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

Ivan1GFP · Apr 24, 2019

michael rauls said:
Yes ive read that quote about the speed of the Helcat and Corsair. Always wondered if it were indeed true.
My point about the inaccuracies of the airspeed indicator on the p40 were that in absence of any evidence that the p40 had
defect in this regard more so than other aircraft then the fact that speed readings would be off at higher speeds would be the same as other aircraft by way of comparison lest we discount the comparitive high speeds of all ww2 aircraft including say the p51 and Me262. Can't have a standard of critical analysis that only applies to the p40.

Hello Michael Rauls,
Evidence I have come across suggests that in general with similar model engines, the Corsair was just a touch faster.
There is a lot more to this discussion that we have gone through many times in these forums.
I believe that you are generally correct in regards to maximum speeds in level flight, but in regards to diving speeds when approaching "compressibility speeds", instrument readings are less reliable.
That is not to say that someone hasn't been able to determine the terminal velocity of the P-40; It is a statement that the pilot in the cockpit of that P-40 in a high speed dive may not have the proper instrumentation to figure out how fast he is really going.

When accuracy is really important, additional instrumentation is usually mounted and in places where airflow is not likely to be disturbed. Note the business on the wing tip of the Aleutian Zero in the attached image. Note how far forward of the Wing Leading Edge it sits. This aircraft certainly already had a working ASI or it would not have been safe to fly, so why mount extra equipment unless there is a lack of faith in existing instruments?

- Ivan.

Ivan1GFP · Apr 24, 2019

Ivan1GFP said:
I intend to look for other sources to confirm.

Mitsubishi A6M - Maximum Diving Speeds:
Long Wing Versions - 340 kts (391 MPH)
A6M2 Model 21
A6M3 Model 22

Short Wing Versions - 360 kts (414 MPH)
A6M3 Model 32
A6M5 Model 52

Thicker Wing Skin Versions - 400 kts (460 MPH)
A6M5 Model 51a
A6M5 Model 51b
A6M5 Model 51c

- Ivan.

Schweik · Apr 24, 2019

Greyman said:
I think a desirable quality in a fighter is that its main controls actually control the aircraft in a dive above 450 mph.

If you're diving at 460 mph ASI - barely controlling your aircraft with trim and I'm behind you at 500 mph ASI with light and effective ailerons/elevator and moderately heavy rudder ... sounds like a sticky situation for you.

Well, you are aware right that many of the renowned fighters of WW2 had stiff controls at high speed, notably both the A6M and the Bf 109. In the P-40 however, this was pretty easily trimmed out.

You are adding a little bit of spin to the report you posted, since he said he had to maintain foot pressure, but the description of the amount of control was quite sanguine.

I agree with Ivan that a P-40 pilot would be unlikely to dive if pursed by a Typhoon, turning tightly would be a safer way to evade, but more to the point, both aircraft could catch a Bf 109 in a dive. Only the P-40 could turn and roll with it though.

Schweik · Apr 24, 2019

Ivan1GFP said:
The yawing issue at Take-Off is just the opposite of what is going on in a high speed dive.
For one thing, it is in the opposite direction. It is also caused by different forces.

I think you'll find that the requirement for hard right rudder (and the joke about the oversized right leg) was mentioned both in diving and takeoff, such as in the book I linked upthread, and many others.

Ivan1GFP · Apr 24, 2019

Schweik said:
I think you'll find that the requirement for hard right rudder (and the joke about the oversized right leg) was mentioned both in diving and takeoff, such as in the book I linked upthread, and many others.

Hello Schweik,
On Take-Off, the aeroplane tries to yaw LEFT because of propeller torque effects, P-Factor, etc. Pilot applies RIGHT rudder to correct.
Please note that the description on Greyman's post states that the aeroplane yaws RIGHT and on the third test LEFT Rudder trim was applied to reduce that tendency to yaw to the RIGHT in the dive.
Yaw is in opposite directions because the cause is different.

