Which is the better fighter, P-40F or Typhoon? (1 Viewer)

[wuzak]

In a head to head fight, assuming the Typhoon was working well, I would pick the Typhoon because of firepower and because speed advantages would allow it to control the fight, but one has to also remember that the P-40 was a viable fighter against the enemy for much longer than the Typhoon was. If I was running an air force, for most of their operation lives, I would pick a force of 1000 P-40s over a force of 1000 Typhoons because of the Typhoon had way too many reliability and structural issues for much of its life.

The P-40 was really no more viable as a fighter than the Typhoon in the theatre that the Typhoon operated - ie the ETO.

The structural issues of the Typhoon must have been solved by 1944 when they carried 2,000lb of bombs and dove at high speed in bomb and rocket attacks.

 

[Shortround6]

I believe (but could be wrong) that the Typhoon didn't really have "structural" problems.
I believe it had control surface flutter problems (?) and vibration problems from the Engine/prop which manifested themselves in failures near the tail.
The famous fishplates at the tail joint not really fixing the problem (they may have delayed it) but were left on as confidence builders for the pilots.
They didn't really hurt performance.

 

[Ivan1GFP]

Hello Shortround6,
Thanks for pointing out the harmonics problems that manifested as structural failures. Your description is obviously more correct.

The P-40 was really no more viable as a fighter than the Typhoon in the theatre that the Typhoon operated - ie the ETO.

The structural issues of the Typhoon must have been solved by 1944 when they carried 2,000lb of bombs and dove at high speed in bomb and rocket attacks.

Hello Wuzak,
The P-40 was available in one version or another from the beginning of the war in 1939.
If we are discussing just the short nosed P-40, that would have been available in late 1941 or about the same time as the Typhoon.

If we think about places they could have served as fighters:
As a low-medium altitude fighter over Europe, the P-40 probably was not competitive past 1941.
The Typhoon was pretty fair for the level of performance it COULD give.
As an escort fighter over Germany, neither was capable.
As a low-medium altitude fighter over Africa and the MTO until the end of the campaign, both had sufficient performance.
As a low-medium altitude fighter in the Pacific / CBI, both would have been capable except that the Typhoon was never used in that theater.
The point is that for most of the time the Typhoon was operational, it had either engine reliability or problems with structural failures to make things interesting for its pilots while the P-40 with less performance was much more reliable.

- Ivan.

 

[Milosh]

Going thru the loss list for the Typhoon (from memory) there was only about half a dozen rear fuselage failures. Early Bf109Fs also had such a problem.

 

[Greyman]

I think 26 is the official suspected number of losses due to in-flight failures.

 

[wuzak]

The P-40 was available in one version or another from the beginning of the war in 1939.

No, it really wasn't.

The P-40 (no letter) was starting to be delivered in mid 1940. 200 were delivered to the USAAC before deliveries were deferred in order to supply the French, which then became the British. These were the Tomahawk I, which was deemed unfit for combat because they lacked self sealing fuel tanks and armour.

The improved P-40B didn't fly until March of 1941. The P-40C in April. These introduced self-sealing fuel tanks.

The P-40D was the first of the P-40s with the short nose V-1710. That started production in May 1941, and was being delivered to the RAF by late 1941.

If we are discussing just the short nosed P-40, that would have been available in late 1941 or about the same time as the Typhoon.

If we think about places they could have served as fighters:
As a low-medium altitude fighter over Europe, the P-40 probably was not competitive past 1941.

So not at all competitive in the ETO?

The Typhoon was pretty fair for the level of performance it COULD give.

The Typhoon was rushed to service before it was ready, which possibly exacerbated the reliability issues it had.

As an escort fighter over Germany, neither was capable.

As a high altitude escort to Germany, no, but the Typhoon did perform low altitude escort over occupied Europe, including for Mosquitoes.

Not something the P-40 could have done.

As a low-medium altitude fighter over Africa and the MTO until the end of the campaign, both had sufficient performance.

The Typhoon was not used in the MTO.

But if it was, it would have been more competitive due to its performance advantage.

