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

[Dan Fahey]

Try looking at the US P 40 units records against the Bf 109 as distinct from RAF / Commonwealth. I think you will find it an eye opener.

A few may have had more then 20 kills.
Most US less than 20...most missions were to hit Rommel's and Italian armies..

 

[Ivan1GFP]

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

Hello Schweik,
Actually that part of my post really wasn't directed toward you.
I just find it strange that there are people arguing that the Typhoon had good agility.
There was actually a comparative test between Mustang, Spitfire, and Me 109G that included the Typhoon in some parts and from what I recall, it wasn't that good except for acceleration. It is in one of the Spitfire or Mustang books but I haven't gone looking for it 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.

I believe you are giving the P-40K a little too much credit. I don't believe it was nearly as agile as the Russian fighters except perhaps in rolling ability or zoom climbs and when fighting at tree top level, diving ability isn't really that useful. The Russian Yaks had very small wings, but they were also very light aircraft with engine power that wasn't that much lower except at very low altitude. Their turn rates were relatively high. The P-40K and P-40E were screamers but only down very very low.

Among the names you listed, I can recognize Mikhail Kuznetzov, but the other two names seem to have been corrupted.

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.

The big difference is that the performance of the Yak fighters wasn't so tied to very high Emergency Power settings at Sea Level. These characteristics of the early Allison P-40 were useful in the very unique conditions on the Eastern Front that eliminated the advantages of their German opponents.
If everyone is willing to fight at 2,000 feet, then things are great. If the fight goes up to 5,000 or 10,000 feet, life isn't so pretty any more.

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.

The Soviet fighters were designed for a very specific kind of war. It was probably the exact kind of war that the pre-war US fighters were also designed for. The reason I believe the P-40 was really a second-rate fighter is that although it did a competent job in other theaters and even at medium altitudes, it wasn't the preferred aircraft and was usually used by organizations that had no other choice.... Or it was put up against lightly armed Ki 27 or Ki 43 or less competitive Italian aircraft.

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.

Perhaps some of the P-40M were supplied as Lend-Lease to China and ended up in US service by that route.
Officially, they were all either Lend-Lease or training aircraft. I have been told anecdotally that there were Chinese pilots flying P-40s very late in the war.

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.

Perhaps I am getting the models confused.... and perhaps it is somewhere in between.
Please note that in the manual, there are specific items of equipment that are noted as present in the P-40F but not in the P-40L.
Let's do a few calculations:
My earlier quote for basic weight for a P-40F (from AHT) was 7089 pounds
The Weight and Balance Chart in the manual says 7027 pounds.
Of that, 6 Guns are 471 pounds.
Note that the basic weight in AHT is higher because it includes trapped oil which is listed as disposable load below (38 pounds) It is a pretty detailed itemized list but also has a note that the P-40F has an empty weight that is 109 pounds over guarantee. (I wonder how much that cost Curtiss?) Taking the engine oil into account, the difference is only 24 pounds.

+ 200 pounds - Pilot
+ 222 pounds - Front Wing Tank (37 Gallons)
+ 324 pounds - Rear Wing Tank (54 Gallons)
+ 396 pounds - Fuselage Tank (65 Gallons)

+ 135 pounds - Engine Oil (18 Gallons Normal)
+ 23 pounds - Engine Oil (3 Gallons Extra)

+ 423 pounds - Ammunition (6 Guns x 235 Rounds Per Gun)
or
+ 506 pounds - Ammunition (6 Guns x 281 Rounds Per Gun)

The total weight without the extra ammunition and without extra oil is
8727 pounds.

With an empty front wing tank and two guns and their ammunition removed, the weight drops to
8207 pounds.

AHT numbers seem to be a bit lower but for some reason, their weights for internal fuel do not agree with what is in the manual.

One factor that might explain the speed discrepancy in tests is that starting with the L-15, a Permanent Carburetor Filter was installed. This would certainly have added some air restriction and may have eliminated some of the ram effect.

- Ivan.

 

[Schweik]

A few may have had more then 20 kills.
Most US less than 20...most missions were to hit Rommel's and Italian armies..

I'm a little disappointed that I seem to keep having to post the same stuff over and over.

