventually approved as the official WEP setting for the P-40K and was apparently achievable at 2,500 ft. Not very high but reasonable for the Russian Front - that boost level conferred over 1550 hp which makes a P-40K pretty scary.

S

 

[Shortround6]

the difference is that the K was kind of a 'hot rod' at least at low altitude while the M was designed to have better high altitude performance at the expense of a much more tepid engine regime.

I am not sure that being allowed to use only 57in of MAP compared to 60in is best described as "tepid" especially once you get over 5000ft. For example at 8,000ft the engine in the K was good for around 1300hp. The supercharger could NOT come close to providing 60in, in fact without RAM it would have trouble providing 50in of manifold pressure while that "tepid" engine the M could provide 57 in at 9,500ft. Up at 8-10,000ft the M had 100-200hp more than the K. Ir doesn't matter how much boost the supercharger couldprovide at sea level, it just can't do it as the lane climbs into thinner air..

I think you are confusing the 'stripped' so called "high altitude interceptor" early version of the P-40N with the P-40L. The P-40N had several parts exchanged for new and lighter types - aluminum radiators instead of brass, a smaller cheaper wooden seat, removed some instruments, smaller wheels, removed battery and starter (replaced by an external starting system) different hydraulic system and many other changes. Many of these such as the starter were put back in in the field and the radiator and oil cooler may well have been replaced with brass ones for all I know

The Original starters were duel source, A flywheel was spun up to speed and when moving fast enough it was clutched into the gear train that lead to the crankshaft to turn the engine over. The flywheel could either be spun up by a built in electric motor or by the hand crank/s seen on many other aircraft (in fact early P-40s were supposed to carry the hand crank in the airplane, I don't know about later ones) the planes were lightened up by taking out the electric motor or by using a different model starter that was hand crank only. Since the starters were all made by the same company and fit on the same accessory pad it was no big deal to switch back, Assuming there were enough spare electric starters (or spare motors?)
The "external" starting system was there all along.
I would doubt that anybody put Brass/copper radiators back in a plane in service unless the original was damaged and there were no replacement aluminum ones available. This can also play merry hell with the CG as there was considerable difference in the weight, 40-60lbs? Ns cooling system was 60lbs lighter but I don;t know if the cooling capacity changed.

I already mentioned: extra forward wing fuel tank(s) removed (and the fuel that went with it), some armor under the radiator,

There is only ONE forward fuel tank. It may have changed size a bit from one model to another but there was only one.

Merlin and Allison powered planes did not quite follow the same sequence of tank usage. The Merlin powered planes kept around 30-35 gallon in the rear tank and didn't use it until the main tank was empty.

Allison powered planes emptied the fuselage tank before switching to the wing main tank.

without the "extra" forward wing tank you have about the same amount of internal fuel as Hurricane.

 

[Schweik]

Resp:
Field modifications seem to be a common, if not important aspect of success. Ground Crews, as well as pilots, played an important part in the creative field modifications. The more I read, the more I learn of the ingenuity of airmen and ground pounders. Impressive!

Yes I agree - it's one of the key factors.

First, they have to have an aircraft which is in the ballpark of competitiveness on some level. The pilots have to be reasonably well trained (sometimes only a few of them are as was often the case in the early days for the Allies). Then there are five phases:

1. Pilots learn the performance envelope of their own aircraft during early training.
2. Pilots encounter the enemy and, if they survive, gain some idea of how enemy aircraft capabilities compare to their own aircraft.
3. Field modifications are made at behest of the pilots to enhance strengths and minimize weaknesses
4. Tactical (squadron level) and Operational leaders adopt tactics based on pilot observations, and these are implemented in a disciplined manner.
5. These tactics are widely disseminated among friendly units.

As we have often noted in these discussions, technical performance and maneuverability parameters of WW2 fighters in a given Theater are often quite close. A ten or fifteen mph speed advantage, five hundred feet per minute climb rat (or thirty mph climb speed), three or four seconds advantage in a turning circle, a one second advantage in roll, easy handling in a dive vs. heavy torque to the right, slightly more intimidating firepower of four HMG vs. one auto cannon and two LMG, a quirk like the carb flooding on early Merlins vs fuel injection, these are all fairly subtle differences. They only make a difference in combat if tactics are designed and implemented effectively.

The Germans were very good at this initially but had a hard time in later periods for a variety of cultural, organizational and political reasons.

