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

[Ivan1GFP]

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

Hello Stona,
Let's be fair. Those speeds are about the best results ever for the Typhoon Mk.IB.
Most of the test reports show more like 400 MPH plus or minus 5 MPH.
There are also sources that list the P-40F as hitting speeds in the low 370 MPH range.
It doesn't change the standings much but it is a bit closer than your numbers indicate.

Hello Shortround6,
I am somewhat surprised that the Merlin suffered so badly due to the location of its carb intake.
There was a plate to block off the opening and presumably draw air from a filtered source.
The closed intake can be seen in quite a few photographs.
I believe the same kind of arrangement was done on later models of Allison P-40.

As for failures, I don't put them all into the same category.
If a failure to function causes the mission to end but does not prevent a return to base, I see that as quite different from a failure that prevents a return to base.
A gun stoppage is one thing. An exploding shell that wrecks your own engine or an exploding gun that blows a hole in your wing structure is quite different.
An engine that wears out too quickly and needs an overhaul may not be so good, but it beats the heck out of one that goes quiet without warning and without enemy action.

- Ivan.

 

[Shortround6]

I am somewhat surprised that the Merlin suffered so badly due to the location of its carb intake.
There was a plate to block off the opening and presumably draw air from a filtered source.
The closed intake can be seen in quite a few photographs.
I believe the same kind of arrangement was done on later models of Allison P-40.

It was not helped by the USAAF not buying enough spare engines and/or spare parts to begin with.

I don't know what the problem was, only that a number of sources say that the Merlins were wearing out quicker and then they linked it to sand ingestion.

Allison taking in air on top of the spinner, the Merlin from underneath. Neither one ever got anything like the Vokes filter on Hurricanes or Spitfires.
I am not saying they didn't do something, only that if they did, it fit in the normal cowl contours.

P-38s were supposed to be able to switch to air intakes inside the wheel wells, what they had for filters I don't know, or how well the intakes were sheltered from the sand when taxiing at 90-100mph.

 

[Ivan1GFP]

It was not helped by the USAAF not buying enough spare engines and/or spare parts to begin with.

I don't know what the problem was, only that a number of sources say that the Merlins were wearing out quicker and then they linked it to sand ingestion.

Allison taking in air on top of the spinner, the Merlin from underneath. Neither one ever got anything like the Vokes filter on Hurricanes or Spitfires.
I am not saying they didn't do something, only that if they did, it fit in the normal cowl contours.

Hello Shortround6,
Actually the Carb intake area on the short nose Allison P-40s had a bit of variation that isn't really obvious unless you are looking for it specifically, so it kind of depends on what you decide is "normal".
There are about three different shapes to the carb intake opening. One way to tell is that the length changed a bit with different models and also the angles are slightly different (Probably because there is more stuff underneath). I found this out when I was wondering why the tech drawings and photographs of actual aircraft did not agree in this area. The newer pieces look more bulged or curved.
Check how close the carb opening is to the Spinner line and what the angle of the opening is and the angle of the duct behind the opening.
The "problem" is that any of the later cowl panels will fit on the earlier birds and often on modern flying examples, the parts have been replaced.
Look for a small panel on each side of the cowl with a bunch of holes. The holes are the filtered air intake for the engine. The early models won't have those (at least not from the factory).

I believe on the Merlin P-40, it was much more obvious because the plate that closed off the intake was much more visible. In the attached photograph of a Merlin P-40 on take off, it is pretty obvious from the reflection that the intake is closed off and air is being drawn from somewhere else. I believe it is a filtered source.

- Ivan.

 

[Shortround6]

Thank you for that.

 

[stona]

Hello Stona,
Let's be fair. Those speeds are about the best results ever for the Typhoon Mk.IB.
Most of the test reports show more like 400 MPH plus or minus 5 MPH.
There are also sources that list the P-40F as hitting speeds in the low 370 MPH range.
It doesn't change the standings much but it is a bit closer than your numbers indicate.