Here are the (P-40 only) victory claim totals by Fighter Group:

33rd FG - 137 victories (active with P-40s Nov 42 - Feb 44)
57th FG - 144 victories (active with P-40s Aug 42 - Jan 44
325th FG - 133 victories (active with P-40s March 43 - Oct 43)
324th FG - 66 victories (active with P-40s March 43 - July 44)
79th FG - 118 victories (active with P-40s Dec 42 - March 44)

 

[Schweik]

I believe you are giving the P-40K a little too much credit. I don't believe it was nearly as agile as the Russian fighters except perhaps in rolling ability or zoom climbs and when fighting at tree top level, diving ability isn't really that useful. The Russian Yaks had very small wings, but they were also very light aircraft with engine power that wasn't that much lower except at very low altitude. Their turn rates were relatively high. The P-40K and P-40E were screamers but only down very very low.

Couple of points.

The P-40 out-turned the Yak 1 and Yak 7. Not sure about the 9. Soviet pilots noted this. For example in this interview with Leonid Sergeevich Kulakov who flew I-16, Yak 1 and 7, P-39, Spitfire and P-40Es. He scored 3 victrories in the P-40 and one with the P-39. He notes that a Kittyhawk could easily out turn a Yak-7, though he says the Yak 7 was faster.

"Once, above Osinovets. Denisenko was shot down on that day. A Yak-7 tried to get behind me, but I never let anybody at my tail. The Kittyhawk had a tighter turn, so I easily outmaneuvered him and positioned myself behind him. After that the Yak pilot dove down, and I was not going to chase him. When I landed I was told that it was a Yak piloted by Germans. I could have shot him down easily. But I did not know who the pilot was at the time of the engagement and was afraid to kill one of our own pilots by mistake.

Interviewer: Do you say that the Kittyhawk was better in terms of maneuverability than Yaks?

In horizontal maneuver? Of course! But the Yak was better at vertical maneuver. It was a lot faster."

This is what I would expect since the P-40 with it's large wings has a lower wing loading than the 7 or 9. Yak 1 is closer and maybe slightly better depending on which types you are comparing..

Golodnikov in his famous interview gives us more insight into how they used the P-40. The interviewer reads a passage by aviation author Mike Spick describing the P-40 as second rate and unable to cope with the Bf 109. He asks Golodknikov directly. His reply:

"N.G. Even during the war I recognized the fact that the Allies considered it inadvisable and almost impossible to conduct aerial combat in the P-40. We considered the P-40 to be a full-fledged fighter plane. When we began to use the P-40, we immediately discovered two deficiencies that reduced its value as a fighter. 1. The P-40 was a slug in acceleration, rather slow to acquire speed. This weak dynamic resulted in a low combat speed. It had trouble maintaining the speed required for combat. Speed is essential for a fighter. 2. It was weak in the vertical, especially the Tomahawk.

We compensated for poor acceleration by holding the engine at higher revolutions and cruising at a higher speed. We corrected the second deficiency by removing a pair of machine guns. That was all. The fighter came up to par. "

I read this as, basically the same as what the Australians and later the Americans did in North Africa - strip some weight overboost (he seems to specifically be talking about flying higher RPMs) and remove two wing guns. Later he clarifies further:

N.G. Not at all. Tactics has nothing to do with it. The primary difference in evaluating the combat capabilities of the P-40 arises from the fact that we and the Allies exploited the aircraft in a completely different manner. They were required to use the aircraft in accordance with written instructions, technical manuals. Any violation of those guidelines was a "no-no".
In our case, as I have already mentioned, the primary rule was to get everything out of an aircraft that it was capable of and a bit more. How much is "everything" the documentation for an aircraft does not say. Often even the designer of an aircraft himself did not have even a clue. It would only be revealed in combat.
By the way, everything I have said also applies to the Airacobra. If we had flown it in those regimes that the Americans outlined in the aircraft specifications, they would have shot us down immediately. This fighter was a "dud" in its "native" [by-design] regimes. But we conducted normal combat in "our" regimes, be it with the Messer or with the Fokker. But in some cases we flew 3-4 such aerial battles and it was done. "Replace the engine."
...
The Kittyhawk did not have [nose-mounted] synchronized machine guns. It had only six (three in each) wing-mounted heavy machine guns. We removed two of these machine guns immediately, leaving four. "

In other words, the manual and it's throttle settings are a joke. The pilots had to figure things out on their own.

Among the names you listed, I can recognize Mikhail Kuznetzov, but the other two names seem to have been corrupted.

