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

[Ivan1GFP]

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

Hello Wuzak,
Shortround6 is correct. The photograph is actually of a "YP-40F".
This was just to illustrate that the idea of relocating the radiator had been thought of and even tried out but just not implemented for some reason.
The question for anyone who has flown a P-40 is whether or not it the CoG was a bit far aft normally and if the heavier engine just compensated for that.

Hello Glider,
One of the interesting and surprising differences between A6M and Ki 43 is that while both were somewhat limited in climb rate and maximum speed by engine power and a bit limited (though not quite as bad as people think) in diving speed for structural strength reasons, The Ki 43 did not lose as much maneuverability at high speeds.

I believe the real advantage of Typhoon over the P-40F would have been quite a bit of speed and a bit of climb rate. If one compares against later P-40s, there may be a lot less difference in climb rate. Diving speed is debatable because of the Typhoon's compressibility limitations that the P-40 did not seem to have. ....And of course the roll rate advantage belongs to the P-40.

In a dogfight of Typhoon versus FW 190A, I would pick the FW 190A to win. The firepower is pretty similar, the level speed isn't greatly different above sea level, there is nothing to choose in turning circles even with the heaviest 190A fighter, and the 190A has about three times the roll rate.

- Ivan.

 

[wuzak]

Hello Wuzak,
Shortround6 is correct. The photograph is actually of a "YP-40F".
This was just to illustrate that the idea of relocating the radiator had been thought of and even tried out but just not implemented for some reason.
The question for anyone who has flown a P-40 is whether or not it the CoG was a bit far aft normally and if the heavier engine just compensated for that.

I stand corrected.

On second viewing it is obviously not the XP-60 - standard undercarriage and only 3 guns in each wing.

The fuselage looks similar or identical to the XP-60, perhaps because both the P-40F and XP-60 were being developed at the same time.

"The designation YP-40F was unofficially assigned to P-40F Ser No 41-13602 used for experimental tests of the cooling system and the tail rudder. The coolant system was moved aft in several different configurations, including a mounting fitted inside a thickened wing-root section."

Curtiss P-40F Warhawk

That appears to be one of the configurations that particular aircraft had.

Looks like it was the 3rd production P-40F.

As regards to Curtiss using radiators mounted further rearwards, or under the rear fuselage, the XP-40 had a rear fuselage mounted system originally and the XP-46 had a belly scoop too.

 

[Shortround6]

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).

The P-40s used an 11ft prop, Not sure why you would switch to a smaller one even if it was "trick" I don't know if the P-40s were fitted with wide cord blades (at least wider cord than the original toothpick props on the Long noses) but the late P-40s used props about 70lbs heavier than the ones used on the long nosed planes.

 

[wuzak]

Just seems nonsensical that the P40Q program was not expanded.

An article about the XP-40 by William Pearce.

Curtiss XP-40Q Fighter

Some bits from that article:
"XP-40Q development was initiated by 1943. "

"The XP-40Q-1 was the first aircraft, and it was built in 1943 from a P-40K-10 (serial 42-9987) that had been damaged in a landing accident on 27 January 1943. "

"The XP-40Q-1 had a 37 ft 4 in (11.4 m) wingspan and was 35 ft 4 in long (10.8 m)—about 2 ft (.6 m) longer than a standard P-40. "

"The Q-1's first flight reportedly occurred on 13 June 1943 from the Curtiss plant in Buffalo, New York. It is not clear if the aircraft suffered another accident, or if Curtiss was unhappy with its configuration and decided to modify it further. Regardless, by November 1943, the Q-1 had been modified and redesignated XP-40Q-2. "

"The Q-2 was damaged when it nosed over after a test flight on 24 March 1944. The aircraft was repaired and then sent to Wright Field, Ohio in mid-1944. The aircraft was damaged again when it ground looped while landing on 31 July 1944."

"The Q-2A was very similar to the final configuration of the Q-2—with a bubble canopy, clipped wings, and -121 engine."

"The Q-2A's first flight occurred prior to the end of March 1944. The aircraft was plagued with engine trouble that resulted in a number of forced landings."

"Delivered to AAF in April 1944, the Q-3 suffered an engine failure during an early test flight. The aircraft was moderately damaged in the subsequent forced landing. At this time, other aircraft with superior performance were available, and there was no AAF interest in repairing the Q-3 because there was no need for a P-40Q."

