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

[Glider]

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

Just remember that the number of Typhoons lost to this cause was less than 30. A serious weakness no one would disagree, but the implication that a Typhoon couldn't pull out of a dive until the end of 1942 is clearly wrong.

and the P-40 could be pushed over 500 mph although it wasn't recommended by the manufacturers

At which point the controls are solid and there is a significant danger of you digging a large expensive hole in the ground. The VNE of the P40 was approx. 50 mph less than the Typhoon, because it wasn't safe to do otherwise. At 500mph they were doing tests on the Typhoon re opening the canopy and the VNE was 525 mph which is fantasy speeds to an operational P40 pilot.

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

A couple of points
25mph is enough to lose a dogfight or evade being shot down unless the opponent is pointing directly at you at the start. The Typhoon would be out of gun range in about 20 seconds, however the true speed differential is a lot more than that.

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.

The Spit LIX wasn't as fast as the Typhoon and wasn't as good when intercepting the FW190. Second point add as much extra boost as you like to the P40, it still wouldn't match the Typhoon at the equivalent time. This also had extra boost, better fuels and so on.
Russia isn't relevant for a number of reasons. One Russia as a nation was far more interested at getting more Spitfires and P39s rather than P40's and of course they didn't get any Typhoons.

 

[Ivan1GFP]

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.

Hello Glider,
Going downhill isn't the whole game. It really helps to be able to stop going downhill when you want to and the Typhoon never really could do that for Compressibility reasons.

If you look at the data that Wuzak just posted about Typhoon performance, it doesn't really agree with what you are describing.
You need to look at those numbers and compare them with what was gotten from Faber's captured FW 190A that was tested against a few other aircraft including the Spitfire Mk.IX.
The general conclusion according to the report was: "Except for Turning Circles, the FW 190 was more maneuverable."
In climb rate, in these tests, the FW 190A was going uphill about 1000 feet / minute faster than the Typhoon Mk.IB
It was nearly dead even with the Spitfire for speed and climb up to 20,000 feet.
From these numbers, the Typhoon didn't have a speed advantage except perhaps at very low altitude.

- Ivan.

 

[Kevin J]

Hello Glider,
Going downhill isn't the whole game. It really helps to be able to stop going downhill when you want to and the Typhoon never really could do that for Compressibility reasons.

If you look at the data that Wuzak just posted about Typhoon performance, it doesn't really agree with what you are describing.
You need to look at those numbers and compare them with what was gotten from Faber's captured FW 190A that was tested against a few other aircraft including the Spitfire Mk.IX.
The general conclusion according to the report was: "Except for Turning Circles, the FW 190 was more maneuverable."
In climb rate, in these tests, the FW 190A was going uphill about 1000 feet / minute faster than the Typhoon Mk.IB
It was nearly dead even with the Spitfire for speed and climb up to 20,000 feet.
From these numbers, the Typhoon didn't have a speed advantage except perhaps at very low altitude.

- Ivan.

Faber's Fokker had a de-rated engine also.

 

[fubar57]

Faber's Fokker had a de-rated engine also.

Bi-plane?

 

[Kevin J]

Bi-plane?

I'm using the Russian terminology.

 

[MycroftHolmes]

Faber's Fokker had a de-rated engine also.

Faber's aircraft was tested at higher boost than the Luftwaffe allowed, so its speed and climb were exaggerated.

 

[fubar57]

Testing Faber's 190....Focke-Wulf Fw 190A - Flying to the Limit: Testing World War II Single-engined Fighter Aircraft

 

[Greyman]

Hello Glider,
Going downhill isn't the whole game. It really helps to be able to stop going downhill when you want to and the Typhoon never really could do that for Compressibility reasons.

If you look at the data that Wuzak just posted about Typhoon performance, it doesn't really agree with what you are describing.
You need to look at those numbers and compare them with what was gotten from Faber's captured FW 190A that was tested against a few other aircraft including the Spitfire Mk.IX.
The general conclusion according to the report was: "Except for Turning Circles, the FW 190 was more maneuverable."
In climb rate, in these tests, the FW 190A was going uphill about 1000 feet / minute faster than the Typhoon Mk.IB
It was nearly dead even with the Spitfire for speed and climb up to 20,000 feet.
From these numbers, the Typhoon didn't have a speed advantage except perhaps at very low altitude.

- Ivan.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'able to stop going downhill' and what that has to do with compressibility. I'm sure the Typhoon 'sank' more on pullout than the P-40, but 3,000 more pounds and a 60 mph higher dive limit is going to get you there.

During testing of Faber's 190, the AFDU figured the Typhoon Ib faster at all heights. Best advantages at 8,000, 10,000, 16,300 and 20,500 feet.

The 190 easily outclimbed the Typhoon, as you mentioned.

The 190 was at 1.42 ata, 2700 rpm and the Typhie was at +7 lb, 3700 rpm.

 

[Elvis]

AHT

Thank you Stig.

 

[Ivan1GFP]

Faber's aircraft was tested at higher boost than the Luftwaffe allowed, so its speed and climb were exaggerated.