They are Boscombe Down's figures. I don't know where Dean's figures are from, presumably the USAAF.

Both sets are for aircraft tested by their relevant research establishments and will exceed those of service aircraft, but the Typhoon, at 20,000 feet was typically 40-50 mph faster than the P-40 in question. That is a huge difference, next we'll be arguing that the Hurricane was as fast as a Bf 109 E! A 365 mph fighter, in Europe, in early 1943, was obsolescent at best.

The Typhoon far out performs the P-40 in almost every measurable criterion. It's difficult to spin that to the P-40s advantage, though it won't stop people trying.

Cheers

Steve

 

[Kevin J]

They are Boscombe Down's figures. I don't know where Dean's figures are from, presumably the USAAF.

Both sets are for aircraft tested by their relevant research establishments and will exceed those of service aircraft, but the Typhoon, at 20,000 feet was typically 40-50 mph faster than the P-40 in question. That is a huge difference, next we'll be arguing that the Hurricane was as fast as a Bf 109 E! A 365 mph fighter, in Europe, in early 1943, was obsolescent at best.

The Typhoon far out performs the P-40 in almost every measurable criterion. It's difficult to spin that to the P-40s advantage, though it won't stop people trying.

Cheers

Steve

I think that you'll find that most of the Spitfires being operated over Europe up until the Spitfire LFIXc was introduced in the spring of 1943 were in fact Spitfire FVc/LFVb's. There were still Spitfire FVc/LFVb squadrons operational in 1944. The Spitfire FIXc's built were limited in numbers and had to be shared between the RAF, the British Commonwealth, our European allies, the Americans and of course the MTO. Of the 5656 Spitfire IX's built, 4000 were of the LFIXc variant, so I doubt if there were more than 20 squadrons, or 1000, Spitfire FIXc's operating in both the ETO and MTO between the Summer of 1942 and Spring of 1943. If the Spitfire FVc/LFVb can operate successfully in the ETO then so could the P-40F/L.

Supermarine Spitfire (late Merlin-powered variants) - Wikipedia

On the Eastern Front, the Soviets only introduced the Yak-9 towards the end of the Battle of Stalingrad i.e. January 1943. This also was a 365 mph aircraft.

 

[wuzak]

The Spitfire IXs that were "shared" with the British Commonwealth were based in Britain, or in the MTO.

The Spitfire V could climb better and turn better than the P-40F, and had better firepower.

By early 1943 the Spitfire V had a couple of tricks up its sleeve that the P-40 could not replicate.

A Luftwaffe pilot may have been confident in beating a Spitfire V with an Fw 190 or Bf 109F-4, but was he sure that plane he has spotted is a Mk.V? Or is it a Mk IX? Or is it a Mk XII?

 

[Kevin J]

The Spitfire IXs that were "shared" with the British Commonwealth were based in Britain, or in the MTO.

The Spitfire V could climb better and turn better than the P-40F, and had better firepower.

By early 1943 the Spitfire V had a couple of tricks up its sleeve that the P-40 could not replicate.

A Luftwaffe pilot may have been confident in beating a Spitfire V with an Fw 190 or Bf 109F-4, but was he sure that plane he has spotted is a Mk.V? Or is it a Mk IX? Or is it a Mk XII?

In the MTO, the P40F/L was battling the same Luftwaffe fighters as well as the later Italian ones. They still scored well.

 

[Shortround6]

I think that you'll find that most of the Spitfires being operated over Europe up until the Spitfire LFIXc was introduced in the spring of 1943

There were 4 squadrons of Spit MK IXs at Deippe, along with 4 squadrons of Mustang Is and 2-4 squadrons of Typhoons (I haven't looked it up) While that is certainly not the bulk of the the Raf it is also August of 1942 and not the Spring of 1943,
Jan of 1943 saw 15 squadrons of Mustang Is, `12 squadrons of Typhoons and 13 squadrons of Spitfire IXs. There were an awful lot of MK V Spits left but they were no longer carrying the bulk of the work or at least not flying without some support by Typhoons and MK IXs.