You can see that the engine was unreliable and late. The XP-40Q was under development for 12-18 months and it showed no improvement over types that were already in production (P-51B, P-51D and P-47D) or about to be.

It was lightly armed, with only 4 .50" hmgs (same as P-51B, its true, though the P-51B had 2 with 350 rpg and 2 with 280rpg vs the P-40Q's 235 rpg), when the trend was towards heavier armament.

And, as mentioned by Shortround, the AAF was transitioning away from P-40s to newer types, though it was not complete by the end of the war.

The bubble canopy would have helped in SA if nothing else was not changed.

The bubble canopy was first tried on a P-40K which had been converted a XP-40N.

 

[Elvis]

The P-40s used an 11ft prop, Not sure why you would switch to a smaller one even if it was "trick" I don't know if the P-40s were fitted with wide cord blades (at least wider cord than the original toothpick props on the Long noses) but the late P-40s used props about 70lbs heavier than the ones used on the long nosed planes.

Every spec I've ever seen on the P40 always lists a 3 bladed prop that was 9-10 feet in diameter.
Is it possible for you to post a link to the material you're referencing that says any of the production P40's used an 11 foot prop?
...and to answer your question, they were never fitted with the high efficiency prop, thus my question.


Elvis

 

[Shortround6]

Every spec I've ever seen on the P40 always lists a 3 bladed prop that was 9-10 feet in diameter.
Is it possible for you to post a link to the material you're referencing that says any of the production P40's used an 11 foot prop?

Page 228 of AHT. table 30.

It is also shown as 11ft in the Erection and Maintenance Instructions for the P-40N in both the 3 view drawings and the list of dimensions.

...and to answer your question, they were never fitted with the high efficiency prop, thus my question.
Elvis

They may not have been called high efficiency props. but something was going on for the props to gain the weight they did.

I would also note that just about all propellers are a compromise of some sort. We have to define what we mean by "efficiency" before we can rate how good a prop is.
The prop that gives the best efficiency (measure for instance) by speed at critical altitude of the engine may actually suck at short take-off and quick climb at low altitude.
Since the P-40s tended to operate at 20,000ft and under (sometimes way under) they didn't need props that worked well at high altitudes in thin air.

A prop is much like a wing, increasing the cord and adding blade area will lower the blade loading (wing loading) but it also increases the wetted area (drag) much like plane with a larger wing has more drag than a plane with a smaller wing. The air at 30, 000 ft is about 60% as dense as the air at 15,000ft and 37.4% as dense as the air at sea level.

Using a prop that gives the best performance at 25,000-30,000ft would actually hurt performance at sea-level, but not as bad as using a prop tailored for sea level at 30,000ft.

If you go to Spitfire performance you will find tests of the P-40E and P-40F using different propeller blades. I don't know what the differences are but they sitting around using the same old propeller they had used on the P-40 no letter. For one thing they changed from a 25 degree pitch change to a 30 degree pitch change.

 

[Ivan1GFP]

Every spec I've ever seen on the P40 always lists a 3 bladed prop that was 9-10 feet in diameter.
Is it possible for you to post a link to the material you're referencing that says any of the production P40's used an 11 foot prop?
...and to answer your question, they were never fitted with the high efficiency prop, thus my question.

Hello Elvis,
Shortround6 is correct. Here is a page from the P-40E-1 Erection & Maintenance Manual.
The Airplane Dimensions shows
76 inches Propeller Hub Height at One Load with Thrust Line level.
10 inches clearance of Propeller Tip at One Load with Thrust Line level.
Propeller radius == 66 inches, so Diameter is 11 feet 0 inches.

The P-40N Erection & Maintenance Manual which can be found here:
P-40 Flight Manual
(Post #9)
lists particulars on the Propeller (11 feet diameter) on Page 12 of the PDF.

Just for terminology's sake, I don't think they really had "High Efficiency" Propellers in this era.
What we are really looking for is a "High Activity Factor" propeller or a propeller with greater solidity.
Considering that the clearance was 10 inches in normal loaded configuration, then it sounds very possible to fit a propeller from a P-38 Lightning (11 feet 6 inch Diameter) without losing a great deal of clearance.
I have no idea what the weight difference would be though.
The power coefficient is what we are really interested in here and it goes up with Diameter^5 so it really doesn't take much increase in size to absorb a lot more power and the Lightning's propeller blades look to be much wider also.

