Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.
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.
Not often commented on but the G also had that problem. The VNE was significantly reduced due to structural problems.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.
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.
So a V-1650-3 Merlin would make the P-40 at least 8 inches longer than the P-40F.
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.
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.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
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.If it worked, the Typhoon was obviously the better performer, but the problem is that for a long time, it simply didn't work.
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.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?
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 figure out why the tails were falling off?
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 TempestLong enough to address the poor roll rate as they eventually did with spring tab ailerons on the Tempest?
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.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.