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

[michael rauls]

It is all about movement arms, think kids teeter-totter/see-saw ride. the further away from the CG the more effect the same weight has.
And any added weight as ballast affects climb and turn and landing (stall) speed.

Yes that is why I was thinking lengthening the fuselage at the rear might have a fairly substantial counterbalancing effect dispite only adding a little weight, the further back the tail is the more counterbalancing lever affect.
This also might have the added benefit of making the p40 more stable. From the pilot quotes I've read it seems that the p40 got more docile handling characteristics as they lengthened the aft fuselage. I suppose at some point however there is a limit how much lengthening can be done before it becomes detrimental to handling instead of beneficial.

 

[wuzak]

Spitfires used counter-weights in the tail structure to counteract the heavier 2 stage and Griffon engines.

 

[Elvis]

...nevermind...

 

[wuzak]

...or...increase the length of the area between the base of the windshield and the firewall.
I've circled it in the picture Ivan posted earlier....

That would exacerbate the problem of the heavier engine.

That is, it would move the centre of mass further forward.

 

[Elvis]

Apologies for leaving that up so long.
It was a partial thought, but I got sidetracked halfway through it....why I ended up writing "nevermind".

 

[Dan Fahey]

Reading which plane was better P40 or Typhoon.
This would be simple for me !
It was the plane that was easier to service and get out to the fight.
Had fewer quirky issues, easy enough to train new pilots to fly.

Their performances were similar enough, both expandable platforms.
Typhoon did not get sorted out until the Sea Fury.
Most of its problems were with the engine.
Finally became a competitive Naval and land based Fighter.

Just seems nonsensical that the P40Q program was not expanded.
The bubble canopy would have helped in SA if nothing else was not changed.
So what it was not an high altitude Mustang
It would have had a better flight envelop and maybe save a few more pilots.

D

 

[fubar57]

Typhoon did not get sorted out until the Sea Fury.D

How was the Typhoon sorted out by the Sea Fury?

 

[Ivan1GFP]

Apologies for leaving that up so long.
It was a partial thought, but I got sidetracked halfway through it....why I ended up writing "nevermind".

Hello Elvis,
If you were thinking the same thing as I was, I believe the general idea is good but it would need a LOT of structural redesign and of course still would not end up with the speed demon the Army Air Forces was looking for. Attached is an image of what I believe would address the situation.

Note that the area that we are messing with has the heaviest and strongest structures such as the wing spars of the aircraft and where the fuselage is mounted on the wings, etc. Note also that the rather heavy Fuselage Fuel Tank is actually supported by brackets sitting on the upper surface of the wing where the left and right halves join and now it is just hovering by magic and good wishes.
Ignoring that issue for now, the extra space behind the engine would obviously be for the larger supercharger and intercoolers could be mounted in the wing roots.

If this kind of thing absolutely HAD to be done, I am still thinking the best approach would be to push the radiator and other coolers back under the aft fuselage. The nose could be seriously cleaned up with just a carb scoop remaining and the coolant and other lines could run in a reduced size version of what is now the belly fairing. This critter would look an awful lot like a P-46 though.
Moving the radiator was apparently tried at one point....

- Ivan.

 

[Kevin J]

Reading which plane was better P40 or Typhoon.
This would be simple for me !
It was the plane that was easier to service and get out to the fight.
Had fewer quirky issues, easy enough to train new pilots to fly.

Their performances were similar enough, both expandable platforms.
Typhoon did not get sorted out until the Sea Fury.
Most of its problems were with the engine.
Finally became a competitive Naval and land based Fighter.

Just seems nonsensical that the P40Q program was not expanded.
The bubble canopy would have helped in SA if nothing else was not changed.
So what it was not an high altitude Mustang
It would have had a better flight envelop and maybe save a few more pilots.

D

My question is this. Who is your customer for the P-40Q?

 

[Clayton Magnet]

Typhoon did not get sorted out until the Sea Fury.
Most of its problems were with the engine.
Finally became a competitive Naval and land based Fighter.

Just seems nonsensical that the P40Q program was not expanded.
The bubble canopy would have helped in SA if nothing else was not changed.

What was "not sorted out" about the Tempest? As well, what was the point of continuing the P-40Q program when the P-51 was already available and better in almost every measurable category?

 

[martinrn]

The main problem with both the P-40 and the Typhoon is that they had terrible performance at high altitude. All German Me-109 and Fw-190 marks easily outperformed them at altitude. Most combat in NW Europe took place at high altitude, because Allied heavy bombers flew at high altitude. Thus, as fighters, both planes are equal failures. In North Africa, where most (but not all) bombing missions were lower altitude ground support missions, the poor high altitude performance of the P-40 and Typhoon was not as relevant. The P-40 (Kittyhawk) gave a decent account of itself in North Africa. It could hold its own against 109's at low altitude.