A MK IX with a Merlin 61 might not be as bad as you think in the fall of 1942. Getting the LFIXc earlier might not have been needed as badly as you think.
The German aircraft of late 1942 and very early 1943 were not the same as the German aircraft that began to be introduced in the spring and summer of 1943. The 109G-6 only began to be introduced in Feb/March of 1943 and far from instantly displacing all other 109s at least one factory was still building 109G-4s in July of 1943 (with two 7.9mm cowl guns)

 

[stona]

In the MTO, the P40F/L was battling the same Luftwaffe fighters as well as the later Italian ones. They still scored well.

Looking through a few pages of Volume Three of 'A History of the Mediterranean Air War - November 1942-May 1943' would suggest that this was not the case.

Cheers

Steve

 

[Ivan1GFP]

They are Boscombe Down's figures. I don't know where Dean's figures are from, presumably the USAAF.

Both sets are for aircraft tested by their relevant research establishments and will exceed those of service aircraft, but the Typhoon, at 20,000 feet was typically 40-50 mph faster than the P-40 in question. That is a huge difference, next we'll be arguing that the Hurricane was as fast as a Bf 109 E! A 365 mph fighter, in Europe, in early 1943, was obsolescent at best.

The Typhoon far out performs the P-40 in almost every measurable criterion. It's difficult to spin that to the P-40s advantage, though it won't stop people trying.

Cheers

Steve

Hello Stona,
I am not disputing that the Typhoon had superior performance to a Merlin P-40.
What I am disputing is whether 417 MPH and 427 MPH are representative maximum speeds for a typical Typhoon.
I believe you are cherry picking your data to prove a point.

If you look at the tests here (done by the same people):
Typhoon IB Performance Data
I believe you will see the reason.
I believe 400 MPH plus or minus 5 mph is a pretty good summary of these tests.
That also matches up pretty well with most references that list the maximum speed as 405-410 MPH even though quite a few of those tested aircraft could not break 400 MPH.

I don't argue that the Typhoon was faster than a P-40F by a fairly large margin.
What I do not agree with is your conclusion that the speed difference is 40-50 MPH at 20,000 feet.
I believe that 25-40 MPH is a more realistic difference.
Now if you had stated that the speed difference was over 50 MPH at sea level, you would get no argument from me.

The Typhoon was not a slow aircraft but it wasn't particularly fast for the amount of installed power that it had.

- Ivan.

 

[stona]

The point is that the Typhoon widely out performed the P-40 across the board.

Whether it was 40 mph or 50 mph faster at 20,000 feet would obviously vary from aircraft to aircraft. In broad terms, the P-40 F was a 360 mph aircraft, the Typhoon at least a 400 mph aircraft.

I actually think it is ridiculous to make comparisons between two such different aircraft.

Cheers

Steve

 

[Kevin J]

I think the comparisons should be between the P-40F/L and Bf 109F/G, the Typhoon and Fw 190A.

 

[Ivan1GFP]

The point is that the Typhoon widely out performed the P-40 across the board.

Whether it was 40 mph or 50 mph faster at 20,000 feet would obviously vary from aircraft to aircraft. In broad terms, the P-40 F was a 360 mph aircraft, the Typhoon at least a 400 mph aircraft.

I actually think it is ridiculous to make comparisons between two such different aircraft.

Cheers

Steve

Hello Stona,
I would call it a 370 MPH versus 405 MPH if I had to pick a number.
No doubt some were faster and some were slower but this seems to me to be pretty fair numbers.