- Ivan.

 

[Greyman]

For what it's worth A&AEE tests of Tomahawk II, Kittyhawk I and II all give 11 feet, 0 inches for prop diameter. Except when specifically noted a special airscrew is being trialed.

 

[Elvis]

Page 228 of AHT. table 30.

It is also shown as 11ft in the Erection and Maintenance Instructions for the P-40N in both the 3 view drawings and the list of dimensions.





They may not have been called high efficiency props. but something was going on for the props to gain the weight they did.

I would also note that just about all propellers are a compromise of some sort. We have to define what we mean by "efficiency" before we can rate how good a prop is.
The prop that gives the best efficiency (measure for instance) by speed at critical altitude of the engine may actually suck at short take-off and quick climb at low altitude.
Since the P-40s tended to operate at 20,000ft and under (sometimes way under) they didn't need props that worked well at high altitudes in thin air.

A prop is much like a wing, increasing the cord and adding blade area will lower the blade loading (wing loading) but it also increases the wetted area (drag) much like plane with a larger wing has more drag than a plane with a smaller wing. The air at 30, 000 ft is about 60% as dense as the air at 15,000ft and 37.4% as dense as the air at sea level.

Using a prop that gives the best performance at 25,000-30,000ft would actually hurt performance at sea-level, but not as bad as using a prop tailored for sea level at 30,000ft.

If you go to Spitfire performance you will find tests of the P-40E and P-40F using different propeller blades. I don't know what the differences are but they sitting around using the same old propeller they had used on the P-40 no letter. For one thing they changed from a 25 degree pitch change to a 30 degree pitch change.

I'm beginning to realize my memory ain't what it used to be.
I can't find any reference to a "high efficiency" prop either. I do remember it was the large 4 blade prop used on the P-51D, which it turns out was an Aeroproducts Unimatic (according to mustangmustangs.com).
What I did find was there was also a wide and narrow bade used on the P40.
This may account for the weight difference.
It appears the narrow blade prop was Curtiss Electric Part No 89301-3. The wide blade was Curtiss Electric Part No 89303-24W.
The narrow blade was apparently used on P40's D, E, F and K, while the newer wider blade prop was used on P40's L, M and N.
...and , of course, now that I need to find it, the only reference I can find to prop diameter agrees with what you guys said - 11 feet.

Elvis
P.S. - what is "AHT"?

 

[wuzak]

Maybe "high activity"? I believe that was the type of prop the P-38K used.

 

[Glider]

Hello Glider,
One of the interesting and surprising differences between A6M and Ki 43 is that while both were somewhat limited in climb rate and maximum speed by engine power and a bit limited (though not quite as bad as people think) in diving speed for structural strength reasons, The Ki 43 did not lose as much maneuverability at high speeds.

I believe the real advantage of Typhoon over the P-40F would have been quite a bit of speed and a bit of climb rate. If one compares against later P-40s, there may be a lot less difference in climb rate. Diving speed is debatable because of the Typhoon's compressibility limitations that the P-40 did not seem to have. ....And of course the roll rate advantage belongs to the P-40.

In a dogfight of Typhoon versus FW 190A, I would pick the FW 190A to win. The firepower is pretty similar, the level speed isn't greatly different above sea level, there is nothing to choose in turning circles even with the heaviest 190A fighter, and the 190A has about three times the roll rate.

- Ivan.[/QUOTE]
The Typhoon had a VNE approx 50mph faster than the P40 and there is no doubt which is the fastest going downhill.
when looking at the 190 the Typhoon was faster but the 190 had the better role rate.

 

[Stig1207]

P.S. - what is "AHT"?

AHT

 

[Kevin J]

In the short time that the P-40F/L was built, around 2000 or approx 3 times the number of Typhoons's in 1942. In 1942, the P-40F/L was slightly slower at medium altitudes, but much slower at lower altitudes. It had a better range. Dive speeds were about the same in 1942. The Typhoon had a smaller turning circle but a worse roll rate. If I wanted to intercept Fw 190A tip and run raids then it has to be the Typhoon, although a P-40E-1/K available from later in 1942, with over boost would be acceptable. The Typhoon is a niche product, no doubt saved from cancellation by its ability to carry rockets and bombs. IMO, the P-40 is the better all round fighter.

 

[wuzak]

In the short time that the P-40F/L was built, around 2000 or approx 3 times the number of Typhoons's in 1942.