As a low-medium altitude fighter in the Pacific / CBI, both would have been capable except that the Typhoon was never used in that theater.

The Typhoon would have been more capable.

The point is that for most of the time the Typhoon was operational, it had either engine reliability or problems with structural failures to make things interesting for its pilots while the P-40 with less performance was much more reliable.

As above, the reliability of the Typhoon was marred by its premature introduction into service. Later in its career it was much more reliable.

Not sure the structural failures were that significant in the scheme of things.

The point I am making is that anything the P-40 could do in any theatre, the Typhoon could do it better.

 

[Glider]

Going thru the loss list for the Typhoon (from memory) there was only about half a dozen rear fuselage failures. Early Bf109Fs also had such a problem.

Not often commented on but the G also had that problem. The VNE was significantly reduced due to structural problems.

 

[Ivan1GFP]

Hello Wuzak,
Thanks for the correction regarding early P-40 timeline. My goof.

If it worked, the Typhoon was obviously the better performer, but the problem is that for a long time, it simply didn't work.
How long in the middle of a war should its introduction have been delayed? Long enough for it to safely fly the Channel and back without the engine dying? Long enough to figure out why the tails were falling off? Long enough to address the poor roll rate as they eventually did with spring tab ailerons on the Tempest?
If it were such a wonderful aircraft, one has to wonder WHY with 3,000-something aircraft produced, it wasn't used in all the places that purchased and Lend-Lease P-40s were used late in the war and why all were scrapped at the end of the war. Perhaps it was just a bit too delicate and unreliable to be supported anywhere but continental Europe?

- Ivan.

 

[Kevin J]

Hello Wuzak,
Thanks for the correction regarding early P-40 timeline. My goof.

If it worked, the Typhoon was obviously the better performer, but the problem is that for a long time, it simply didn't work.
How long in the middle of a war should its introduction have been delayed? Long enough for it to safely fly the Channel and back without the engine dying? Long enough to figure out why the tails were falling off? Long enough to address the poor roll rate as they eventually did with spring tab ailerons on the Tempest?
If it were such a wonderful aircraft, one has to wonder WHY with 3,000-something aircraft produced, it wasn't used in all the places that purchased and Lend-Lease P-40s were used late in the war and why all were scrapped at the end of the war. Perhaps it was just a bit too delicate and unreliable to be supported anywhere but continental Europe?

- Ivan.

The Warhawk could have been improved to make it as good as the Typhoon if not better simply by installing a Merlin 60 series engine. The Mustang is the reason it never happened. IMO, the Warhawk had the better air frame.

 

[Elvis]

There wasn't enough room in the airframe for the two-stage supercharger in the P-40.
Would've had to have been modified; nose lengthened, tail and/or cockpit pushed back.
Probably not too far (definitely not "YP-37 setback"!), but changes would've had to have been made.
I think the Merlin 60 in the P-51 was just an easier fit (not sure, just thinkin').


Elvis

 

[Shortround6]

You probably could have stuck a two stage Merlin in a P-40. It just might have been harder than many people believe.

Mustang MK X

this is after the forward cowl was modified.
The Mustang and the Spitfire both had their radiators behind the center of gravity.
Most of the Allison Mustangs had a pair of .50 cal guns under the engine, not behind it.

The P-40 is adding several hundred pounds of engine, a bigger, heavier prop all forward of the CG.

It needs a bigger radiator, bigger oil cooler and the radiator for the intercooler.

The P-40 Q mounted the two stage Allison which was longer than the two stage Merlin (much longer) but it took around 20in of extra fuselage length to do it. Merlin won't need that much but the radiators will probably have to be moved. The P-40Q used radiators in/under the wings just outboard of the landing gear.

Oil cooler may have stayed in the nose. The two stage Allison in the P-40Q did not use an intercooler (?).

I am not sure what a Merlin two stage powered P-40 looks like when you get done. Chances of it being better than a P-51 are Slim and None and Slim has already taken the noon train out of town. The P-51 (or A-36) was faster using the same engine while carrying more fuel and ammo.