In the early years of the war the Allies in places like Russia, Egypt, and the South Pacific were hard pressed to get even step 1 out of the way. Step 2 was obviously the most perilous and challenging - only good pilots with good luck got through it in the early days. Step 3 was only possible with good and strong local leadership (and / or enough leeway from up above) which wasn't always available (so some squadrons made these changes and some didn't, resulting in wildly different outcomes). Step 5 was what made it all come together and Anglo-American policies in general such as rotating experienced fighter pilots back home to help train new pilots helped assure that their units were much better in the latter part of the war.

But in the see-saw middle, and leading up to the tipping point in late 1942 and early 1943, it was still pretty scattershot.

 

[Schweik]

Oh and if they are lucky:

6. Field reports and battle analysis contribute to planning and make it back to aircraft manufacturers in time for a new generation of fighters to appear that is better suited to taking on the enemy. Classic examples of this are the Wildcat to Hellcat and Spit V to Spit IX.

 

[Navalwarrior]

First let me say, I agree with this and don't worry, I was kidding I am definitely not opening another P-40 related thread and if I opened one on the Yak series it would be in praise of them. You are right people can take comparisons of aircraft personally, but I doubt there are that many dedicated Typhoon fans here. Something about P-40s in particular seems to rub sandpaper on peoples privates to an extent I am often amazed by. So I'm going to leave that topic alone for a while once this thread tapers off. There is probably already a hit out on me on the Dark Web over this one.

Nothing against you at all. I disagree with you a little but I'm definitely not mad about it. I was kidding.



Yeah I'm no expert on the Merlin but from what the others have posted, +16 lb is pretty good performance probably and for the Russian Front, a P-40 with higher altitude capability that would confer some advantages - namely it could fly top cover over the battlefield. I think they did have more maintenance trouble with the Merlins though for whatever reason. I don't know if any P-40F ever got into service in Russia I just found some mentions that some of the ones intended for the British were diverted to Russia, maybe 50 maybe 100. They may have been used for maintenance or spares or the boat carrying them could have been sunk. I haven't seen any mention of their use in Russia yet.



Yes I agree the Yak fighters were comparable, but they were (at least among) the best the Russians had. They probably climbed better, and had a bit better combat speed at medium altitude but a P-40K could out turn them, could dive much faster, was safer for the pilot, had longer range and had a lot more firepower (albeit the nose guns are more accurate). But in general this is what I would say, a P-40E was probably about as good as an early 1941 Yak and a P-40K was about as good as a later 1942 Yak, better than the other available planes (LaGG, MiG, I-16, Hurricane and so on) except the P-39 which seems to have been ideally suited for the Russians, and most importantly, a P-40K in the (Low Altitude) conditions of the Russian Front would definitely give a Soviet pilot a good chance to survive and deal death to the Germans. This is why so many high ranking Russian aces and HSU winners flew that specific subtype such as M. V Kuznetzov (seen here celebrating some victories in famous propaganda photos with a P-40K in the background) who ended the war with 36 individual (22 with the P-40) and 12 shared victory claims, Leonovich Ivan Semyonovich (28 victories, most in P-40), and Denisov Konstantin Dmitrievich who scored all of his 13 individual and 6 shared victories while flying the P-40K specifically.

This would not make it a "second rate" fighter in my book unless you also considered the Yak 1, Yak 9 etc. second rate. I wouldn't. I would say they were good fighters and at least some of the P-40s were closely matched.

Of course the Russians didn't have that many P-40Ks. And ultimately the Yak 1b / 9 / 3 series and La 5 / 7 series became the perfect fighters for the Russian Front, ideally tailored to the conditions and superior to any P-40 for that Theater. But I think what made the P-40 superior in one sense, was that while the P-40 could fairly easily be adapted by Soviet pilots and ground crew to conditions in Leningrad, Crimea or Murmansk, it could also be adapted by American pilots and groundcrew to conditions in Rangoon, Kunming, and the Himalayas, by British and Australian pilots and ground crew to conditions in Alexandria and Syria, by American and Australians to conditions in New Guinea, the Solomons and Darwin (and as far north as Alaska), and by Americans and British fighting in Tunisia, Sardinia and Italy. How good would a Yak 1 perform over Darwin or Rangoon? I don't know honestly so it's not a facetious question, but I do consider the Yak series to be more specialized.

I think it may not have been the best fighter in all of those Theaters and certainly not for the whole war but it was pretty competitive, more than is generally acknowledged, in all of them and as I have pointed out a few times, shot down a lot of enemy aircraft and destroyed a lot of enemy ground and Sea targets well into 1944. That is what made the P-40 (in my opinion) a damn good fighter.