Sure, because the Typhoon was only just ramping up production coming into 1942. While the P-40F was a variant on the P-40 airframe that had been in production since 1940, the P-40 itself based on an airframe that started production in 1938.

In 1942, the P-40F/L was slightly slower at medium altitudes, but much slower at lower altitudes.

At around 12,000-13,000ft the Typhoon I was about 20mph faster and at 20,000ft the Typhoon IB was around 30mph faster. This is the Typhoon IB with the older spec Sabre II.

Maximum speed for Typhoon the IB/Sabre II was 376mph @ 8,500ft and 394.5mph @ 20,200ft.

The maximum speed of the P-40F was 350.5mph @ 12,800ft in LO and 364.5mph @ 19,270ft.

Typhoon IB Performance Data
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/P-40F_41-13601_PHQ-M-19-1440-A.pdf

Another test, comparing speed with and without belly tank sway bars had the top speed at 18,000ft as 374mph.

IN MS gear the Typhoon was at 361mph @ 18,000ft and 384mph in FS gear.

In rate of climb the Typhoon was superior up until around 25,000ft. The Typhoon was about 1 minute faster to 26,000ft than the P-40F was to 25,000ft. Above about 25,000ft the P-40F held the advantage, but was still about 1 minute slower to 30,000ft. The P-40F had a higher ceiling by about 2,000ft.

Later Typhoons with improved airframes and the Sabre IIA were considerably higher performing, and with the Sabre IIB even more so. The IIA and IIB started being put into Typhoons sometime in 1943.

It had a better range.

Yes, about 90 miles on internal fuel.

Dive speeds were about the same in 1942.

I don't know where that idea comes from.

It has been refuted by others above.

In any case, it is not the ultimate dive speed that counts, but the acceleration in a dive. This is where the Typhoon's corpulence helps it, gravity to the rescue. Plus, of course, having about twice the power.

The Typhoon had a smaller turning circle but a worse roll rate.

The poor Typhoon pilot was stuck with having to accelerate away on the level, accelerate away in the dive or climb away.

If I wanted to intercept Fw 190A tip and run raids then it has to be the Typhoon, although a P-40E-1/K available from later in 1942

I don't know how well they would do. And there weren't too many P-40s of any description in Britain in 1942.

Then there was the matter of the Mustang Is that Britain had been operating since early 1942. Surely they would be a better bet for catching the Fw 190s than the P-40E or K?

The Typhoon is a niche product, no doubt saved from cancellation by its ability to carry rockets and bombs. IMO, the P-40 is the better all round fighter.

I don't know how you could possibly conclude that.

The Typhoon is superior in almost every respect, as a fighter. The fact that it can also carry bombs and rockets, with considerable armour added, for ground attack speaks to its versatility.

The reason why the Typhoon was largely, but not completely, transferred to ground attack roles is because Britain had a better home defence fighter in the Spitfire IX, the Spitfire XII was as good as the Typhoon as a low level fighter, and superior in some respects, though only arriving in early 1943. By late 1943, of course, the Spitfire XIV was in production. It's the same reason why not many P-40s were operated by the RAF in Britain, if at all. They were sent everywhere but the home front.

Come to think of it, the P-40 was not operated by the USAAF in Britain either. Preferring, instead, the P-38 and P-47, at that time.

So, in summary, the Typhoon:

• was faster at all altitudes
• climbed better
• turned better
• dived better
• had far superior firepower (only a few Typhoon Is with 12 mgs were built)

while the P-40F could fly 90 miles further on internal fuel, had a better roll rate and a slightly higher ceiling.

 

[Kevin J]

Sure, because the Typhoon was only just ramping up production coming into 1942. While the P-40F was a variant on the P-40 airframe that had been in production since 1940, the P-40 itself based on an airframe that started production in 1938.




At around 12,000-13,000ft the Typhoon I was about 20mph faster and at 20,000ft the Typhoon IB was around 30mph faster. This is the Typhoon IB with the older spec Sabre II.

Maximum speed for Typhoon the IB/Sabre II was 376mph @ 8,500ft and 394.5mph @ 20,200ft.

The maximum speed of the P-40F was 350.5mph @ 12,800ft in LO and 364.5mph @ 19,270ft.