I got those names from the English language version of this site It's possible auto-translate scrambled them a bit. Kuznetsov, "Denisov Konstantin Dmitrievich " and "Mitrohin Vasiliy Borisovich" (19 victories) are mentioned specifically with the P-40K.

The big difference is that the performance of the Yak fighters wasn't so tied to very high Emergency Power settings at Sea Level. These characteristics of the early Allison P-40 were useful in the very unique conditions on the Eastern Front that eliminated the advantages of their German opponents.
If everyone is willing to fight at 2,000 feet, then things are great. If the fight goes up to 5,000 or 10,000 feet, life isn't so pretty any more.

But the P-40E or K engine had reasonably good performance up to 12,000 ft. WEP made it a beast but the Yak-1 only had an 1,100 hp engine.

The Soviet fighters were designed for a very specific kind of war. It was probably the exact kind of war that the pre-war US fighters were also designed for. The reason I believe the P-40 was really a second-rate fighter is that although it did a competent job in other theaters and even at medium altitudes, it wasn't the preferred aircraft and was usually used by organizations that had no other choice.... Or it was put up against lightly armed Ki 27 or Ki 43 or less competitive Italian aircraft.

They shot down hundreds of Bf 109s and dozens of Fw 190s in North Africa. And quite a few of the excellent MC 202 and 205 fighters as well.

Perhaps I am getting the models confused.... and perhaps it is somewhere in between.
Please note that in the manual, there are specific items of equipment that are noted as present in the P-40F but not in the P-40L.
Let's do a few calculations:

I've already been through all this with Shortround more than once, I think we hashed it out. Don't mean to be rude but you'll forgive me if I don't indulge in this yet again only to wind up right where we started.

 

[Schweik]

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

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.

So that Wikipedia article is a conspiracy?

 

[wuzak]

In other words, the manual and it's throttle settings are a joke. The pilots had to figure things out on their own.

Really?

Or it could be that the quote you posted:

If we had flown it in those regimes that the Americans outlined in the aircraft specifications, they would have shot us down immediately. This fighter was a "dud" in its "native" [by-design] regimes. But we conducted normal combat in "our" regimes, be it with the Messer or with the Fokker. But in some cases we flew 3-4 such aerial battles and it was done. "Replace the engine."

Is why the settings recommended in the manuals were devised.

Note that inexperienced pilots were unlikely to get the maximum from the aircraft. The manual's settings were written for them and the average pilot.

 

[wuzak]

So that Wikipedia article is a conspiracy?

No, just edited by someone who doesn't have the full facts, perhaps.

 

[Schweik]

Really?

Or it could be that the quote you posted:

Is why the settings recommended in the manuals were devised.

Note that inexperienced pilots were unlikely to get the maximum from the aircraft. The manual's settings were written for them and the average pilot.

The Russians had a much more severe maintenance situation than the Americans, Aussies or British did. They didn't know how to deal with engines like the Merlin or the Allison (they eventually figured out the Allison with the P-39 but it took a while) there were a number of issues specifically with the oil cleanliness and improvised methods for draining fluids out every night in the winter. So they burned them out much faster.

But it still made sense for them. In the early years of the Soviet war, especially during major battles like the siege of Moscow or Stalingrad, whole squadrons were being wiped out in a matter of days. So if you fly 3 or 4 missions and have to change engines and send the old ones for refurbishment, but score victories and don't lose as many pilots, as bad as that is it's better than losing the whole squadron with all the pilots.

There is no reason why engines would burned out just from being overboosted though. Remember, according to this memo, properly maintained, Allison engines could be run at 70" for 1500 hours between main bearing changes (let alone full engine replacement)

"This aircraft is powered with the Allison 1710-39 engine having a rated power of 1150 H.P. at 3000 R.P.M. and 44" Hg. at 12,000 ft. The engine was originally equipped with an automatic boost control limiting the manifold pressure at the lower altitudes to 44". The British remove this so as to get the vastly increased performance at lower altitudes thru the judicious use of over-boost. "

"In view of the British operation and the fact that we have an approved war emergency rating on the 1710-39 engine of 56", it is suggested that immediate steps be taken to remove the automatic boost controls from our P-51 airplanes in this theatre and that the instrument dials be marked with the proper lights. The British have operated at full throttle at sea level (72" Hg) for as much as 20 min. at a time without hurting the engines. According to them, the Allison is averaging 1500 hours between bearing failures as compared to 500 to 600 hours for the Merlin. The Allison, they have found, will drag them home even with the bearing ruined. "

 

[slaterat]

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)

So where does that leave us?