I really don't think the P-40 is competitive in general against the Spit IX which has both excellent performance and maneuverability though it is interesting to learn that they may have been competitive in speed down low.



Some P-40M were apparently diverted to 23rd Fighter Group and some other US units by what means I don't know, such last minute diversions of Lend Lease were not unusual. Both the M and the K were quite heavy, the difference is that the K was kind of a 'hot rod' at least at low altitude while the M was designed to have better high altitude performance at the expense of a much more tepid engine regime. I think the M was only really suitable for FB missions, unfortunately the Soviets and British got a lot of them. Both P-40M and K of course may have been partly stripped by the Russians as they had done with earlier Tomahawk and Kittyhawk variants though I don't know if they did.



I think you are confusing the 'stripped' so called "high altitude interceptor" early version of the P-40N with the P-40L. The P-40N had several parts exchanged for new and lighter types - aluminum radiators instead of brass, a smaller cheaper wooden seat, removed some instruments, smaller wheels, removed battery and starter (replaced by an external starting system) different hydraulic system and many other changes. Many of these such as the starter were put back in in the field and the radiator and oil cooler may well have been replaced with brass ones for all I know. I know that some pilots complained about the starters in particular and in places like Burma they added extra navigation gear. But they also sometimes lightened them such as for 'Hump' missions over the Himalayas.

The P-40L by contrast did not have any different radiators or anything, they just had all the field stripping already being done on the P-40F by ground crew done in the factory. These are the items I already mentioned: extra forward wing fuel tank(s) removed (and the fuel that went with it), some armor under the radiator, two guns and some ammunition, some oil and so on. These all could be and were added back in whenever there was a reduced threat of enemy fighters. But the stripped version was how they were often used in the heavy air combat over Tunisia, Pantelleria, Sardinia, Sicily and so on where the US fighter groups racked most of all their victories in the first 6 months of 1943.




View attachment 524832

I believe that was speculation, guessing, and it's worth noting that some Soviet pilots like Golodnikov specifically mentioned raising the RPM a little. However I have always suggested that the slightly lower but still very high ratings from 60" to 66" could be and were used. The 60" rating was eventually approved as the official WEP setting for the P-40K and was apparently achievable at 2,500 ft. Not very high but reasonable for the Russian Front - that boost level conferred over 1550 hp which makes a P-40K pretty scary.

S

Resp:
Your photo of a Soviet P-40K, number 34, has unusual (non-standard) rear canopy panels. Almost similar to ones on the non-early P-40N.

 

[Schweik]

Resp:
Your photo of a Soviet P-40K, number 34, has unusual (non-standard) rear canopy panels. Almost similar to ones on the non-early P-40N.

I hadn't noticed, good catch! That may be a two seater, maybe a trainer or modified for some other specialty.

 

[fubar57]

P-40K trainer. The photo is from "Red Stars in the Sky", Vol.1 by C.F.Geust and K.Keskinen

 

[Shortround6]

Oh and if they are lucky:

6. Field reports and battle analysis contribute to planning and make it back to aircraft manufacturers in time for a new generation of fighters to appear that is better suited to taking on the enemy. Classic examples of this are the Wildcat to Hellcat and Spit V to Spit IX.

The Wildcat to Hellcat story is another one of those classic tropes (or myths).
The contracts for the F6F were signed in the summer of 1941, months before any F4F engaged any Japanese aircraft. With first flight of the F6F June 28th of 1942 there was darn little that could have been changed even with feed back from the Coral Sea and Midway battles.

 

[Navalwarrior]

P-40K trainer. The photo is from "Red Stars in the Sky", Vol.1 by C.F.Geust and K.Keskinen

Resp:
Yes, but was it a field or factory modification?

 

[Schweik]

Resp:
Yes, but was it a field or factory modification?

Field almost without a doubt, the Soviets did all kinds of stuff like that

 

[Schweik]

The Wildcat to Hellcat story is another one of those classic tropes (or myths).
The contracts for the F6F were signed in the summer of 1941, months before any F4F engaged any Japanese aircraft. With first flight of the F6F June 28th of 1942 there was darn little that could have been changed even with feed back from the Coral Sea and Midway battles.