Typhoon IB Performance Data
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/P-40F_41-13601_PHQ-M-19-1440-A.pdf

Another test, comparing speed with and without belly tank sway bars had the top speed at 18,000ft as 374mph.

IN MS gear the Typhoon was at 361mph @ 18,000ft and 384mph in FS gear.

In rate of climb the Typhoon was superior up until around 25,000ft. The Typhoon was about 1 minute faster to 26,000ft than the P-40F was to 25,000ft. Above about 25,000ft the P-40F held the advantage, but was still about 1 minute slower to 30,000ft. The P-40F had a higher ceiling by about 2,000ft.

Later Typhoons with improved airframes and the Sabre IIA were considerably higher performing, and with the Sabre IIB even more so. The IIA and IIB started being put into Typhoons sometime in 1943.




Yes, about 90 miles on internal fuel.




I don't know where that idea comes from.

It has been refuted by others above.

In any case, it is not the ultimate dive speed that counts, but the acceleration in a dive. This is where the Typhoon's corpulence helps it, gravity to the rescue. Plus, of course, having about twice the power.




The poor Typhoon pilot was stuck with having to accelerate away on the level, accelerate away in the dive or climb away.




I don't know how well they would do. And there weren't too many P-40s of any description in Britain in 1942.

Then there was the matter of the Mustang Is that Britain had been operating since early 1942. Surely they would be a better bet for catching the Fw 190s than the P-40E or K?




I don't know how you could possibly conclude that.

The Typhoon is superior in almost every respect, as a fighter. The fact that it can also carry bombs and rockets, with considerable armour added, for ground attack speaks to its versatility.

The reason why the Typhoon was largely, but not completely, transferred to ground attack roles is because Britain had a better home defence fighter in the Spitfire IX, the Spitfire XII was as good as the Typhoon as a low level fighter, and superior in some respects, though only arriving in early 1943. By late 1943, of course, the Spitfire XIV was in production. It's the same reason why not many P-40s were operated by the RAF in Britain, if at all. They were sent everywhere but the home front.

Come to think of it, the P-40 was not operated by the USAAF in Britain either. Preferring, instead, the P-38 and P-47, at that time.

So, in summary, the Typhoon:

• was faster at all altitudes
• climbed better
• turned better
• dived better
• had far superior firepower (only a few Typhoon Is with 12 mgs were built)

while the P-40F could fly 90 miles further on internal fuel, had a better roll rate and a slightly higher ceiling.

Whilst, I agree with most of this, I think you'll find that it wasn't until the end of 1942 that the Typhoon had its tail strengthened so that it could pull out of a dive and the P-40 could be pushed over 500 mph although it wasn't recommended by the manufacturers, so for me the P-40 in 1942 is better as at least you come out of the dive even if there was some damage to the plane. As for top speed, 25 mph in top speed isn't going to lose you a dogfight. The top speed of the Typhoon is of course faster low down, but again by the end of 1942, there was increased boost available in the P-40F/L. In 1943 the Spitfire LIX/XII come along with adequate performance to intercept Fw 190A tip and run raids. The Typhoon in mid 1942 to mid 1943 is clearly the fastest low altitude fighter and best for intercepting Fw 190A's. In the East, the Soviets operating at very low levels coped with the P40E-1/K with over boost. I repeat, IMO, the P-40 was the better all round fighter and that the Typhoon is niche for the ETO.

 

[fubar57]

Comments from four RCAF pilots who flew Typhoons, written last year...

THE TIFFY & THE SPIT: Both Allied Aircraft Made Their Mark During The War As Did The Canadians Flying Them

 

[wuzak]

Whilst, I agree with most of this, I think you'll find that it wasn't until the end of 1942 that the Typhoon had its tail strengthened so that it could pull out of a dive and the P-40 could be pushed over 500 mph although it wasn't recommended by the manufacturers, so for me the P-40 in 1942 is better as at least you come out of the dive even if there was some damage to the plane.

Diving in a P-40 wasn't all beer and skittles. There were a lot of directional instability during dives, the reason for the lengthened fuselage on later models. A lot of trimming and rudder were required, and the stick forces for pull out were high.

From AHT, a NACA report noted "Difficulties were experienced with P-40 series aircraft in dive demonstrations, and there were inadvertent entries into spins in service operations".

As for top speed, 25 mph in top speed isn't going to lose you a dogfight.

No, but that was for the earlier Sabre II with lower limits.

