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

[Navalwarrior]

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.

Resp:
In the May 2019 issue of 'Aviation History' magazine, it states in 1941 the Hawker Typhoon was the first British fighter (assuming he meant 'single engine') to exceed 400 mph (also assuming 'in level flight'). This seems to be a significant speed advantage over any P-40.

 

[Kevin J]

Resp:
In the May 2019 issue of 'Aviation History' magazine, it states in 1941 the Hawker Typhoon was the first British fighter (assuming he meant 'single engine') to exceed 400 mph (also assuming 'in level flight'). This seems to be a significant speed advantage over any P-40.

It all depends what you are fighting and at what altitude.

 

[Shortround6]

It all depends what you are fighting and at what altitude.

Ok, please quote a fighter pilot that said a particular fighter was "no good, it is too fast to be a good fighter"

We have a test of a P-40F dated July 14th 1942, date of report not test flights.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/P-40F_41-13601_PHQ-M-19-1440-A.pdf

We have a test report for the Typhoon IB from Nov 1942

Typhoon IB Performance Data

The P-40F was limited to 48"/9lb of boost and 2850RPM for the climb so in combat it would be a bit better using 3000rpm but unless the boost limit was raised the difference is not going to be a lot.

The Typhoon was also limited in climb, it was run at 3500rpm and 6lbs boost instead of the 3700rpm and 7lbs allowed for full throttle at the time. SO it;s combat climb is also going to be a bit better also.

The Merlins were rarely, if ever, over boosted to the extent the ALlisons were at low level. At some point the Merlins were allowed to use higher boost 12lbs/54in?

The sway braces and bomb rack may have good for 10mph on the P-40F.

 

[Ivan1GFP]

It all depends what you are fighting and at what altitude.

Hello Kevin J,
The choice of comparison between Typhoon and P-40F was an interesting one.
Although the P-40F had the highest maximum speed AT ALTITUDE of anything before about the P-40N, it was also one of the heaviest of any of the P-40 variants. It didn't tolerate over boosting that the early Allisons did and as a result was one of the slowest at low altitude and didn't climb particularly well.
About the only things it really had going for it in a contest against a Typhoon were much superior roll rate and agility and of course reliability. There isn't a practical altitude at which the Merlin P-40 can control the fight unless the Typhoon pilot is incredibly stupid.
Remember that the Merlin P-40 with a single stage supercharger was only a medium altitude fighter at best and there is no altitude at which the Typhoon does not have a significant speed advantage.
The Typhoon does have a few disadvantages such as its initial lack of engine reliability, a vibration from the engine that fatigued its pilots and also carbon monoxide in the cockpit, but none of that really matters much once the fight has started.

- Ivan.

 

[Kevin J]

Hello Kevin J,
The choice of comparison between Typhoon and P-40F was an interesting one.
Although the P-40F had the highest maximum speed AT ALTITUDE of anything before about the P-40N, it was also one of the heaviest of any of the P-40 variants. It didn't tolerate over boosting that the early Allisons did and as a result was one of the slowest at low altitude and didn't climb particularly well.
About the only things it really had going for it in a contest against a Typhoon were much superior roll rate and agility and of course reliability. There isn't a practical altitude at which the Merlin P-40 can control the fight unless the Typhoon pilot is incredibly stupid.
Remember that the Merlin P-40 with a single stage supercharger was only a medium altitude fighter at best and there is no altitude at which the Typhoon does not have a significant speed advantage.
The Typhoon does have a few disadvantages such as its initial lack of engine reliability, a vibration from the engine that fatigued its pilots and also carbon monoxide in the cockpit, but none of that really matters much once the fight has started.

- Ivan.

Without wishing to state the obvious, about the same number of P-40F/L (2000) and Typhoons (1850) were built in 1942/43. IIRC, the P-40's score 592 in the Med where they are operated and the Typhoon, all the way up to the end of the war, with 1500 being built, although only one third of them were used as fighters; they score 260. So as a fighter plane, combat effectiveness is 3:1 in favour of the Warhawk? IIRC, the Warhawk wasn't fighting the Typhoon, it was fighting the Luftwaffe and Regia Aeronautica. In the ETO, I would prefer the Typhoon as I want enemy fighter bomber raids dispatched quickly as they're after my expensive and valuable industrial targets. In the MTO, all the enemy is after is my military and they're armed to their teeth and can shoot back, high max speed is not mission critical, and the Warhawk is of course more reliable and pleasanter to fly. The Typhoon has a brief moment of glory in 1942/43 as a fighter just like the P-40F/L. So which is the better fighter? The one with the better combat record? The one that can be operated globally? The one that is more reliable mechanically? The one which is more pleasant to fly? So its the P-40, naturally. Of course if War Plan Red had been implemented, our Typhoons would have seen off the Yankee Warhawks, but it never happened.