If the yaw was all in one direction, the designers at Curtiss-Wright would have been fools not to just build in a couple degrees of offset into the fin and the problem pretty much goes away.

- Ivan.

Glider · Apr 24, 2019

Schweik said:
Well, you are aware right that many of the renowned fighters of WW2 had stiff controls at high speed, notably both the A6M and the Bf 109. In the P-40 however, this was pretty easily trimmed out.

You are adding a little bit of spin to the report you posted, since he said he had to maintain foot pressure, but the description of the amount of control was quite sanguine.

I agree with Ivan that a P-40 pilot would be unlikely to dive if pursed by a Typhoon, turning tightly would be a safer way to evade, but more to the point, both aircraft could catch a Bf 109 in a dive. Only the P-40 could turn and roll with it though.

Plus of course only the Typhoon could catch it in a straight chase up to about 20,000 ft.

Greyman · Apr 24, 2019

Schweik said:
Well, you are aware right that many of the renowned fighters of WW2 had stiff controls at high speed, notably both the A6M and the Bf 109. In the P-40 however, this was pretty easily trimmed out.

You are adding a little bit of spin to the report you posted, since he said he had to maintain foot pressure, but the description of the amount of control was quite sanguine.

I agree with Ivan that a P-40 pilot would be unlikely to dive if pursed by a Typhoon, turning tightly would be a safer way to evade, but more to the point, both aircraft could catch a Bf 109 in a dive. Only the P-40 could turn and roll with it though.

And the Typhoon had better dive characteristics than those renowned fighters as well.

Many fighters stiffened up at high speed, true, but the issue with the P-40 is that the stiffness is accompanied by large changes in trim - enough that the pilot can't hold the aircraft straight without having to start messing with the tabs. Insurmountable problem? Of course not. But it's a relative non-issue with the Typhoon, especially at the speeds it starts effecting the P-40.

It seems to me this stiffening + trim change is the cause of the P-40's limiting dive speed, and nothing to do with strength/flutter/compressability issues. Which also might speak to why the limit was bumped up throughout the war, as training/experience allowed P-40 pilots to get quicker and craftier with their trim settings.

Pure speculation though.

Ivan1GFP · Apr 24, 2019

Greyman said:
And the Typhoon had better dive characteristics than those renowned fighters as well.

Many fighters stiffened up at high speed, true, but the issue with the P-40 is that the stiffness is accompanied by large changes in trim - enough that the pilot can't hold the aircraft straight without having to start messing with the tabs. Insurmountable problem? Of course not. But it's a relative non-issue with the Typhoon, especially at the speeds it starts effecting the P-40.

It seems to me this stiffening + trim change is the cause of the P-40's limiting dive speed, and nothing to do with strength/flutter/compressability issues. Which also might speak to why the limit was bumped up throughout the war, as training/experience allowed P-40 pilots to get quicker and craftier with their trim settings.

Pure speculation though.

Hello Greyman,
Better dive characteristics is a matter of opinion. There is no question that the Typhoon suffered from some serious compressibility issues but just didn't tend to operate at a high enough altitude for that to be an issue. Ground Attack aircraft don't tend to operate at high altitudes.
As a fighter, it was fast at low and medium altitudes but didn't turn particularly well and roll rate was terrible. To me this sounds like an "interceptor" rather than an air superiority fighter because it simply didn't have the agility.

As for control stiffening, this isn't necessarily a bad thing to an extent because it makes it more difficult for the pilot to overstress the aircraft. According to pilot reports, the P-40 was much like the Me 109. It was quite agile but the pilot had to work at it. Controls were not light.

As for trim changes, the Typhoon wasn't immune either. Most aircraft have some longitudinal trim changes with increasing speed. Some just have more than others and the P-40 unfortunately had a lot of change in directional trim as well. Trim changes are the kind of thing that a pilot just gets used to when flying a particular type of aircraft to the point where cranking in a couple notches of trim is just a reflex when reconfiguring the aircraft such as when extending flaps or retracting the landing gear.