Well, I think there was still some influence

Grumman F6F Hellcat - Wikipedia

"Based on combat accounts of encounters between the F4F Wildcat and A6M Zero, on 26 April 1942, BuAer directed Grumman to install the more powerful 18-cylinder Pratt & Whitney R-2800 Double Wasp radial engine — already powering Chance Vought's Corsair design since its own beginnings in 1940 — in the second XF6F-1 prototype.[20] Grumman complied by redesigning and strengthening the F6F airframe to incorporate the 2,000 hp (1,500 kW) R-2800-10, driving a three-bladed Hamilton Standard propeller. With this combination Grumman estimated the XF6F-3s performance would increase by 25% over that of the XF6F-1.[5] The Cyclone-powered XF6F-1 (02981) first flew on 26 June 1942, followed by the first Double Wasp-equipped aircraft, the XF6F-3 (02982), which first flew on 30 July 1942. The first production F6F-3, powered by an R-2800-10, flew on 3 October 1942, with the type reaching operational readiness with VF-9 on USS Essex in February 1943.[21] [Note 5] "

 

[Schweik]

The Hornet has higher AOA limits, lower max G limits and a lower thrust to weight. It's a tremendous slow speed fighter, bleeds energy like mad and is slower to accelerate. They are a fun fight!

The later model Vipers have gigantic motors, bleed energy slowly, and accelerate like a rocket. They are small, difficult to see and can sustain high G well, and can even accelerate at 9Gs in some regimes. Very difficult fight if flown well.

Cheers k
Biff

So here is the dangerous question - how does the F-35 compare to those three?

 

[Greyman]

Head on over to the F-35 thread to prevent inevitable derail: some F35 info

 

[fubar57]

While searching for some info about the trainers I found this quote...""In the hands of a skilled pilot, the P-40 could exceed its limitations and could out-maneuver and out-fight anything in the sky," said Flying Tiger ace David L. "Tex" Hill in a 2005 interview. "It was sturdy and handled well, except in a spin, but you never piloted a P-40 without wishing you had something a little better.

 

[Schweik]

Interesting dichotomy...

 

[Shortround6]

Well, I think there was still some influence

Grumman F6F Hellcat - Wikipedia

Sorry, that doesn't seem to line up well the Time line in 'Grumman Aircraft since 1929"

Grumman had been doodling improved F4Fs for quite some time. They started the last project in Sept 1940 (project 50) and a mock up was ready for inspection Jna 12th 1941, modifications were recommended (more length , longer wings with more area,etc) The Navy ordered the two prototypes June 30th 1941.
The Navy was ordering the 2nd prototype to be completed with the R-2800 engine on April 26th as you say, however the Battle of the Coral Sea, was fought from 4 to 8 May 1942. so the only combat experience was some of the raids into the Marshal Islands in Feb/March? which resulted in very little air to air action. On a few of the raids there was no air to air action although bombing and strafing went on.

The next thing to consider is that all we know is what we don't know. A bit of riddle but, The XF6F-1 flies with a two stage mechanical supercharged R-2600, I believe it was the ONLY prototype aircraft to do so, I don't know what Wright had for test hacks that may have flown with this engine. No production aircraft ever used this engine. The 2nd XF6F prototype (the -2) was supposed to use a turbocharged R-2600 but was ordered to change engines several months before completion. Again, I don't know what the Wright company had for test hacks but the only plane I know of that used a turbo R-2600 was ONE prototype A-20 over year before. Perhaps there is another prototype plane I am not aware of?
The P & W two stage R-2800 is not a production time at this time but perhaps it is showing more promise or is further along in development/testing than the wright engines?

Wright did build both types of R-2600s but in numbers that can be counted on one hand and the number that actually flew?????

So we have some almost non-existent combat experience (Marines on Wake had experience but had no way to tell the Navy about it.) One account of the first raid Marshal raid says "No information was obtained on the relative performance of the type Zero fighter and the F4F-3. "
USN Combat Narrative: Early Raids in the Pacific Ocean

and we have the somewhat coincidental fact that neither the engine for the XF6F-1 or the Xf6F-2 ever made it into production.
And we have an oft repeated claim that the F6F was 'designed" with help of combat experience?

Something smells and it isn't dairy products in Denmark.

 

[Navalwarrior]

While searching for some info about the trainers I found this quote...""In the hands of a skilled pilot, the P-40 could exceed its limitations and could out-maneuver and out-fight anything in the sky," said Flying Tiger ace David L. "Tex" Hill in a 2005 interview. "It was sturdy and handled well, except in a spin, but you never piloted a P-40 without wishing you had something a little better.

Resp:
Clive Caldwell, RAAF, likely would have agreed, having claimed 22 air-to-air kills in the Tomahawk/Kittyhawk . . . 10 of which were ME 109s. He also shot down 5 Stuka JU87s in a single mission. These 22 kills were in North Africa. One of his traits was to remove all tracer ammo from his guns, in case his first rounds missed his target, they would not give away his attack.