 

[Stig1207]

That is two distinctly different theatres, Kevin. There is no way of knowing what the results would have been if they were swapped; P-40 operated in the ETO and the Typhoon in the MTO.

 

[Kevin J]

That is two distinctly different theatres, Kevin. There is no way of knowing what the results would have been if they were swapped; P-40 operated in the ETO and the Typhoon in the MTO.

Disastrous in both cases.

 

[wuzak]

Without wishing to state the obvious, about the same number of P-40F/L (2000) and Typhoons (1850) were built in 1942/43. IIRC, the P-40's score 592 in the Med where they are operated and the Typhoon, all the way up to the end of the war, with 1500 being built, although only one third of them were used as fighters; they score 260. So as a fighter plane, combat effectiveness is 3:1 in favour of the Warhawk?

Not if the Warhawk had 10x the enemy encounters than the Typhoon.

 

[wuzak]

Disastrous in both cases.

Disagree.

There is no reason to suspect that the Typhoon would do worse in the MTO.

There are several reasons to suspect that the P-40 would do worse in the ETO.

 

[Kevin J]

Disagree.

There is no reason to suspect that the Typhoon would do worse in the MTO.

There are several reasons to suspect that the P-40 would do worse in the ETO.

The problem with the Typhoon in the MTO would have been support from the manufacturers from what was a brand new engine and fighter. the Warhawk was an established design. I think it would have done quite well employed as an offensive weapon for duties over France, but as an interceptor, a failure.

 

[michael rauls]

I think if the theaters had been swapped both planes would have done surprisingly well though not as well as they did in the theaters they actually were used in.
They seem to both have atributes that made them well suited for where they were used.
Maybe those making the descisions of where to deploy each type knew what they were doing, in this case anyway.
Both aircraft are, in my opinion, chronically under rated.

 

[Milosh]

The problem with the Typhoon in the MTO would have been support from the manufacturers from what was a brand new engine and fighter. the Warhawk was an established design. I think it would have done quite well employed as an offensive weapon for duties over France, but as an interceptor, a failure.

The Typhoon was sent to the MTO for evaluation. Not sure what the conclusions were.

 

[Kevin J]

The Typhoon was sent to the MTO for evaluation. Not sure what the conclusions were.

They never used it there, nor the Tempest V (Typhoon II). The Tempest VI was used in the Middle East post-War. Tempest II's (Centaurus) were sent to the Far East as part of Tiger Force, but never used.

 

[Shortround6]

the P-40's score 592 in the Med where they are operated and the Typhoon, all the way up to the end of the war, with 1500 being built, although only one third of them were used as fighters; they score 260

After hundreds of posts we are back to using a flawed methodology to evaluate the planes? While interesting this "method" leaves too many variables accounted for to be a reliable indicator of a planes worth.

So as a fighter plane, combat effectiveness is 3:1 in favour of the Warhawk?

See above, and many posts earlier in the thread.

So which is the better fighter? The one with the better combat record? The one that can be operated globally? The one that is more reliable mechanically? The one which is more pleasant to fly? So its the P-40, naturally.

Hmmm, by these standards the Ki 43 was a much better fighter than the P-40. A much higher "combat record" (at least in 1942/43) Globally? not so much but it was operated over an area larger than the ETO and MTO put together. More reliable? we need squadron records but nobody has said (at least the early ones) were unreliable and there is no pesky liquid cooling system to deal with. And from all accounts the Ki 43 was delightful to fly. So the Ki 43 is the better fighter, naturally

 

[Ivan1GFP]

Hello Shortound6,
While I agree with the points you are making, the Ki 43 actually did have its share of reliability problems in its time.
The Ki 43-I was prone to structural failures in its wings. At one point, the 12.7 mm rounds were having "ammunition failures" by exploding just as they left the muzzle and damaging the engine....

- Ivan.