But the better climb and acceleration in a dive or on the level would help win a fight.

The top speed of the Typhoon is of course faster low down, but again by the end of 1942, there was increased boost available in the P-40F/L.

And the Typhoon. Oh, and more rpm.

The additional boost meat how much more speed? Remembering the overboost was at very low altitudes.

In 1943 the Spitfire LIX/XII come along with adequate performance to intercept Fw 190A tip and run raids.

And more performance than a P-40 on overboost?

In the East, the Soviets operating at very low levels coped with the P40E-1/K with over boost.

They also were quite happy with short service life of engines.

I repeat, IMO, the P-40 was the better all round fighter and that the Typhoon is niche for the ETO.

That the Typhoon only served in one theatre does not make it a "niche" aircraft. Considering the theatre it operated in was probably the world's most defended airspace - certainly in terms of flak, and later with fighters.

There is nothing the P-40 could do in Africa, the Middle East, MTO, CBI or the PTO that the Typhoon I could not.

That it was not sent there does not mean it was unsuited for those theatres, but reflects the needs of Britain and its priorities. And, of course, production.

While there were over 3,000 Typhoons built, a large number of them were built in later war years - 1943 to 1945.

 

[ThomasP]

In response to martinrn's post#1,111

Sorry, but you have some of your physics wrong.

A lower wing loading (everything else being equal) allows a higher service ceiling. And depending on how much the difference is between the higher wing loaded aircraft and the lower wing loaded aircraft, the lower wing loaded aircraft may be able to have a higher service ceiling with a less powerful engine. Hence:

__________Service_____Military
__________Ceiling______Power
P-40D____31,000 ft____1150 BHP
P-40E____30,000 ft____1150 BHP
P-40F____34,000 ft____1280 BHP
P-40N____32,000 ft____1150 BHP
Ki-43-I___38,000 ft______950 BHP
Ki-43-II___36,000 ft____1100 BHP

It should be noted that the Ki-43-II had a Normal power climb rate at 20,000 ft that was more than the P-40N-5's Normal power climb rate as SL, possibly more than the
P-40N-5's Military power climb rate.


Also, and I realize that what I am about to type may get some of the Americans on this forum knickers in a bunch, there were 3 main reasons for the high kill-to-loss rate of the AVG/Flying Tigers (these reasons are not intended to be in order of importance):

1. Most of the fighter aircraft they were flying against were what could be considered second class aircraft at the time (it was not until they met the Ki-43-I and A6M-1 that they faced real competition).

2. About 80% of their kills were bombers and light attack aircraft (many of them biplanes).

3. In Burma, in concert with the Commonwealth forces, the AVG /Flying Tigers units had an early warning network of landline and a few radio equipped observers at some distance from their airfields. This early warning network allowed the AVG/Flying Tigers to do 2 things - get up to altitude in time to meet the enemy on equal footing. In China, a similar early warning system was put together, though not as complete or capable. While operating in China it was not uncommon for the AVG/Flying Tigers to refuse combat. If the odds did not look acceptable, or if they did not have enough warning, the early warning system still allowed the AVG/Flying Tigers to take off and leave the area, preserving their aircraft for later combat.

(Please note that I am not accusing the AVG/Flying Tigers of cowardice or incompetence of any sort. If you only have 13 operational aircraft available and there are 30 enemy fighters and 50 attack aircraft of various types approaching, and you have no chance of engaging on reasonable terms, it may be the smart thing to do. When you add in the fact that the AVG/Flying Tigers were there primarily to help defend and support the Chinese, by preventing their positions from being bombed and troops from being slaughtered without reply - and not just to make ace or earn money - it makes a lot of sense to refuse combat sometimes.)

These factors have been mentioned many times in various histories written over the years, but they are not as sexy as the romantic views of air-to-air combat, so popular accounts tend to ignore them.

 

[Kevin J]

Diving in a P-40 wasn't all beer and skittles. There were a lot of directional instability during dives, the reason for the lengthened fuselage on later models. A lot of trimming and rudder were required, and the stick forces for pull out were high.

From AHT, a NACA report noted "Difficulties were experienced with P-40 series aircraft in dive demonstrations, and there were inadvertent entries into spins in service operations".




No, but that was for the earlier Sabre II with lower limits.

But the better climb and acceleration in a dive or on the level would help win a fight.




And the Typhoon. Oh, and more rpm.