 

[wuzak]

The 2 stage Merlin was about 8 inches longer than the single stage 2 speed Merlin.

So a V-1650-3 Merlin would make the P-40 at least 8 inches longer than the P-40F.

 

[Shortround6]

So a V-1650-3 Merlin would make the P-40 at least 8 inches longer than the P-40F.

You might do it shorter than that by rearranging oil tanks and whatnot. P-40 oil tanks tended to bounce around between models. But finding space for the larger radiators (big belly scoop on P-51B and bigger radiator housings on the MK IX Spit) ditto for the oil coolers and ditto again for the intercooler radiator is going to be a bit harder.

Some Spits got larger fuel tanks to go with the two stage Merlins.
Where does the P-40 put extra fuel?

 

[Elvis]

No Shortround, you really couldn't. Not without modifying the airframe.

 

[Shortround6]

If they could fit one of these in
http://tradecoastcentralheritagepark.com.au/_dbase_upl/Allison_engine_handbook_1944.pdf

go to page 5.

Then fitting in a two stage Merlin is not an insurmountable problem.
It just won't look much like a normal P-40 any more.
Production delay while they retool might not be acceptable.
When you are done you have plane that holds less fuel than the P-51, holds less ammo and is slower.
You could do it but what was the point?

from old thread on this site.

It was much bulkier than the Merlin set up.

 

[BiffF15]

If they could fit one of these in
http://tradecoastcentralheritagepark.com.au/_dbase_upl/Allison_engine_handbook_1944.pdf

go to page 5.

Then fitting in a two stage Merlin is not an insurmountable problem.
It just won't look much like a normal P-40 any more.
Production delay while they retool might not be acceptable.
When you are done you have plane that holds less fuel than the P-51, holds less ammo and is slower.
You could do it but what was the point?

from old thread on this site.

It was much bulkier than the Merlin set up.

SR6,

You have touched on the age old question of "why didn't or why did " the decision makers do what they did or didn't do. If you mod the P40 to use a better engine you could mod it to carry more ammo, fuel, bubble canopy, etc. Then the question becomes, to me anyway, how much better is it going to be?

Personally I'm in the camp of continuous improvement, however that's an easy place to be when you don't have to answer to the taxpayers regarding your spending decisions. With as many P40's that were made in the latter half of the war, having a Q type variant would definitely be an improvement and more capable. Bigger engine (HP wise), means bigger lift (two external tanks, more ammo, more bomb weight, etc.) plus longer range and higher speed.

The only drawback is that darn Mustang is faster, longer ranged, and selling like hot cakes. Could've, should've would've: Curtis puts more effort into airframe improvement and Allison Pays Rolls for for the supercharger knowledge to improve the V1710.

Cheers,
Biff

 

[Shortround6]

SR6,

You have touched on the age old question of "why didn't or why did " the decision makers do what they did or didn't do. If you mod the P40 to use a better engine you could mod it to carry more ammo, fuel, bubble canopy, etc. Then the question becomes, to me anyway, how much better is it going to be?

Personally I'm in the camp of continuous improvement, however that's an easy place to be when you don't have to answer to the taxpayers regarding your spending decisions. With as many P40's that were made in the latter half of the war, having a Q type variant would definitely be an improvement and more capable. Bigger engine (HP wise), means bigger lift (two external tanks, more ammo, more bomb weight, etc.) plus longer range and higher speed.

The only drawback is that darn Mustang is faster, longer ranged, and selling like hot cakes. Could've, should've would've: Curtis puts more effort into airframe improvement and Allison Pays Rolls for for the supercharger knowledge to improve the V1710.

Cheers,
Biff

The tests on the prototype/s show the Mustang was about 20mph faster using similar power. The test P-40Qs had four .50 cal guns and 235rpg (or ballast to represent them and dummy blast tubes.) the P-40Q-2 was tested at 9000lbs take-off weight. which included 11 gallons of water for the water injection system.

