Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Resp: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.
It all depends what you are fighting and at what altitude.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.
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.
Disastrous in both cases.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.
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?
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.
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.
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.The Typhoon was sent to the MTO for evaluation. Not sure what the conclusions were.
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.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
See above, and many posts earlier in the thread.So as a fighter plane, combat effectiveness is 3:1 in favour of the Warhawk?
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.
Resp: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.
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.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.
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.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
It all depends what you are fighting and at what altitude.