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

P-40 or Typhoon

  • Total voters
    25

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Status
Not open for further replies.
There seems to be a pattern with a lot of early war fighters that they were designed to roll well at very low speed but this fell off at higher speed. Ideal for TnB or WWI style fighting. Later war designs seemed to have better roll at higher speeds, suitable to BnZ fighting (I know some people think roll doesn't matter for BnZ). Everything I've read about the Zero agrees with this and the chart above would seem plausible in that sense - at 150 - 180 mph the Zero would outroll all Allied fighters but closer to 250 mph the advantage is on the Allied side. This would match the pilot accounts and the tactics they developed, like using low-Yo-Yo turns and so on.

From what I read both cloth ailerons and cable or even cord linkages to the ailerons were part of the reason for this. Larger ailerons like on the Zero can also be a factor, while on the other hand overly small ones cause different problems, as on the P-51A / A-36.

I think a longer or medium range fighter would have been useful in NW Europe even if they didn't have high altitude chops - look at all the low-level "Ramrod" etc. bomber raids they were doing. They probably should have deployed a few P-40 squadrons
 
TnB vs. BnZ is a bit of an oversimplification, really it should be "designed for low speed maneuverability" (100 - 200 mph) vs. "medium speed maneuverability" (200 - 350 mph)

Medium speed maneuverability can help a lot with a lot of things including various escape maneuvers (split S, outside roll, rolling scissors etc.) as well as successfully shooting aircraft during a chase.

Of the aircraft tested in the various examples presented so far, only the Mustang seems to have good roll over 350 mph which I would call high speed maneuverability.

I went looking for Bf 109 roll rate info but that seems like a rabbit hole...
 
Greyman said:
It was uncompetitive over about 15 thousand feet. You can't base an ETO RAF fighter force on that.
Click to expand...

Hello Greyman,
Perhaps you can't base an entire ETO RAF fighter force on a low / medium altitude fighter, but please note that when the Tempest arrived, IT served as part of the ETO RAF fighter force with Spitfires taking on the high altitude role. Initially, Tempest had the same engines and thus had the same altitude issues as Typhoon did but still served in the air superiority role. The power curves of the Sabre II and Sabre IIA and their critical altitudes were identical according to the Aircraft Type Description.

In looking at their performance figures, I would have put their practical limits a bit higher at about 20,000 feet where these fighters were able to achieve their maximum speeds. Even at 15,000 feet, the Typhoon had a pretty respectable climb rate which indicates a pretty good reserve of engine power.


http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/typhoon/Typhoon_Eng-47-1658-E.pdf

In looking for a few more details, I decided to read through the full report that this is taken from rather than just selected excerpts.
The difference in conclusion is most interesting. Here are a few factors worth noting:

1. This was a Typhoon IA as can be seen from the complaints about visibility especially during the climb.
2. The test aircraft carried full fuel and oil but carried NO AMMUNITION. At 140 rounds of 20 mm for each Hispano Mk.II, this would have resulted in 175 pounds less weight in the outboard section of each wing and 350 pounds less for the aircraft which is sure to have affected the roll response to some extent.
3. Although the handling is described as "very good", note that Typhoon is unstable longitudinally, neutrally stable laterally and stable directionally but had a very noticeable roll when yawed.
4. Although its load carrying ability is described as "exceptional", the actual numbers listed in the aircraft type sheet only show 2 x 500 pound bombs which is surprisingly little for such a large and powerful aircraft.

One of the really surprising things I found out in poking around for performance data was that the early Typhoons had a lot of trouble achieving 400 MPH in level flight until modifications were made during the production run.

- Ivan.
 

Hello Schweik,
I believe this to be an overly general description.
Note that the P-40 was a pre-war design and according to AHT had an excellent roll rate.
The Ki 43 Hayabusa was a contemporary of the A6M and had a ridiculously fast roll which degraded much more slowly than A6M.
The Spitfire initially did not have a good medium and high speed roll but metal ailerons and clipped wings were a serious improvement that were not great modification to the design.
Soviet fighters of this era also were not bad.

- Ivan.
 

The Typhoon flown by the flight section pilots at the A.&A.E.E. was serial number DN-340 equipped with 4 x 20 mm. guns, i.e. a Typhoon IB. As an interesting aside, Hawker Langley tested DN.340 and obtained 400 mph at 20,800' in December 1942. Also worth noting "The results on D.N.340 which was an aircraft picked at random, are particularly encouraging as the engine installed was known to be some 45 h.p. down in power in the M.S. gear."
 

Hello Mike Williams,
Thanks for the correction.
Do you disagree with any of the other conclusions?
Lower power in M.S. gear alone should not have affected the maximum speed at 20,000 feet so it sounds like that maximum speed result is still quite valid.

- Ivan.
 
Glider said:
The RAF in the desert used 100/130 fuel for combat operations from about May 1940 onwards, maybe a slight delay in the furthest reaches of the war by a couple of months. But for the period we are talking about it was exclusive.
Click to expand...

If this is true than the P40 was running with more Boost and made it more competitive against the Me109 and FW190.
One of the interesting things about Air Combat are all the stories of the Pilots..
But none about the Crew that maintained and how they maintained and kept the planes flying.
I am sure they had a few P40s nd P51 stripped for high altitude recon and getting parts from one airbase to another quickly.
 
I don't want to reopen an old debate but when going through some files on an old computer I found the following which will be I think of interest to a number of you. Personally I think it pretty balanced and it shows how the initial small no of Spits had a significant impact on the fighting. I have to admit that it does put a nice gloss on the effectiveness of the Hurricane.