Easy to solve. Lets use the fastest data for the P-40 F and the slowest for the Typhoon 1b

P-40-F 328@10k 374@18k Typhoon 1b 375@ 10 k 394@ 20 k adv Typhoon of 20 to 47 mph

Climb rate
P-40 F ini 2,100 ft/min, time to 20 k 10.2 minutes Typhoon ini 2,790 ft/min, time to 20 k 8.7 minutes adv Typhoon

The advantage is with the Typhoonin 42 but closer than I previously thought.

By mid 43 the Typhoons advantage becomes much more clear

390@9k, [email protected] ini 3840 ft/min, time to 20 k 7 min

Typhoon IB Performance Data

P-40 Performance Tests

I you check farther down on the Typhoon page you will see some roll rate data for a Typhoon 1a going from 45 degrees one way to 45 the other, averaging just less than 2 seconds at 200 and 300 ASI

 

[wuzak]

This:

The British have operated at full throttle at sea level (72" Hg) for as much as 20 min. at a time without hurting the engines. According to them, the Allison is averaging 1500 hours between bearing failures as compared to 500 to 600 hours for the Merlin. The Allison, they have found, will drag them home even with the bearing ruined. "

Does not say that:

There is no reason why engines would burned out just from being overboosted though. Remember, according to this memo, properly maintained, Allison engines could be run at 70" for 1500 hours between main bearing changes (let alone full engine replacement)

Also, 1,500 hours is >> TBO for V-1710s in war time.

 

[Schweik]

I apologize - badly written, it's late, I was obviously not trying to suggest they ran them at 70" for 1500 hours strait - I was saying what the memo said. They ran them routinely at 70" or actually 72", for 20 minutes at a time, and in spite of that got 1500 hours between main bearing failures.

 

[GrauGeist]

Among the names you listed, I can recognize Mikhail Kuznetzov, but the other two names seem to have been corrupted.

I think that he didn't realize the last names were listed first.
Konstantin Denisov, 7th Fighter Aviation Regiment - flew the P-40 exclusively.
Ivan Leonovich, 154(29G)IAP

Other Soviet aces (many higher scoring than the two mentioned above), who flew the P-40, were:
Pyotr Pokryshev
Fyodor Chubukov
Nikolaiy Kuznetsov
Vasiliy Naydenko
Nikolaiy Zelenov
Boris Safonov
Andrey Chirkov
Alexandr Bulayev
Alexey Nikolayenkov (also flew the P-40 exclusively - KIA 1943)
Pyotr Liholetov
Stepan Novichkov
Alexandr Smirnov
Georgiy Zhidov
Victor Zotov
Vladimir Kamenschikov
Dmitriy Yermakov
Nikolaiy Chasnyk
Sergey Kuznetsov
Pavel Klimov
Nikolaiy Lavitskiy
Fyodor Kalugin
Vasiliy Mitrohin
Vladimir Pokrovskiy (p-40e)
Victor Mironov
Vladimir Snesarev
Georgiy Petrov
Alexandr Gorbachevskiy
Nikolaiy Hramov
Vasiliy Adonkin
Vasiliy Matziyevich
Pavel Shevelev
Vasiliy Dobrovolskiy
Vyacheslav Bashkirov
Konstantin Korshunov
Vladimir Latyshev
Nikolaiy Terehin
Alexandr Matveyev (P-40E)
Ilia Shishkan
Konstantin Zaharov (P-40 - KIA 1944)
Igor Fyodorchuk
Nikolaiy Golodnikov
Pyotr Kolomietz
Ivan Ryazanov

This is not the definitive list of Soviet aces who flew the P-40, just the ones I had the time to post.

 

[Schweik]

I'd also like to say I think Golodnikov was exaggerating a little to make a point he lists burn out of after 3 or 4 missions as an extreme case. Even 50 hours which he mentions would be 20-25 missions probably and that too is almost surely a bit of an exaggeration.

If you read that P 40s in Soviet Aviation article they initially had a lot of trouble with the engines (and similar problems with their Hurricanes). The first couple of Tomahawk squadrons basically fought until all the aircraft were grounded by maintenance problems.

The Anglo American engines had much finer tolerances, were designed to use higher octane gas and much more importantly required very clean lubricants.