It does seem a bit weird to compare such different aircraft but I believe the common theme was that neither one was a particularly great success as a fighter. They were certainly useful for their time, but both had some serious problems.
As for the merits of such a thread, note that we are on Page 60 now and are still arguing.
I also believe that there are those here who have an emotional investment and take offense at any comment that THEIR baby isn't the greatest thing around.

As for "widely outperforming", I really dislike such generalizations.
The Typhoon had an almost 1000 HP advantage but for some reason, the early versions didn't climb much better than a P-40F.
The P-40F because of its extra weight also happened to be one of the slowest climbing of the short nose P-40s, so this is really not impressive.
I believe the issue was that the Propeller Pitch range was much too coarse, but there may be other reasons.
The Typhoon's climb rate was greatly improved in later versions.
The best climbing Typhoon and best climbing P-40 (definitely NOT a P-40F) appear to be fairly comparable.

As for speed, Typhoon had an advantage of around 50-60 MPH at sea level dropping to about 35 MPH by 20,000 feet.
The Typhoon has a significant advantage in diving speed and acceleration but also has a compressibility and control problem above 8,000 feet.

For maneuverability, Typhoon has a larger turning radius and much slower roll rate. P-40s have some of the best roll rates of fighters of the that time while the Typhoon is one of the worst.
This maneuverability advantage is probably all the P-40F has over the Typhoon but of course it is useful only if the other pilot is stupid enough to play your game.
I believe that is a pretty fair comparison of one versus the other.

- Ivan.

 

[stona]

The USAAF couldn't get 370 mph out of the ones they tested.

We're comparing the P-40 F with the Typhoon (unspecified). I couldn't care less about the rate of climb of other versions of the P-40. Remember that the P-40 was much lighter than the Typhoon. What the Americans call the 'basic' weight of the P-40 F was just 7,089 lbs, I doubt that any Typhoon ever took of without weighing 2,000lbs more than that (more than 25% heavier).

I don't have data for the P-40s rate of roll but I don't doubt that it was superior. The RAF established a mean rate of roll for the Typhoon (and other aircraft) by flying them at 250, 300 and 400 mph (IAS) at 5,000, 10,000 and 18,000 feet. For the Typhoon IB this rate was 54 degrees per second, which is not good.

I agree with your last paragraph. It's why I don't see the point of the comparison.

If your life depended on it, which aircraft would you choose?

Maybe that should be made into a poll

Cheers

Steve

 

[Ivan1GFP]

We're comparing the P-40 F with the Typhoon (unspecified). I couldn't care less about the rate of climb of other versions of the P-40. Remember that the P-40 was much lighter than the Typhoon. What the Americans call the 'basic' weight of the P-40 F was just 7,089 lbs, I doubt that any Typhoon ever took of without weighing 2,000lbs more than that (more than 25% heavier).

Hello Stona,
You seem to be trying to justify the lack of performance of the Typhoon despite its much superior engine power or is there another reason for bringing up the weight difference? I believe it was for other reasons but I'll play for a little bit.
I figure a Typhoon taking off at 9100 pounds would be a bit on the light side. Then again the gross weight of the P-40F without external stores is already at 8678 pounds. The Typhoon still would have a much superior power loading so there is probably some other reason the climb rate was so low. For the P-40F, the reasons were fairly obvious: It was a relatively heavy bird and didn't have a lot of engine power at low altitude.

If your life depended on it, which aircraft would you choose?

That is a good question. I have already given my answer twice and you can already gather what my answer would be if I had to fly one against the other from what I have stated in the comparisons.