Hello MycroftHolmes,
Faber's aircraft was tested with engine settings as if it were NOT a derated engine. 1.42 ATA is nothing extraordinary for the aircraft.
Then again, I doubt that it was tested with C3 fuel so maybe that also had some effect.
The stall speeds for Faber's 190 also seem to be a bit higher than expected especially considering that it was one of the early versions.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'able to stop going downhill' and what that has to do with compressibility. I'm sure the Typhoon 'sank' more on pullout than the P-40, but 3,000 more pounds and a 60 mph higher dive limit is going to get you there.

During testing of Faber's 190, the AFDU figured the Typhoon Ib faster at all heights. Best advantages at 8,000, 10,000, 16,300 and 20,500 feet.

Hello Greyman,
When the Typhoon hits compressibility, it really can't pull out of the dive until it gets down low enough so that air is denser and speed of sound is high enough so it is out of compressibility. Until then, the pilot can't really do much but go along for the ride.

What were the margins of superiority? From the numbers in the report posted in an earlier link, it seems like maximum speed would have been equal by 20,000 feet.

- Ivan.

 

[Greyman]

When the Typhoon hits compressibility, it really can't pull out of the dive until it gets down low enough so that air is denser and speed of sound is high enough so it is out of compressibility. Until then, the pilot can't really do much but go along for the ride.

Do you have more information on this re: the Typhoon? Or I miss something from earlier in the thread ...
According to A&AEE tests the Typhoon could be dived to maximum limiting speed (525 IAS) with no real issue.

No AFDU figures on the margins of speed superiority -- but I agree from looking at everyone's testing of both aircraft they seemed to be remarkably similar 15,000 feet and above (1942ish versions of each aircraft, anyway).

 

[Shortround6]

To try and keep the timeline straight.

Typhoon:
First batch of 250 Mk 1a and 1b. Delivered between September 1941 and June 1942.
Second batch of 250 Mk 1a and 1b. Delivered between June 1942 and September 1942.
Third batch of 700 Mk1b. Delivered between September 20th 1942 and May 5th 1943.

P-40F.
First Delivery of production aircraft Jan 1942.
P-40Fs go into action in NA Aug 1942 (any earlier?)
Last P-40F us delivered in Jan 1943 (1311?)
P-40Ls with Merlin's are delivered in the first 4 months of 1943.
April 28th 1943 sees the last P-40L (700) leave the production line, last of the Merlin powered P-40s.

AS to Ground attack. The Typhoons did not start carrying bombs until late 1942 and it was pretty much 250lb or 500lb bombs for quite a while.
However the P-40F seems to have been limited to a single 500lb bomb and a 100lb under each wing (according to the manuals?) what service squadrons did???
Typhoons with Rockets don't show up until Oct 1943 (?). It took a number of modifications to get the Typhoon cleared to use a 1000lb bomb under each wing.
In fact for a while even the planes carrying a 500lb bomb under each wing were reported as being built that way at the factory (different brakes for one thing).

What Typhoons could or could not do in the ground attack role in late 1943 or 1944 has little bearing on the subject of the thread as the Merlin P-40s had been out of production for months (if not a year by the Spring of 1944) Of course the ground attack capability of the late 1943 and early 1944 P-40s should not enter into the discussion either.

 

[Ivan1GFP]

Do you have more information on this re: the Typhoon? Or I miss something from earlier in the thread ...
According to A&AEE tests the Typhoon could be dived to maximum limiting speed (525 IAS) with no real issue.

No AFDU figures on the margins of speed superiority -- but I agree from looking at everyone's testing of both aircraft they seemed to be remarkably similar 15,000 feet and above (1942ish versions of each aircraft, anyway).

Hello Greyman,
I did some poking around and the best source I can find at the moment is actually an audio interview with Philip Lucas that can be found here: (It is pretty entertaining and educational.)


Note that Mr. Lucas describes the maximum diving speed of Typhoon as 500 MPH IAS even though the testing took it 10% higher.

Even the Tempest which was supposed to have resolved the compressibility issue seems to have a much lower dive speed limit than I had thought, especially at higher altitudes. I haven't tried to convert the numbers in this report to their True Air Speeds, but that might be interesting.
Tempest V Performance Data

Regarding Typhoon, I really had not been terribly interested in it before this thread and haven't tried to accumulate information on that aeroplane. From some of these reports, there some pretty interesting characteristics in the descriptions. The Propeller Pitch range seems to be VERY strange.
The speed and climb rate discussion seems to depend quite a bit on the exact models being compared.

- Ivan.

 

[Greyman]

Hello Greyman,
I did some poking around and the best source I can find at the moment is actually an audio interview with Philip Lucas that can be found here: (It is pretty entertaining and educational.)


Note that Mr. Lucas describes the maximum diving speed of Typhoon as 500 MPH IAS even though the testing took it 10% higher.