 
One question that kept rising was how well did the Typhoon do in air to air combat. I have found a partial answer.
The highest scoring Typhoon pilot was Johnny Baldwin who was credited with 15 victories while flying the Typhoon. He was declared missing in action in Korea whilst flying the F86.
During the three month period December 1943 to February 1944, 198 Typhoon Squadron was the highest scoring squadron in Fighter Command being credited with 49 victories. At the end of this period the emphasis switched to GA with the 2TAF which officially it joined in Jan 1944, but they didn't move station until April 1944.
In early 1943 609 Squadron another Typhoon squadron was the highest scoring fighter command squadron until it too moved to GA duties. By the end of the war 609 had been credited with 272 victories and lost 73 aircrew killed

So given the aircrew trained in air to air combat, and the chance, the Typhoon was more than capable of taking care of itself.
 
Last edited:
Dan Fahey said:
But none about the Crew that maintained and how they maintained and kept the planes flying.
Click to expand...

Oh it's not just in air combat that aircraft maintenance personnel don't always get their stroies told, yet are equally as fascinating! Believe me! The stories engineers could tell! There are a few on this forum.
 
Resp:
I just finished reading a story (No 452 of FlyPast) about an RAF pilot Johnny Baldwin, who had 15 confirmed kills while flying Hawker Typhoons (Note: his first claim actually survived, by making it back to an airfield). He said that the Typhoon had "an appalling reputation as being a fighter and for being extremely unreliable. Only the unreliability was true." He flew with several Squadrons, ending with 123 Wing. This article clearly shows the destruction the Typhoon created as the Allies marched across Europe from the west.
 
I had been debating whether it was worthwhile to point out that a successful combat record is not necessarily an indication that an aircraft was a particularly good fighter. If it were, one might conclude that a Gloster Gladiator or an early Brewster Buffalo was a great fighter.

- Ivan.
 
Resp:
Agreed. Luck certainly played its hand, as in 'just happened to be in position' when sighting the enemy. But 15 kills couldn't have been all luck. The skill of the pilot and the ability of his aircraft . . . had to have played a role. It would be nice to know how one did when attacked!
 
Luck always plays a part but not a large part. In a Typhoon your in an aircraft that's a lot faster than the enemy, dives a lot faster and turns just as well as the enemy. So you have options.

For me the important thing isn't the pilot with 15 kills over the course of his time in combat. It's that the squadron was for three months. the highest scoring squadron in fighter command. That isn't luck or the actions of one pilot, its a consistent performance by the squadron over a decent period of time.

The stats for 609 I also found illuminating, 272 victories with 72 pilots killed when a lot, probably most of those losses would have been in its ground attack role is pretty good. Obviously there would have been more losses with pilots wounded or safely crash landing or baled out. But overall it's not bad at all
 
Cont:
Baldwin writes: "I became a flight commander in August 1943. At that time Fighter Command was carrying out innumerable and fruitless sweeps over the French coast. We were all tired of doing the same old thing day after day, and when we heard that jettisonable fuel tanks (drop tanks) were available for Typhoons, we worked out an operation that later became known as a Ranger. This consisted of penetrating deeply into occupied territory while flying 'on the deck' and seeking out enemy aircraft on training, transport and night-flying tests. This rapidly became successful, and I was sent to command 198 Typhoon Squadron. In three months, the squadron had destroyed 47 aircraft and had become the highest-scoring squadron in Fighter Command."
So not only was Baldwin an excellent pilot, he was also a creative commander in making adjustments in taking the 'fight' to the enemy.
 
The book, "Czechs in the RAF", by Zdenek Hurt, published 2004, Air Research Publications, says "Deep penetrations over enemy territory on a freelance basis, attacking targets of opportunity were known as Rangers(book italics), and started in February, 1943. ......The first night Ranger(book italics) missions were flown by Nos. 25 and 151 Squadrons in mid February, 1943............"
 
For what it's worth, Air Fighting Committee paper No.141 Offensive Operations By Home Based Fighters (Dec '42) does not list 'Ranger' as one of the operation types, while the 14 May '43 revision does.
 
From the paper:

RHUBARB
A small offensive operation, using cloud cover, carried out by 1 or 2 sections, the primary object of which is the destruction of enemy aircraft. Rhubarb operations may also be directed against suitable predetermined ground targets, in accordance with current Rhubarb Instructions. Aircraft should approach ground targets at 0 ft. climbing only to make their attack. Cloud cover must be available in which to evade any enemy fighters encountered or to avoid intensive flak. Cloud 10/10 at 1,000 - 3,000 ft. with good visibility provide the most suitable conditions for Rhubarb operations. If weather proves to be unsuitable when approaching the enemy coast, the sortie should be abandoned. Pilots undertaking Rhubarb sorties must be carefully briefed. Navigation at 0 ft. must be accurate.

RANGER
Similar to operation RHUBARB but with deep penetration.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Paper comparing the flight performance of the P-40E Warhawk and the A6M2 Zero
Replies
8
Views
558
Ivan1GFP
I
G
Better Dambusters
2
Replies
25
Views
2K
GTX
W
The scarcity of fighter to fighter FW-190A pilot combat accounts...
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
Engineman
E
How good a plane was the P-40, really?
21 22 23
Replies
459
Views
35K
Think Tanker
Effectiveness of the P-38
6 7 8
Replies
145
Views
11K
Thumpalumpacus
Menu
Log in
Register