- Thread starter
-
- #841
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Resp: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)
Resp:
I took a quick look the above Fighter Groups, and verified that the 57th, 324th and the 79th flew Merlin engined P-40s in North Africa, and later in Italy (later transitioned to P-47s).
There were no pilots with 20 or more kills. In fact (if the data I viewed is correct) none scored above 4 air-to-air kills (79th FG), and only one had 4, two had 3 . . . most, if they had any, had just a single kill.
The highest scoring in the 324th FG was 2 air-to-air kills.
The 33rd and 325th I found no data (just wasn't listed).
A far cry from the magic number of 20.
Why would you not include Edwards as a Canadian?
That was in reference to the number of kills not the nationality is what i think he meant.You said ".....6 if you include.............". Why would you say that? It's like saying "The best German aces, if you include Marsaille."
That was in reference to the number of kills not the nationality is what i think he meant.
I admit to not knowing what you are getting at here. He was a test pilot who tested the production aircraft to ensure that they performed against the set performance targets in a safe manner. I don't have a problem with that and cannot see what you are getting so excited about.Well, lets be precise, that guy wasn't just a test pilot he did the checkout flights for ~ 2,400 P-40s, in other words he put them through their paces to make sure they were capable of the normal combat performance expected of the aircraft and engine.
This I do question for a few reasons.P-40s were incidentally rated for 10Gs which is of course far more than a WW2 pilot could normally endure in the types of seats they had and without a G suit and so on. It's also why P-40s were so tough they were a little bit overbuilt.
I brought this up because it shows not merely that one or two guys dove the P-40 at 500+ mph, (or 600+ mph as was done in at least two other individual tests by Curtiss) but that a dive of 500+ mph was part of the normal routine checkout flight for the aircraft. Also Shortround had brought up the question of how many feet did you have to descend to reach high enough speed to intercept a Fw 190 and I thought that example gave us some insight into that question though it does not answer it definitively.
.No, I answered it. I am basing that on the previously posted (not by me) turn radius chart and the NACA roll chart that everyone has seen
None of this is what I said and I strongly suggest you read it again. The American test pilots did say that they didn't like the high frequency vibration at all times. It had nothing to do with turning. Neither did I say that the Typhoon had any limit of 4G, you had said the P40 could do 4G and I was saying that is a very low figure for any fighter.I also pointed out that per the memo you yourself reported the pilots said there was extreme vibration any time they tried to enter more than a 4G turn, which as you noted is not that much of a turn for a fighter, and that turning left at 4G caused the plane to go into a snap roll and stall.
..
Finally, I also pointed out a couple of times the video in which one Typhoon pilot noted that "if the trim tab goes on a Typhoon your a finished". One of the other Typhoon pilots in another interview I posted upthread said "the Typhoon was not a good fighter" (but that it was an ideal rocket platform).
I didn't go cherry picking through Typhoon pilot interviews to find negative comments about the plane. I just googled "Typhoon Pilot interview" - for all I knew I was going to get pilot after pilot praising the Tiffy and describing how great it was at shooting down enemy fighters, but that is not what they said. You try it yourself and see what comes up.
We have to agree to disagree on certain points..
To summarize based on what I've seen so far, the Typhoon rolled slowly and had a limited turn rate. Maybe they only lost 20 or 30 to tails falling off but I suspect if you were a pilot that knew some were lost that way, and started a turn and felt "severe vibration of the airframe " he might hesitate to turn more. However that doesn't mean they were necessarily a bad fighter - that was a very fast plane especially down low and hit and run tactics do work very well. I think a good rate of roll is helpful but it isn't required.
Resp: Clive Caldwell claimed 22 in the in North Africa in the P-40 (Tomahawk/Kittyhawk). My point was that I was surprised at the low number of Aces (5 or more air-to-air kills) in these US FG. Even one A-36A pilot attained Ace status (his story; the enemy just happened to get in from of him . . . LOL!).By the way there were 11 American double-Aces (ten or more victories) who flew the P-40 - 1 in the MTO (Levi Chase), 2 in the PTO (49th FG), the other 8 in Burma (4 in the AVG, 3 in the 23rd FG, and one in 23rd FG / and AVG -David "Tex" Hill)
There were 14 'British' double aces on he P-40 in the UK / Commonwealth mostly MTO (8 Australians, 3 from the UK including Billy Drake and Neville Duke, and 1 Canadian - Edwards) plus 11 more who ended the war with 10 or more victories and got at least 5 of those on the P-40 (4 from the UK, 4 South Africans, and 3 Aussies).
The only P-40 pilots with 20 or more victories on the type were in Russia, I think Kuznestov and maybe 2 others. Not sure how many double Aces but there were a few. It's harder for me to determine how many victories Soviet Aces got on each type.