As for manuals, my belief is that the audience is always going to be a group of pilots with fairly minimal experience in the type because if you have flown an aircraft for a while, you probably are not going to forget what you have already learned.

BTW, Over the weekend, I picked up the book "Typhoon and Tempest at War" at a local show.
It really makes for some interesting reading.

- Ivan.

Schweik · Apr 24, 2019

Ivan1GFP said:
Hello Schweik,
On Take-Off, the aeroplane tries to yaw LEFT because of propeller torque effects, P-Factor, etc. Pilot applies RIGHT rudder to correct.
Please note that the description on Greyman's post states that the aeroplane yaws RIGHT and on the third test LEFT Rudder trim was applied to reduce that tendency to yaw to the RIGHT in the dive.
Yaw is in opposite directions because the cause is different.

If the yaw was all in one direction, the designers at Curtiss-Wright would have been fools not to just build in a couple degrees of offset into the fin and the problem pretty much goes away.

- Ivan.

Fair enough I stand corrected.

Schweik · Apr 24, 2019

Greyman said:
And the Typhoon had better dive characteristics than those renowned fighters as well.

Many fighters stiffened up at high speed, true, but the issue with the P-40 is that the stiffness is accompanied by large changes in trim - enough that the pilot can't hold the aircraft straight without having to start messing with the tabs. Insurmountable problem? Of course not. But it's a relative non-issue with the Typhoon, especially at the speeds it starts effecting the P-40.

It seems to me this stiffening + trim change is the cause of the P-40's limiting dive speed, and nothing to do with strength/flutter/compressability issues. Which also might speak to why the limit was bumped up throughout the war, as training/experience allowed P-40 pilots to get quicker and craftier with their trim settings.

Pure speculation though.

I actually think you are right about pretty much all of that, but I would make one change and add one thing.

Here is how I would write this sentence:

"The controls of many WW2 fighters, including most early war fighters stiffened up at high speed, but in the P-40 the stiffness could be easily alleviated by using the trim tabs."

I would add that the increases in dive speed were following field practices, rather than the other way around. When you had pilots surviving bloodbaths like 75 Sqn RAAF at Milne Bay, they came out of it with some hard won experience that they did share with colleagues. I suspect those guys knew exactly how fast they could dive those planes and how to do it properly.

However I do acknowledge that it was a nuisance and some pilots pointedly said so - James Edwards for one seemed to dwell on it quite a bit. He had them move (IIRC) the attitude indicator up high in the cockpit so he could see it without looking down in dives and during hard banking turns.

Finally I would point out that while the P-40 did not suffer from any flutter, comprissibility or other negative behavior at high speed, the Typhoon most certainly did.

michael rauls · Apr 24, 2019

Ivan1GFP said:
Mitsubishi A6M - Maximum Diving Speeds:
Long Wing Versions - 340 kts (391 MPH)
A6M2 Model 21
A6M3 Model 22

Short Wing Versions - 360 kts (414 MPH)
A6M3 Model 32
A6M5 Model 52

Thicker Wing Skin Versions - 400 kts (460 MPH)
A6M5 Model 51a
A6M5 Model 51b
A6M5 Model 51c

- Ivan.

Verry cool info. Thanks for posting it. That gives me a whole new view of the A6M.

wuzak · Apr 24, 2019

I ask, was it necessary to dive to the limiting speed to evade a foe like the Zero?

Surely it was enough to extend away through acceleration and use superior high speed handling to manoeuvre away?

Greyman · Apr 24, 2019

Schweik said:
Here is how I would write this sentence:

"The controls of many WW2 fighters, including most early war fighters stiffened up at high speed, but in the P-40 the stiffness could be easily alleviated by using the trim tabs."

I'm no pilot but I don't think that's what trim tabs do. They are unable to alleviate control forces in any way, but they are able to introduce bias so that undesired force (large or small) can be checked. Any corrections welcome.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Apr 25, 2019

Greyman said:
I'm no pilot but I don't think that's what trim tabs do. They are unable to alleviate control forces in any way, but they are able to introduce bias so that undesired force (large or small) can be checked. Any corrections welcome.