The P-40Q is just too late to the party but is shows that the basic P-40 airframe was not as good as the P-51 using the same power, which was known back in 1941/42 with the Allison engines.
Now there was some talk about mounting six .50s (or even four 20mm) in a production version but no mention of the hit to performance that would make.

A Merlin powered P-40 (two stage, not the F & L) could probably have flown in late 1942 and entered production in the Spring of 1943 but for a while in early 1943 Packard couldn't supply enough two stage Merlins to North American and airframes were sitting around waiting for engines, sending engines to Curtiss for a 2nd best fighter would not have been a good idea. By the late summer/ fall of 1943 production had gone from handfuls to 400-500 a month.

The P-40 had a darn good run for a plane that first flew in May 1935, (10 months before the Spitfire) as the Hawk 75 but at some point you have to stop "improving" and move on to something new.

 

[Glider]

A little harsh I feel

If it worked, the Typhoon was obviously the better performer, but the problem is that for a long time, it simply didn't work.

Once the IB entered service the reliability improved in particular when Bristol helped Napier with the production of the sleeve valves. Granted that took longer than it should have done but the problems were fixed. Another factor were mechanics who found they could alter some settings to increase power and this was a factor in engine failures.

How long in the middle of a war should its introduction have been delayed? Long enough for it to safely fly the Channel and back without the engine dying?

I believe the engine faults were resolved by mid 1943 but its worth remembering that the Typhoon always had a useful role to fulfil initially against the 190 tip and run attacks, then against the V1 and strike missions but she was nearly pulled from production.

Long enough to figure out why the tails were falling off?

The reason was finally identified in September 1943 and a fix installed by October 1943. As soon as possible this was part of the standard build in production aircraft and a refit process was also undertaken. It's important to note that after this, there were no more failures of the tail due to this reason. There were a couple of examples later in the war and these were quickly checked in case the old issue had returned. However it was found that combat damage had caused the tail wheel to lower and if the pilot ignored the symptoms and went into a high speed dive, the tailwheel would vibrate which in turn could lead to the failure of the tail.

Long enough to address the poor roll rate as they eventually did with spring tab ailerons on the Tempest?

I find it interesting that this is an issue as the Typhoon was quite agile and could match the 190 and 109 in a turn. It's turn circle was considerably better than the Tempest

If it were such a wonderful aircraft, one has to wonder WHY with 3,000-something aircraft produced, it wasn't used in all the places that purchased and Lend-Lease P-40s were used late in the war and why all were scrapped at the end of the war. Perhaps it was just a bit too delicate and unreliable to be supported anywhere but continental Europe?
- Ivan.

Probably because Europe was the most dangerous environment for GA aircraft and the RAF needed it's best and most robust aircraft for the role. The AA was thicker and the enemy fighters generally had a higher performance than the Japanese and Italian fighters. It should be noted that the USAAF didn't use the P39 or P40 over western Europe and even the P38 was replaced fairly quickly with the USAAF relying mainly on the P47 and P51, so they had the same thought.
As for the last comment. The Typhoon was being replaced by the Tempest, a much higher performing aircraft and the Typhoons day was past, and that's why they were scrapped. That's why so many thousands of combat aircraft were scrapped of all kinds.

 

[Simon Thomas]

The engine reliability issues were resolved when Rod Banks forced Roy Fedden to assist Napier with sleeve manufacture. Fortunately the Taurus sleeve was the same diameter as the Sabre and the demand for the Taurus was rather weak. I don't have the timeline, but I believe that Bristol first assisted with the Sleeves in Sept 1942, and it took a while for the Sunstrand grinders "stolen" from Pratt & Whitney to be received in the UK and be put into service. Mid 1943 sounds about right.

 

[Elvis]

Shortround,

The engine you pictured is not the engine I mentioned. In fact, it was never used in the P-40...at least not that version.
...and the link to the manual...???...why are we concerning ourselves with series of V-1710's that weren't used in the P-40?
I thought the picture I posted would show why the P-40 would need mods to house a two-stage SC...I even explained it.
I don't understand why you posted what you posted?...I respect your knowledge and Google-foo, but I am really at a loss here...???


Elvis