How about we take this from other points of view.
I believe the answer would depend on when and where I was and the role I had.
If I was commanding a fighter force in CBI in 1942 (or depended on the actions of a fighter force), I would choose the P-40F. I would expect fewer losses due to mechanical failures and a greater state of readiness with fewer maintenance issues.
Having lesser performing fighters in the air beats having nothing in the air and numbers often beat quality and often performance really doesn't matter very much (such as when intercepting bombers or transports).
The same would apply to any location that is a little distant on the supply chain or had fairly long distance flights over less than friendly territory.
If I were a pilot in 1942 and didn't know what the opposition would be, I would still pick the P-40F in most cases unless the flights were over England or the just off the coast where there was a likely rescue in the event of an engine failure.
After D-Day and flying over continental Europe, I would pick the Typhoon. By that time, most the of bugs that could be fixed were addressed and the chances were that the missions were not far behind enemy lines anyway.
Back in high school, I came across a book by Roland Beamont about his time with the Typhoon. The thing that stood out the most was the great number of engine failures he described. One other thing that I remember about that book was that the artwork on the dust jacket had ventral fins on the Typhoon. (They were really the inner landing gear doors, but the artist apparently didn't know that.)

- Ivan.

 

[wuzak]

Hello Stona,
I am not disputing that the Typhoon had superior performance to a Merlin P-40.
What I am disputing is whether 417 MPH and 427 MPH are representative maximum speeds for a typical Typhoon.
I believe you are cherry picking your data to prove a point.

The Typhoon had detail improvements to reduce drag and the Sabre engine gained boost and rpm.

 

[Shortround6]

As far as the Typhoon not being deployed to other theaters, unless you are going to deploy large numbers (more than few squadrons) you are introducing a whole new spare parts logistic problem. Not just engines or a some crash/heavy landing spare parts but brakes and tyres which are consumables (anything else?) . The British may have trialed them in the Mid east to see what problems might arise should they be needed ( and it depends when, some in the Air Ministry held onto the idea that the Typhoon was future of RAF for a time after the MK IX Spit showed up).

I have no idea what problems turned up or didn't turn up in the trials but it seems the Typhoons weren't needed.

The P-40F may very well have been a 370mph Airplane, the belly shackles and sway braces were good for about 10mph. But you can't pick and choose at times. If you want the radius of action the drop tank gives you, you have to contend with the drop in speed. Early Typhoons did not have fittings for either bombs or drop tanks.

Bringing in the Spit V really opens up a can of worms on the condition of the plane. Aside from the infamous Vokes filter we have the results of a MK Vb fitted with a Merlin 50 engine,

forgetting the actual performance we have a test plane with.


Mk. VB wings with 1 x 20 mm. gun and 2 x 0.303" guns fitted in each. No stubs for further 20 mm. guns. Muzzles of all guns sealed, ejection chutes open.
Wing tips not "clipped".
Aerial mast complete with aerial.
No I.F.F. aerials.
Balloon type hood.
External bullet-proof windscreen.
External rectangular rear-view mirror without fairing on forward side.
Temperate type air intake without ice guard.
Oil cooler exit duct not flared.
Indivdual ejector exhausts stubs of a flattened type.

This was in April of 1943 and we can see a number of variations from what might be considered "standard" at the time, some help the results, some don't.

We need to consider the condition/set up of the test plane and it's common usage.
The P-40F may have been a 370+mph plane with a clean belly but very few of them were flown that way in combat.

For the Typhoon make sure you are comparing a plane with cannon as how many had machine guns (114?). Likewise the Typhoons with 4 bladed props don't show up until many of the P-40Fs are being retired due to age.
The Typhoon started it's career in Sept of 1941 with No 56 Squadron, considering the the prototype P-40F only flew in June or July of 1941 and the first production example wasn't completed until Jan 1942 and the P-40F didn't see combat until July/Aug of 1942 there was a fair bit of time when the Tiffy was better simply because it was there and the P-40F wasn't.
The Typhoons career spanned almost 4 years *3 years 8 months) while the P-40Fs career was around two years or less. We have to be careful about picking which examples from when for our comparisons.

 

[Kevin J]

As far as the Typhoon not being deployed to other theaters, unless you are going to deploy large numbers (more than few squadrons) you are introducing a whole new spare parts logistic problem. Not just engines or a some crash/heavy landing spare parts but brakes and tyres which are consumables (anything else?) . The British may have trialed them in the Mid east to see what problems might arise should they be needed ( and it depends when, some in the Air Ministry held onto the idea that the Typhoon was future of RAF for a time after the MK IX Spit showed up).