They had higher octane gas provided via Lend-Lease and eventually they figured out the oil culture as it's called. They had to modify these planes so that all the fluids: battery acid, oil, hydraulic, fuel everything had to be drained out every night in the winter. They had to make plugs usually in the field and sometimes not very delicately.

Eventually they figured all this out though.

 

[Shortround6]

In other words, the manual and it's throttle settings are a joke. The pilots had to figure things out on their own.

You might want to appreciate the difference in combat areas a little more and quit assuming the factory engineers were lucky they could design a decent lunch box.

Manual and the throttle settings in it were based off the 150 hour type test. Yes , in war time it is conservative. The US went to war in Dec of 1941 and it had been a frantic effort to build up aircraft, engines and pilots during 1940-41-42. The US had differed delivery of many of the aircraft and engines that it had ordered so that the French, British and Russians could get quicker delivery as the US factories geared up. Wrecking engines by too enthusiastic settings of the throttle is going to affect the availability of engines, it is going to cost aircraft and it is going to cost pilots. Switching to a 'war' standard took some time. Russians were in a somewhat different situation than the US and British in 1941/42. DO you blow up engines defending your cities against not just bombing raids but being overrun by ground forces? The threat was much more immediate than the threat in North Africa or in the Pacific. Those were areas were longer term goals (weeks or months vrs days) were in mind and also areas were reinforcements-replacements were weeks-months away. Blow up your engines getting a few extra victories this week and have fewer fighters next week or next month?
Russian pilot who trashed his engine and didn't quite make it back to base was faced with a different reality than pilots in NA or the Pacific. He was going to land (either wheels up or parachute ) on dry land in an environment that wasn't going to kill him in couple of days, assuming he landed in "friendly" territory. Forced landings in the desert were a bit rougher. forced landings at sea?
The manual writers had to go with factory recommendations and the Military could try to adjust. For P-40s in the NA desert, while they could off load P-40s in Central West Africa (Ghana)and fly them across Africa and north to Egypt (3700 miles in 6 days) the spare engines and overhaul parts had to go around the Cape of Good Hope, Over 8000 miles by sea from Ghana to Suez. Getting replacement aircraft, engines, and pilots to Australia, New Guinea in early 1942 wasn't easy either.
Yes the pilots and squadron commanders had to balance aircraft performance in combat vs engine life and forced landings.

Lets also note that only 138 Mustangs had been built by the end of 1941 vs just over 3000 P-40s and 939 P-39s and Allison made the switch to the stronger crankshaft in Dec of 1941, how many engines were sitting in crates waiting to be installed in Dec/jan I don't know but assuming that because Mustangs in British service used 70-72in in their engines (built when?) means it was OK to use 66-70 in MAP in P-40E engines of unknown age (or older P-40s) is a big assumption.

So that Wikipedia article is a conspiracy?

Well, you find the "combat" experience with the F4F that influenced the F6F design/development by April of 1942.

Or are you only interested in tropes that negatively affect the P-40?

So far I have found one engagement of a few planes on each side that could have been the basis for this "combat" experience.
I am leaving out the Marines on Wake Island as while they certainly racked up some experience they were in no position to report that experience.
Perhaps there are more?

a lot of stuff on wike is copied form other places. You object to inaccuracies about the p-40 being repeated, there are plenty of other inaccuracies (or out right lies) repeated about other aircraft.

 

[Dimlee]

Konstantin Denisov, 7th Fighter Aviation Regiment - flew the P-40 exclusively.

Just a small correction...
Not exclusively.
I-16s of two modifications and test flights on Yak-1 in 1941. I-16, Yak-1, Yak-7 and probably MiG-3 in 1942. P-39, P-40K and probably Yak-7 or Yak-9 in 1943. P-39 and Yak-9 in 1944. Probably Yak-9 in 1945.
In his book he did not mention P-40 at all - for whatever reason.
ВОЕННАЯ ЛИТЕРАТУРА --[ Мемуары ]-- Денисов К.Д. Под нами - Черное море (in Russian).

Experienced pilot and good leader. He started on TB-3 in 1936 and continued on fighters since 1937 or 1938. Took part in Khalkin Gol battles in 1939. Served as squadron leader and squadron navigator before the German invasion. I'd say that K.Denisov was a part of VVS fighter "elite" already in 1941. And after he has survived 1941-1942, he was in very top league when Lend Lease equipment arrived.

 

[Schweik]

Almost had to be to survive the war from 1941...