Even the Tempest which was supposed to have resolved the compressibility issue seems to have a much lower dive speed limit than I had thought, especially at higher altitudes. I haven't tried to convert the numbers in this report to their True Air Speeds, but that might be interesting.
Tempest V Performance Data

Regarding Typhoon, I really had not been terribly interested in it before this thread and haven't tried to accumulate information on that aeroplane. From some of these reports, there some pretty interesting characteristics in the descriptions. The Propeller Pitch range seems to be VERY strange.
The speed and climb rate discussion seems to depend quite a bit on the exact models being compared.

- Ivan.

Very interesting interview. Though I heard things a bit differently. My take on it was that the Typhoon 'had a problem' with compressibility because it was the first aircraft they had that was fast enough to even be able to run into the issue -- and not because it had inferior characteristics in that regard compared to, say, the P-40. I think his point was that they were on the cutting edge of this new business of supersonic airflow -- and it was due to the Typhoon that allowed them to break into that new realm.

The Spitfire was superior in that respect, but it had other characteristics that limited its dive speed before compressibility became a problem.

Lucas is correct in remembering about 500 mph being the limiting dive speed -- for the prototype, which he was talking about.

The AFDU figures for the Tempest V you linked there seem very high to me, and beat the Spitfire, Mustang, and Thunderbolt.

 

[Shortround6]

The Hawker Tornado, sort of a Typhoon with a RR Vulture engine first flew in Oct of 1939, problems with the Sabre delayed the Typhoons first flight to Feb 1940.

The Spitfire, probably by accident, is one of the few aircraft of this era to avoid (for the most part) compressibility problems.

to really run into compressibility problems you have to be able to fly high enough and fast enough to be near the limit before starting the dive (P-38 with turbos could almost hit the limit in level flight at the right altitude). If you fly low level, say under 15,000ft (?) you are never going to run into it.

Until you get a plane to do 400mph and do it over 20,000ft compressibility was pretty much unknown.

 

[Ivan1GFP]

Very interesting interview. Though I heard things a bit differently. My take on it was that the Typhoon 'had a problem' with compressibility because it was the first aircraft they had that was fast enough to even be able to run into the issue -- and not because it had inferior characteristics in that regard compared to, say, the P-40. I think his point was that they were on the cutting edge of this new business of supersonic airflow -- and it was due to the Typhoon that allowed them to break into that new realm.

The Spitfire was superior in that respect, but it had other characteristics that limited its dive speed before compressibility became a problem.

Lucas is correct in remembering about 500 mph being the limiting dive speed -- for the prototype, which he was talking about.

The AFDU figures for the Tempest V you linked there seem very high to me, and beat the Spitfire, Mustang, and Thunderbolt.

Hello Greyman,
It is certainly amusing that we both heard the same thing but came to different conclusions.
As I heard it, the first (British) aircraft that actually encountered "Compressibility" issues was actually the Tornado and not the Typhoon.
The Tornado started to pitch upward when it reached a certain speed and it wasn't even in a dive. The aircraft was flown with yarn tufts and it was found that the airflow would reverse direction at the belly radiator and wing fairings. The Interviewer commented at this point.
It surprises me that this problem was not already encountered by the Spitfire by this time.
The Typhoon sounds like it had the same problem as the Thunderbolt did: The wing lost lift in compressibility and the aircraft could not recover from a dive until lower altitudes (below 8,000 feet) were reached. The Thunderbolt eventually addressed this issue by the installation of dive recovery flaps under the wings starting with the D-30 model with some older aircraft being retrofitted.
Apparently this issue was never addressed with Typhoon.

Regarding the dive speeds for the Tempest: 370 MPH IAS at 30,000 feet works out to slightly above 600 MPH TAS, so it was quite a bit faster than I was thinking and it makes sense that this was quite avoidable in service use. I don't have a source for comparing these numbers with those of Spitfire and Mustang.

- Ivan,

 

[Greyman]

Some broken links but; Dive limits

 

[michael rauls]

The Hawker Tornado, sort of a Typhoon with a RR Vulture engine first flew in Oct of 1939, problems with the Sabre delayed the Typhoons first flight to Feb 1940.

The Spitfire, probably by accident, is one of the few aircraft of this era to avoid (for the most part) compressibility problems.

to really run into compressibility problems you have to be able to fly high enough and fast enough to be near the limit before starting the dive (P-38 with turbos could almost hit the limit in level flight at the right altitude). If you fly low level, say under 15,000ft (?) you are never going to run into it.

Until you get a plane to do 400mph and do it over 20,000ft compressibility was pretty much unknown.

From what ive read under 20,000 feet compresability was pretty much a non issue with the p38. There's a graph in one of my books that ive also seen around various places that shows the sliding scale of compresability( higher=slower of course) for the Lightning and as I remember even up to 25,000 feet it looked like you really had to be cookin ( close to 500 as I remember) to run into trouble but above that things get a bit more troublesome as the speed of compresability nears the high to mid 400s.

 

[Leutnant]

Stop fighting, ladies! To put it in simple terms, without all the stuff that you don't need, the P-40 was a overall better airplane.

 

[Shortround6]

Yes, who needs better speed, better climb, better dive, and better armament in a fighter?
Without all that unnecessary stuff the P-40 is better.