With thousands of P-40's and Typhoons built, something had to be done with them other than high altitude combat, which they were really bad at. Thus, attempts were made to convert them to ground attack planes. The Typhoon, with its heavy wing construction, excelled at this. It could carry a bomb/rocket load that the P-40 couldn't match. It was also very fast at sea level. In fact, no Allied or German plane could catch it down low. It was the only plane that could intercept the German V-1 rockets.

Where the P-40 excelled was against Japan. Japanese planes, with with their Low Wing Loading, which gave unparalleled maneuverability at low to mid altitudes, also mitigated against it at higher altitudes. The P-40 (as well as every US Fighter), had a more powerful engine and a heavier, stronger air-frame. This gave them, respectively, a higher service ceiling and superior dive performance. This enable the "dive and swoop" tactics that the Japanese were never able to counter throughout the war. These tactics were developed by General Chenault and the Flying Tigers. Thus, their fantastic victory to loss rate. The P-40 would use its higher service ceiling to gain an altitude advantage. They would then swoop down on their opponent in a single firing pass, and then use the momentum of the dive to regain altitude. The Japanese couldn't out dive them, and because their Low Wing Loading gave them inferior high altitude maneuverability, they couldn't out turn the P-40 in its dive either. As long as the P-40 (and all US fighters) did not get caught at low altitude or in a turning dog-fight, they would usually win.

Remember, there are always engineering trade-offs when designing an airplane. The Laws of Physics tell us that the factors that make a plane maneuverable at low altitude will make it less maneuverable at high altitude. An engine optimized for low level performance will mitigate against it at higher altitudes. There are also speed vs maneuverability trade-offs as well as range vs weight trade-offs. An aircraft designer can either design an all-purpose plane that does many things average-ish, but does not excel at anything (P-51), or he can design a plane optimized for a specific role (F-6 Hellcat). It all depends on what the end-user tells the designer what it wants. The military try to envision future wars and a plane's role in that war. They will then give specifications to the designer as to what they want the plane to do, and the designer will make it. This is a long process, so if the military get their initial specifications wrong, it will take years to correct. The F-4 Phantom is an example of a plane that was used in a role that the military hadn't anticipated, dog-fighting with lighter, more maneuverable fighters, rather than being a stand-off, air-to-air missile platform. It took years to overcome this screw-up, and to develop the F-15 and F-16 to overcome it. An example of a purpose built plane done right is the Spitfire. The RAF envisioned a certain role for the plane and the designers build it exactly for this role. The RAF correctly foresaw the Battle of Britain and built a fighter to fit this exact scenario, a short-range, high-speed, high-altitude point defense fighter for use over Southern England. The Spitfire was designed and optimized for this specific role. Thus, it excelled. It was not as successful in other roles, such as bomber escort, where it was handicapped by its poor range.

So, the short answer to the question is: in NW Europe, both the P-40 and Typhoon were equally bad. However the Typhoon became an excellent ground support plane in ways that the P-40 could not match. In the Pacific, the P-40 was an effective fighter, so long as it used the right tactics. The Typhoons were never tested in the Pacific.

 

[Shortround6]

However the Typhoon became an excellent ground support plane in ways that the P-40 could not match.

This is somewhat debatable,
Some squadrons used P-40s carrying six 250lb bombs or three 500lb bombs, Something I don't believe the Typhoon ever did.
Late model P-40s (and late model P-40 means introduced in 1943) could carry a 1000lb bomb under each wing, although no mention is made of what kind of runway is needed or what else might have to be sacrificed ( fuel or ammo for the ,50 cal guns?) There were a few missions flown in Italy using such a bomb load but the range was short 30-50 miles?

I will grant that six .50s don't have quite the same effect as four 20mm cannon.
as for rockets.

Please note the P-40 in this photo seems to have five hardpoints, the one under fuselage, on bomb under the wing (on each side) and the rocket cluster.

Now the US rocket fired by the triple tube was a lot less powerful than the British rocket but that isn't really the fault of the P-40.
The P-40 was being phased out when the better 5 in rockets showed up.

 

[Shortround6]

So what it was not an high altitude Mustang
It would have had a better flight envelop and maybe save a few more pilots.

They were still test flying the thing in the spring of 1944. Production would have been a number of months away and issue to squadrons even longer.

Most P-40 squadrons were converting to P-47s or P-51s in 1944, so unless you think that pilots would be safer in a P-40Q than in a P-51C or later or a late model P-47D ????

 

[wuzak]

Reading which plane was better P40 or Typhoon.
This would be simple for me !
It was the plane that was easier to service and get out to the fight.
Had fewer quirky issues, easy enough to train new pilots to fly.