I admit to not knowing what you are getting at here. He was a test pilot who tested the production aircraft to ensure that they performed against the set performance targets in a safe manner. I don't have a problem with that and cannot see what you are getting so excited about.
This I do question for a few reasons.
a) I believe the F16 is limited to 9G
b) The Hunter I flew in was limited to 7G
Both of the above the crew were protected with the latest (at the time) G suits
c) modern competition aerobatic aircraft are normally limited to 9G
In fact I have never seen an aircraft of any type stressed to 10G, hence my doubt
As mentioned before I firmly believe that the claim of a P40 diving with an IAS of 600mph is a fantasy. A spit almost tore itself apart when doing just over 600 mph and that was a special programme with appropriate technology. If the P40 had done it then the record would have stood for many years and everyone would have heard about it.
There is an important factor to be recalled. The controls of a P40 were pretty well locked solid at high speed, I believe that the speed mentioned was 480mph and the test pilots report on the P40N mentions the excessively high control forces when simply doing ordinary aerobatics. This 480mph almost certainly has something to do with the
None of this is what I said and I strongly suggest you read it again. The American test pilots did say that they didn't like the high frequency vibration at all times. It had nothing to do with turning. Neither did I say that the Typhoon had any limit of 4G, you had said the P40 could do 4G and I was saying that is a very low figure for any fighter.
For others this is the link to the US test of the Typhoon
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/typhoon/Typhoon_Eng-47-1658-E.pdf
The Typhoon wasn't a good fighter, compared to the Spit IX, but it was a much better fighter than the P40 outperforming it in every aspect apart from the roll and turn. Even here if it was good enough to get a good shot at a Spit Vb then it would be good enough to get a good shot at a P40
We have to agree to disagree on certain points.
Resp: Clive Caldwell claimed 22 in the in North Africa in the P-40 (Tomahawk/Kittyhawk). My point was that I was surprised at the low number of Aces (5 or more air-to-air kills) in these US FG. Even one A-36A pilot attained Ace status (his story; the enemy just happened to get in from of him . . . LOL!).
In fact I have never seen an aircraft of any type stressed to 10G, hence my doubt
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.
.....
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.
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 G load is somewhat complex, there is the service load and the percentage that is guaranteed, and it also depends on the weight. But it's a well known fact, the P-40 was a bit overbuilt. 10G is not a normal G loading that pilots would pull, from what I understand 6 or 7G is the normal limit for pilots.
From that big (Ministry of Aircraft Production?) chart that was floating around a while ago:
Ultimate Flight Factors (US types are specification factors, not achieved factors)
Hurricane IIc (7600 lb): 10.7 g
Spitfire IX (7240 lb): 10.0 g
Typhoon Ib (11350 lb): 11.5 g
Tempest V (11640 lb): 14.0 g
Tomahawk (6835 lb): 12.0 g
Airacobra (7400 lb): 12.0 g
Thunderbolt (---- lb): 12.0 g
Mustang (7836 lb): 12.0 g
Do you have a number for the turning times for the various models of P-40?
I believe the typical Soviet measurement of turn performance was time to turn rather than radius of turn.
As for comparisons, the Yak-1 and Yak-7 are really on the low end of their fighter line for maneuverability.
The Yak-7 is their "Heavy Fighter" and sometimes came in a two seat version.
As I commented before, the Eastern Front conditions were not even remotely close to anything other environment the P-40 flew in. The idea that the necessary combat performance was achieved by abusing the aircraft and replacing the engine after several aerial battles is not something that anyone else could support.
Think about this: Distances over the Eastern Front were short. The pilots often flew multiple missions in one day.
One of the comments in the Allison memo was that abuse of the engine may not cause an immediate failure but may result in a failure at a later date under routine conditions. If you are always close to your own airfield, that may be tolerable. Otherwise, an engine failure over the ocean or way behind enemy lines might not be so good.
The manual is not a joke. It is a guide from the manufacturer that their product will have a predictable and reliable life span under the listed conditions. Keep in mind that there are many other kinds of failure other than the main bearings and some of them are less survivable.
Your document describing the Allison V-1710-39 as installed in the Mustang Mk.I and Mk.IA does not say what you seem to think it does.
The British were only running 72 inches Hg at SEA LEVEL for UP TO 20 Minutes at a time.
That is pretty far from 72 inches Hg for 1500 hours.
Up at 12,000 feet, the P-40E or P-40K had about the same amount of power: 1150 HP @ 3000 RPM.
Depending on ram effect the critical altitude of these engines was somewhere around 11,500 feet to about 13,000 feet. At that altitude there was no WEP available any more and if maneuvering, there obviously wasn't ram effect either.