 

[Navalwarrior]

Without wishing to state the obvious, about the same number of P-40F/L (2000) and Typhoons (1850) were built in 1942/43. IIRC, the P-40's score 592 in the Med where they are operated and the Typhoon, all the way up to the end of the war, with 1500 being built, although only one third of them were used as fighters; they score 260. So as a fighter plane, combat effectiveness is 3:1 in favour of the Warhawk? IIRC, the Warhawk wasn't fighting the Typhoon, it was fighting the Luftwaffe and Regia Aeronautica. In the ETO, I would prefer the Typhoon as I want enemy fighter bomber raids dispatched quickly as they're after my expensive and valuable industrial targets. In the MTO, all the enemy is after is my military and they're armed to their teeth and can shoot back, high max speed is not mission critical, and the Warhawk is of course more reliable and pleasanter to fly. The Typhoon has a brief moment of glory in 1942/43 as a fighter just like the P-40F/L. So which is the better fighter? The one with the better combat record? The one that can be operated globally? The one that is more reliable mechanically? The one which is more pleasant to fly? So its the P-40, naturally. Of course if War Plan Red had been implemented, our Typhoons would have seen off the Yankee Warhawks, but it never happened.

Resp:
If you are talking greater impact, then the P-40 gets my vote. It is all those things you stated. But I thought we were discussing which is better.

 

[Shortround6]

Hello Shortound6,
While I agree with the points you are making, the Ki 43 actually did have its share of reliability problems in its time.
The Ki 43-I was prone to structural failures in its wings. At one point, the 12.7 mm rounds were having "ammunition failures" by exploding just as they left the muzzle and damaging the engine....

- Ivan.

Thank you, The P-40Es had problems with their wing guns and the P-40F had pretty much the same installation, they just didn't see action until end of July and/or Aug of 1942 so maybe the problems were worked out in the 7-8 previous months.
P-40Fs also went through engines much faster in NA than Allison powered P-40s, in part due to the lower position of the air intake for the carb,
For all I know the Typhoon may have been worse had it been deployed to NA.
Point is the P-40F was not exactly trouble free and as you may have guessed (in fact I am sure you did) I was trying to point out that the criteria/metrics being used to judge the P-40F vs Typhoon are not very good ones as they are either difficult or impossible to quantify.

 

[Kevin J]

Resp:
If you are talking greater impact, then the P-40 gets my vote. It is all those things you stated. But I thought we were discussing which is better.

First trial installation of a tropical filter on a Typhoon was in 1943. Production Typhoon's were fitted with tropical filters from late 1944, two years after the Warhawk was introduced in the MTO in 1942/43. We know the P-40F/L could have operated in either theatre in 1942.
Hawker Typhoon - Wikipedia
Hawker Typhoon | BAE Systems | International

 

[Shortround6]

First trial installation of a tropical filter on a Typhoon was in 1943. Production Typhoon's were fitted with tropical filters from late 1944, two years after the Warhawk was introduced in the MTO in 1942/43. We know the P-40F/L could have operated in either theatre in 1942.
Hawker Typhoon - Wikipedia
Hawker Typhoon | BAE Systems | International

And we know that the P-40Fs were going through Merlin engines at a high enough rate (in part due to not enough spares being ordered to begin with) that the British broke down about 600 used/damaged Merlins to provide spare parts to the Americans for engine overhauls in the MTO. We also know that somewhere around 100 P-40Fs (records are not clear) were re-engined with Allison engines and designated P-40Rs. Accounts differ as to whether this was done in the US for training aircraft or if any were done in the field (depot) in combat theaters.

P-40Fs were the 2nd best USAAF fighter available in numbers in late 1942/ early 1943. The P-38 was first.

There were only 523 P-47s built in 1942 and 258 of them were built in Nov-Dec. P-47s won't go into action in the ETO until April of 1943, it goes into action in the SW Pacific in Aug 1943.

If given a choice between P-40Fs with engines not lasting as long as desired or P-40Ks which don't have the altitude performance desired what do you do?
You use the P-40Fs and figure out a repair scheme to keep them flying.

 

[stona]

It all depends what you are fighting and at what altitude.

The Typhoon IB of March 1943 did 417 mph (TAS) at 20,400 feet with a three blade propeller, 427 mph with a four blade propeller. Climb to 20,000 feet was 7.4 or 6.9 minutes respectively with the two propellers.

It was cleared to dive in service at 500 mph at 5,000 feet carrying two 500lb bombs. Of course it was tested in significantly faster dives at Boscombe Down.

The P-40 F is not close to this performance. According to the graphs in Dean (America's Hundred Thousand) It managed just 300 mph at sea level and 365 mph at 20,000 feet. Time to 20,000 feet was 11.5 minutes!

Cheers

Steve