Their performances were similar enough, both expandable platforms.

Except that their performance was not at all similar.

The Typhoon's performance, in most respects, was higher.

Just seems nonsensical that the P40Q program was not expanded.

Because by the time it would have come to fruition NAA were starting production of the P-51H, which had even higher performance than the D, the performance of which was greater than the P-40Q.

 

[wuzak]

View attachment 533441

That'd be the XP-60, which first flew a couple of months after the P-40F.

 

[Glider]

There is so much wrong with this I have taken the posting and broken it down into sections

The main problem with both the P-40 and the Typhoon is that they had terrible performance at high altitude. All German Me-109 and Fw-190 marks easily outperformed them at altitude. Most combat in NW Europe took place at high altitude, because Allied heavy bombers flew at high altitude. Thus, as fighters, both planes are equal failures.

I know its not fashionable to point this out, but the Typhoon was a good match for the 190 A8 at altitude and was a lot better at lower altitude. For the RAF the issue was that at altitude the Spit IX was a lot better than the Typhoon. But its wrong to say that the Typhoon was outmatched by the Fw190. The 109 did have a significant advantage at altitude that is certainly correct.

With thousands of P-40's and Typhoons built, something had to be done with them other than high altitude combat, which they were really bad at. Thus, attempts were made to convert them to ground attack planes. The Typhoon, with its heavy wing construction, excelled at this. It could carry a bomb/rocket load that the P-40 couldn't match. It was also very fast at sea level. In fact, no Allied or German plane could catch it down low. It was the only plane that could intercept the German V-1 rockets.

Mustangs, Spit XII, Spit IX and Mosquitos were all used with some success against the V1

Where the P-40 excelled was against Japan. Japanese planes, with with their Low Wing Loading, which gave unparalleled maneuverability at low to mid altitudes, also mitigated against it at higher altitudes.

No correlation at all. There is no rule that says if you have a low wing loading then you cannot fight at altitude.

The P-40 (as well as every US Fighter), had a more powerful engine and a heavier, stronger air-frame. This gave them, respectively, a higher service ceiling and superior dive performance. This enable the "dive and swoop" tactics that the Japanese were never able to counter throughout the war. These tactics were developed by General Chenault and the Flying Tigers.

These tactics were not developed by General Chenault. They were common practice in WW2 by the Luftwaffe as they knew that the 109 and 190 couldn't turn with the Spit and Hurricane. They were also standard tactics in WW1 by Spad XIII and SE5a fighters as these had the strength and speed to use them and they were not great in a turning dogfight.

Thus, their fantastic victory to loss rate. The P-40 would use its higher service ceiling to gain an altitude advantage. They would then swoop down on their opponent in a single firing pass, and then use the momentum of the dive to regain altitude. The Japanese couldn't out dive them, and because their Low Wing Loading gave them inferior high altitude maneuverability, they couldn't out turn the P-40 in its dive either. As long as the P-40 (and all US fighters) did not get caught at low altitude or in a turning dog-fight, they would usually win.

The main reason why the majority of the early Japanese fighters (Ki43 and Zero) found it difficult to outmanoeuvre the allied fighters was because their controls became difficult even impossible to move at high speed. This was due to the air pressure on the control surfaces, it had nothing to do with the low wing loading. Me109's had a similar but not quite as severe issue for the same reason. It's a very serious mistake to assume that the Japanese didn't learn from their mistakes. The Ki84, Ki100, Raiden and Shinden were all aircraft that were at least as good as anything else in the air. Poor training, negligible fuel reserves and poor workmanship making the aircraft less effective, played a major role in reducing the threat to the allied forces.

So, the short answer to the question is: in NW Europe, both the P-40 and Typhoon were equally bad. However the Typhoon became an excellent ground support plane in ways that the P-40 could not match. In the Pacific, the P-40 was an effective fighter, so long as it used the right tactics. The Typhoons were never tested in the Pacific.

Two brief comments here.
a) The P40 and the Typhoon were not equally bad. The Typhoon was a lot faster, climbed better, dived faster, cruised faster carried a greater payload, had much more protection, and could take on the 190 at any altitude. The 109 clearly had an advantage at altitude but up to about 20,000 the Typhoon was at least its equal.
b) Whilst the Typhoon wasn't tested in the Pacific there is no reason why it wouldn't have done well.

 

[Shortround6]

That'd be the XP-60, which first flew a couple of months after the P-40F.

That might be the 3rd production P-40F which was fitted with such a radiator system but later returned to to stock. It is sometimes known as the YP-40F but no army records ever used that designation.