I have no idea what problems turned up or didn't turn up in the trials but it seems the Typhoons weren't needed.

The P-40F may very well have been a 370mph Airplane, the belly shackles and sway braces were good for about 10mph. But you can't pick and choose at times. If you want the radius of action the drop tank gives you, you have to contend with the drop in speed. Early Typhoons did not have fittings for either bombs or drop tanks.

Bringing in the Spit V really opens up a can of worms on the condition of the plane. Aside from the infamous Vokes filter we have the results of a MK Vb fitted with a Merlin 50 engine,

forgetting the actual performance we have a test plane with.


Mk. VB wings with 1 x 20 mm. gun and 2 x 0.303" guns fitted in each. No stubs for further 20 mm. guns. Muzzles of all guns sealed, ejection chutes open.
Wing tips not "clipped".
Aerial mast complete with aerial.
No I.F.F. aerials.
Balloon type hood.
External bullet-proof windscreen.
External rectangular rear-view mirror without fairing on forward side.
Temperate type air intake without ice guard.
Oil cooler exit duct not flared.
Indivdual ejector exhausts stubs of a flattened type.

This was in April of 1943 and we can see a number of variations from what might be considered "standard" at the time, some help the results, some don't.

We need to consider the condition/set up of the test plane and it's common usage.
The P-40F may have been a 370+mph plane with a clean belly but very few of them were flown that way in combat.

For the Typhoon make sure you are comparing a plane with cannon as how many had machine guns (114?). Likewise the Typhoons with 4 bladed props don't show up until many of the P-40Fs are being retired due to age.
The Typhoon started it's career in Sept of 1941 with No 56 Squadron, considering the the prototype P-40F only flew in June or July of 1941 and the first production example wasn't completed until Jan 1942 and the P-40F didn't see combat until July/Aug of 1942 there was a fair bit of time when the Tiffy was better simply because it was there and the P-40F wasn't.
The Typhoons career spanned almost 4 years *3 years 8 months) while the P-40Fs career was around two years or less. We have to be careful about picking which examples from when for our comparisons.

Maybe deliveries of the Typhoon began in September 1941, but it wasn't operational until May 1942. 28 built in 1941, 686 in 1942, 1137 (1943), 1165 (1944), 299 (1945). In the case of the P-40 you get 1311 F by Winter 1942 and 700 L by Spring 43. While the RAF are wringing the bugs out of the Typhoon in the second half of 1942 in the ETO, the Warhawk is fully operational and being operated successfully in the MTO. By 1943, the Typhoon is dropping bombs and by 1944 firing rockets. Its speed below 10000 feet is faster than any other fighter until the Tempest appears in 1944. Its main enemy in 1942, the Fw 190A fighter bomber. In the MTO, the main enemy of the P-40F/L is the Bf 109F/G, 321 of its 592 victories are against these fighters. During the entire war the Typhoon only shoots down 260 enemy planes. In Summer 1944, one third of Typhoon squadrons are being used for air defence (ADGB), two thirds in 2nd TAF ground attack, and by this time the P-40F/L has been withdrawn from service.

 

[Stig1207]

In the MTO, the main enemy of the P-40F/L is the Bf 109F/G, 321 of its 592 victories are against these fighters

Once again, this is not valid comparison. There is no way of knowing whether P-40F/L would manage to achieve 260 victories in the ETO, deployed in the same numbers and flying the same missions as the Typhoon, and vice versa.

Not all sources agree that 592 is the number of victories scored by USAAF P-40's in the MTO; it is the highest number being bantied about. However, whatever number of victories they got, they were shared by 16 squadrons.

I don't know how many Typhoon squadrons shared the 260 victories?