The additional boost meat how much more speed? Remembering the overboost was at very low altitudes.




And more performance than a P-40 on overboost?




They also were quite happy with short service life of engines.




That the Typhoon only served in one theatre does not make it a "niche" aircraft. Considering the theatre it operated in was probably the world's most defended airspace - certainly in terms of flak, and later with fighters.

There is nothing the P-40 could do in Africa, the Middle East, MTO, CBI or the PTO that the Typhoon I could not.

That it was not sent there does not mean it was unsuited for those theatres, but reflects the needs of Britain and its priorities. And, of course, production.

While there were over 3,000 Typhoons built, a large number of them were built in later war years - 1943 to 1945.

If you want to compare the Typhoon with the P-40F/L then lets stick to comparing it in 1942/43. So are you really suggesting that it was suitable for overseas deployment then, after all a similar number would have been built of each. It wasn't until the Tempest II and VI arrived, which were Typhoon developments, that it was deployed to the Far East and Middle East, both fighters being too late for WW2. The P-40F/L were deployed everywhere except for the ETO.

 

[Shortround6]

Whilst, I agree with most of this, I think you'll find that it wasn't until the end of 1942 that the Typhoon had its tail strengthened so that it could pull out of a dive and the P-40 could be pushed over 500 mph although it wasn't recommended by the manufacturers, so for me the P-40 in 1942 is better as at least you come out of the dive even if there was some damage to the plane.

A lot of the P-40s superior diving ability is hype.
The Manual for the N (and others) says it was red lined at 480mph IAS, why should we say it is OK to push the P-40 passed this and not OK to push other aircraft past their red line?
In training the P-40 was not supposed to be dived faster than 350mph IAS (page 61) and the pilots were told to leave 5-8000 ft for pullout. The plane also wanted to roll to the right in a dive, the higher the speed, the greater the tendency to roll.
The P-40 was not immune to compressibility, it just didn't operate very often in the air space that compressibility was a problem.
Page 67 in the manual, "Vertical dives from 20,000ft are not recommended because of the danger of compressibility."
If you have a P-38 doing 400mph at 25,000ft and it goes into a dive it can hit it's compressibility limit pretty quick. A P-40 is starting 30-70mph (depending one engine, and exact altitude) slower to begin with, has to accelerate up to the compressibility speed limit in the dive and is getting into thicker air where compressibility is less of a problem.

As for top speed, 25 mph in top speed isn't going to lose you a dogfight.

It isn't just the straight line speed. The 25mph represents an amount of surplus power than can be used for climbing or turning a little harder without losing speed (or as much speed)

say you have a 375mph plane and a 350mph plane and they are both doing 300mph in a turn. The faster plane (enve if it is going the same speed) has more options, it can climb better while turning at 300mph, it can turn tighter (maybe not a lot) while still doing 300mph.

The top speed of the Typhoon is of course faster low down, but again by the end of 1942, there was increased boost available in the P-40F/L.

We have to define "low down: because many P-40 (and P-39) fans want to use the 70 in pressure (or at least mid to high 60s) from the Allisons to showcase the low altitude ability of the Allison powered planes. Trouble is a good number of those "inches" goes away by even 5,000ft and are mostly gone by 10-12,000.
The P-40F/L was better at altitude but it started with a higher boost limit. Going from 48in to 60 in is only a 25% increase, going from 44in in an Allison to 60in is a 36% increase.

In the East, the Soviets operating at very low levels coped with the P40E-1/K with over boost. I repeat, IMO, the P-40 was the better all round fighter and that the Typhoon is niche for the ETO.

The Typhoon had some problems for overseas deployment that get a bit glossed over, it's overhaul life for the Sabre engine was a bit short (understatement?) early in it's life, it was a beast to work on, it needed 48 spark plugs instead of 24 and plugs got changed on aircraft engines fairly frequently. It also assumes you have the proper spark plugs in stock at your supply depot in Cairo or Ishapore or where ever.
It needed more logistical support than many other fighter aircraft so unless there was a real need instead of "nice to have" it wasn't going anywhere.

The Logistical support for the P-40 was already in place and aside form the Merlin engine didn't change with the change of engine.

Bringing in the Russians is a total misdirection as I don't believe the Russians got any Merlin powered P-40s unless it was a small batch for testing?
title of thread being "which-is-the-better-fighter-p-40f-or-typhoon"