 

[tomo pauk]

The Typhoon, with its heavy wing construction, excelled at this. It could carry a bomb/rocket load that the P-40 couldn't match. It was also very fast at sea level. In fact, no Allied or German plane could catch it down low. It was the only plane that could intercept the German V-1 rockets.

Tempest was very much capable for catching the Typhoon at any altitude, and was used to shoot down V1s. Together with P-51 and Spitfire.

Where the P-40 excelled was against Japan. Japanese planes, with with their Low Wing Loading, which gave unparalleled maneuverability at low to mid altitudes, also mitigated against it at higher altitudes. The P-40 (as well as every US Fighter), had a more powerful engine and a heavier, stronger air-frame. This gave them, respectively, a higher service ceiling and superior dive performance. This enable the "dive and swoop" tactics that the Japanese were never able to counter throughout the war. These tactics were developed by General Chenault and the Flying Tigers. Thus, their fantastic victory to loss rate. The P-40 would use its higher service ceiling to gain an altitude advantage. They would then swoop down on their opponent in a single firing pass, and then use the momentum of the dive to regain altitude. The Japanese couldn't out dive them, and because their Low Wing Loading gave them inferior high altitude maneuverability, they couldn't out turn the P-40 in its dive either. As long as the P-40 (and all US fighters) did not get caught at low altitude or in a turning dog-fight, they would usually win.

P-40's service ceiling was not as good as Oscar's or Zeros.
Low wing loading helps much better at high altitudes that at low altitudes.

Remember, there are always engineering trade-offs when designing an airplane. The Laws of Physics tell us that the factors that make a plane maneuverable at low altitude will make it less maneuverable at high altitude. An engine optimized for low level performance will mitigate against it at higher altitudes. There are also speed vs maneuverability trade-offs as well as range vs weight trade-offs. An aircraft designer can either design an all-purpose plane that does many things average-ish, but does not excel at anything (P-51), or he can design a plane optimized for a specific role (F-6 Hellcat). It all depends on what the end-user tells the designer what it wants. The military try to envision future wars and a plane's role in that war. They will then give specifications to the designer as to what they want the plane to do, and the designer will make it. This is a long process, so if the military get their initial specifications wrong, it will take years to correct. The F-4 Phantom is an example of a plane that was used in a role that the military hadn't anticipated, dog-fighting with lighter, more maneuverable fighters, rather than being a stand-off, air-to-air missile platform. It took years to overcome this screw-up, and to develop the F-15 and F-16 to overcome it. An example of a purpose built plane done right is the Spitfire. The RAF envisioned a certain role for the plane and the designers build it exactly for this role. The RAF correctly foresaw the Battle of Britain and built a fighter to fit this exact scenario, a short-range, high-speed, high-altitude point defense fighter for use over Southern England. The Spitfire was designed and optimized for this specific role. Thus, it excelled. It was not as successful in other roles, such as bomber escort, where it was handicapped by its poor range.

So P-51 suddenly became average-ish fighter, that didn't excelled in anything?
F-4, on aggregate, was the best fighter of 1960s, better than MiG-21 (yes, the very aircraft that shows two times in my every post) by a landmile.
Spitfire was excellent in long range recon role, un-catchable by anything German bar jets.

 

[Elvis]

They were still test flying the thing in the spring of 1944. Production would have been a number of months away and issue to squadrons even longer.

Most P-40 squadrons were converting to P-47s or P-51s in 1944, so unless you think that pilots would be safer in a P-40Q than in a P-51C or later or a late model P-47D ????

One problem with P-40Q development was that in 1944 "piston & prop" interest was waning. The major players in this war were far more interested in developing jet technology....anyway, as someone so wisely stated at this forum many years ago, why re-invent the P-51 when it was already available.
...but maybe both planes had their place (P-51=high altitude "boom & zoom" type fighter; P-40=low altitude dogfighter) and why the P-40 lasted as long as it did
Would've been interesting to see how replacing the supercharger with a turbocharger, and replacing the regular prop with a 3-bladed "high effiency" version of 9.5 ft. diameter, would've effected P-40 performance (and if we're trying to decide which P-40 to apply this to, let's use the "N". I believe it was the most refined version, as it was the final series).

Elvis

 

[Elvis]

F-4, on aggregate, was the best fighter of 1960s...

I beg to differ.
Ask anyone who flew one...F-106 could wipe the floor with the F-4, any day of the week.
The reason the F-4 hung around longer than the F-106 was because advancing time and technology eventually developed superior Air Superiority aircraft, which was the F-106's primary, if not only, job.
The F-4 was seen as more of a "mule" that could be fitted with various munitions to carry out various jobs.
Versatility was the F-4's saving grace, but it was far from the "best fighter " of the 1960's.

Elvis