Maybe it lists only P-40 because that is what he scored his victories in? or maybe that list is just a little unreliable it looks like somebodies personal project.

 

[Schweik]

You might want to appreciate the difference in combat areas a little more and quit assuming the factory engineers were lucky they could design a decent lunch box.

Manual and the throttle settings in it were based off the 150 hour type test. Yes , in war time it is conservative. The US went to war in Dec of 1941 and it had been a frantic effort to build up aircraft, engines and pilots during 1940-41-42. The US had differed delivery of many of the aircraft and engines that it had ordered so that the French, British and Russians could get quicker delivery as the US factories geared up. Wrecking engines by too enthusiastic settings of the throttle is going to affect the availability of engines, it is going to cost aircraft and it is going to cost pilots. Switching to a 'war' standard took some time. Russians were in a somewhat different situation than the US and British in 1941/42. DO you blow up engines defending your cities against not just bombing raids but being overrun by ground forces? The threat was much more immediate than the threat in North Africa or in the Pacific. Those were areas were longer term goals (weeks or months vrs days) were in mind and also areas were reinforcements-replacements were weeks-months away. Blow up your engines getting a few extra victories this week and have fewer fighters next week or next month?
Russian pilot who trashed his engine and didn't quite make it back to base was faced with a different reality than pilots in NA or the Pacific. He was going to land (either wheels up or parachute ) on dry land in an environment that wasn't going to kill him in couple of days, assuming he landed in "friendly" territory. Forced landings in the desert were a bit rougher. forced landings at sea?
The manual writers had to go with factory recommendations and the Military could try to adjust. For P-40s in the NA desert, while they could off load P-40s in Central West Africa (Ghana)and fly them across Africa and north to Egypt (3700 miles in 6 days) the spare engines and overhaul parts had to go around the Cape of Good Hope, Over 8000 miles by sea from Ghana to Suez. Getting replacement aircraft, engines, and pilots to Australia, New Guinea in early 1942 wasn't easy either.
Yes the pilots and squadron commanders had to balance aircraft performance in combat vs engine life and forced landings.

Lets also note that only 138 Mustangs had been built by the end of 1941 vs just over 3000 P-40s and 939 P-39s and Allison made the switch to the stronger crankshaft in Dec of 1941, how many engines were sitting in crates waiting to be installed in Dec/jan I don't know but assuming that because Mustangs in British service used 70-72in in their engines (built when?) means it was OK to use 66-70 in MAP in P-40E engines of unknown age (or older P-40s) is a big assumption.

Shortround, you make a couple of good points. I tend to see things from the point of view of the front line soldier - I was in the military myself long ago, and most of my research consists of reading pilot records and accounts. You bring the point of view of the manufacturer and the designers. Both are good to know and relatively hard to understand. Both tend to be somewhat at odds. Almost contradictory. But they do come from the same universe.

This is a constant in history - you do have to accept different seemingly mutually exclusive perspectives. After all, to make sense of WW2 you have to somehow combine and synthesize German, Italian, American, British, Chinese, Russian, Finnish, Japanese, Croatian, French, Bulgarian, Romanian and etc. points of view which have so little in common.

From the point of view of the front line pilot, the throttle settings, maximum dive speed and many other requirements from the manual are rubbish. If he sticks to them too religiously, he'll die almost without a doubt. From the point of view of the manufacturer, the guidelines are common sense, and to push the limits beyond them is irresponsible in light of the challenges of production and logistics. The overly conservative settings and guidelines are also in part the result of military bureaucrats lets keep in mind.

I agree with you that conditions in the Soviet Union were a bit more desperate than in other Allied Theaters of Operations. If you are within a few days of the fall of Moscow by an annihilating Army, that changes the calculus a little bit for the defenders. Of course, times were tough for the Allies all over the globe in 1942 - the Philippines and Java weren't too much different of a situation in some respects and in the minds of the defenders, Darwin and even Milne Bay and so on were edging toward the same kind of acute crisis (even if the Japanese didn't have realistic plans for the invasion of Australia, the Aussies didn't know that, and the rapid conquest of Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines and most of China were certainly cause for alarm, and once bombing of the Australian mainland began panic was starting to edge in)

But I agree that the extreme / dire emergency status on the Russian front from June 1941 and all of 1942 were really beyond the pale. I read a statistic I believe 70% of German troops and war materiel were on the Russian Front. The losses in the first year and a half of the war were so staggering that we can't really conceive of it.

Ultimately however what pilots and ground crew everywhere had to do was find the 'sweet spot' for how far they could push the engines and what field modifications they needed to make, whether in Murmansk or Mateur or Milne Bay. The manufacturers had to take whatever feedback they got from the front lines and incorporate that into upgrades and new aircraft designs, while keeping in mind the long gestation period between design change and arrival at the front. So for the P-40 - throttle settings of 44" got moved up to 57" or 60", dive speed limits of 460 mph moved up to 500 or 520. And so on.

Well, you find the "combat" experience with the F4F that influenced the F6F design/development by April of 1942.

Or are you only interested in tropes that negatively affect the P-40?

Fair point! I'm indeed interested in correcting mistaken tropes throughout the war - I am familiar with the data about the P-40 and a few others. Not so much the Hellcat (yet) though I am interested. The Hellcat was certainly an important plane it was the second most successful American fighter of WW2.

So far I have found one engagement of a few planes on each side that could have been the basis for this "combat" experience.
I am leaving out the Marines on Wake Island as while they certainly racked up some experience they were in no position to report that experience.
Perhaps there are more?

a lot of stuff on wike is copied form other places. You object to inaccuracies about the p-40 being repeated, there are plenty of other inaccuracies (or out right lies) repeated about other aircraft.

Again, fair point - I don't but just as you were skeptical of my 'outlier' data about the P-40, I'm interested in verifying counter-narratives about other aircraft too, such as the Wildcat or Hellcat, P-39, Yak or MC 202.

One thing I thought of reading this. Wasn't the famous tactic of the 'Thach Weave' by Lt John Thach invented to address maneuverability of the zero before the US Navy had actually encountered it?

With the caveat that wikis are sometimes wrong, from the wiki:

"Thach had heard, from a report published in the 22 September 1941 Fleet Air Tactical Unit Intelligence Bulletin, of the Japanese Mitsubishi Zero's extraordinary maneuverability and climb rate. Before even experiencing it for himself, he began to devise tactics meant to give the slower-turning American Grumman F4F Wildcat fighters a chance in combat. While based in San Diego, he would spend every evening thinking of different tactics that could overcome the Zero's maneuverability, and would then test them in flight the following day "

So maybe we need to look at that 22 September 1941 Fleet Air Tactical Unit Intelligence Bulletin and see what it was based on.

 

[Schweik]

This says that the Bulletin was translated from a Chinese fighter pilot's report. This is perhaps an example of US Naval intelligence doing a remarkably good job, and John Thach taking his job very seriously as well, and higher ranking Navy officers doing an excellent job of recognizing the merits of the new technique and disseminating it into general training.

The Thach Weave is perhaps a very rare example of Steps 2, 4 and 5 from my list on post 806 being implemented before combat which is pretty impressive. No doubt it saved many American lives because on paper the Wildcat doesn't look very good against the Zero. Even with the good tactics it barely held it's own.

Modifications to the Hellcat, if indeed influenced by that same report or others, would represent Step 3 being implemented also quite early. Representative of considerable agility on the part of Grumman (if true).

 

[Schweik]

This does not change, but only ads nuance to you point that the F6F was already largely designed before F4F went into combat. It just suggests there may have been some influence from combat reports to the later stages of the F6F development - probably overstated in the Trope as you suggested.

 

[GrauGeist]

Just a small correction...
Not exclusively.
I-16s of two modifications and test flights on Yak-1 in 1941. I-16, Yak-1, Yak-7 and probably MiG-3 in 1942. P-39, P-40K and probably Yak-7 or Yak-9 in 1943. P-39 and Yak-9 in 1944. Probably Yak-9 in 1945.
In his book he did not mention P-40 at all - for whatever reason.
ВОЕННАЯ ЛИТЕРАТУРА --[ Мемуары ]-- Денисов К.Д. Под нами - Черное море (in Russian).

Experienced pilot and good leader. He started on TB-3 in 1936 and continued on fighters since 1937 or 1938. Took part in Khalkin Gol battles in 1939. Served as squadron leader and squadron navigator before the German invasion. I'd say that K.Denisov was a part of VVS fighter "elite" already in 1941. And after he has survived 1941-1942, he was in very top league when Lend Lease equipment arrived.

The list I have for Captain Denisov's victories seem to indicated that they were solely made in the P-40...this could be an error, of course.