I'm not the most experienced pilot here (less than 500 hours), nor have I flown a high performance fighter, but trim does not get rid of stiffness (unless I have always been missing something) it lessens the pressure a pilot must assert on the flight controls to maintain the desired or stable attitude. For instance you trim the elevator to prevent having to apply forward pressure on the yoke/stick to keep the nose down and level.

Unless that is what he meant by "stiffness"...

You can tell who is a new pilot, and not yet mastered the trim. They white knuckle the controls, have sore muscles, and the aircraft porposes, and it is hard for them to maintain altitude.

Also proper trim is essential to landing. Play with that trim wheel every time you change power settings, attitude, flap settings, etc. If you master that (and sight picture) you can fly a nice turn to base and then to final with proper speeds and descent.

Same with slow flight. At least in a Cherokee. You can pull power out, introduce 3 knotches of flaps, and the aircraft will maintain altitude, right above stall speed. You don't get that trim right, you will wear yourself out, and not maintain altitude.

Milosh · Apr 25, 2019

The Flettner tabs on the 109 are not trim tabs. On the P-51 the trim tabs worked like the Flettners. Don't know about other a/c.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Apr 25, 2019

Milosh said:
The Flettner tabs on the 109 are not trim tabs. On the P-51 the trim tabs worked like the Flettners. Don't know about other a/c.

They are servo tabs...

Schweik · Apr 25, 2019

My understanding is that the 109s had trouble turning in one direction (IIRC, to the right) when in a high speed dive. The P-40s and Spitfires could still turn at speed, though on the P-40 it required trimming out the rudder.

Navalwarrior · Apr 25, 2019

Schweik said:
Actually, the number is higher for P-40F/L because the RAF squadrons (260 RAF and 3 RAAF) both scored victories as well while flying Kittyhawk II. They also don't seem to count the 99th FS / Tuskegee pilots who claimd 17 victories in the P-40L.

here is the breakdown of all P-40F/L units I'm aware of, with their active time periods:

33rd FG (3 squadrons, 137 victories, Nov 42 - Feb 44)
57th FG (3 squadrons*, 144 victories, Aug 42 - Jan 44)
325th FG (3 squadrons, 133 victories, Apr 43 - Oct 43 )
324th FG (3 squadrons, 66 victories, March 43 - July 44)
79th FG (3 squadrons, 118 victories, Dec 42 - March 44)
99th FS (1 squadron / independent - Tuskegee, 17 victories, June 43 - June 44)
27th FBG (3 squadrons**, 0 victories, Feb 44 to June 44)
RAF 260 Sqn (1 squadron, 23 victories - source, Feb 42 to Nov 42)
RAAF 3 Sqn (1 squadron, 19 victories - source, Sept 42 to March 44)
Free French GC II/5 (2 squadrons, 8 P-40 victories according to this, July 43- Sept 43)
49th FG? (Pacific Theater 1-2 squadrons, don't know the number of P-40F claims or how long they were used)

There was a total of 25 squadrons flying the P-40F/L in the Med, not counting the 49th FG which flew some in the Pacific. By June of 1943 there were 20 squadrons.

So anyway based on the above, P-40F/L has a total of 665 claims in the Med.

It's worth noting that 260 Sqn RAF seems to have been the first unit to use the P-40F in combat, and 324 FG USAAF was the last.

S

Resp:
How do their victories compare to their losses of P-40s?

Navalwarrior · Apr 25, 2019

Milosh said:
Luftwaffe claims of P-40s: in the first 6 months of 1943, Southern Front (MTO): Jan - 95, Feb - 60, Mar - 51, Apr - 36, May - 14, June - 17

Resp:
Wow!

Mad Dog · Jun 22, 2019

Schweik said:
This is why this analysis is specifically between the P40 F and L (Merlin engined P-40s) vs. the Typhoon since these were the main variants used by the USAAF against the same (i.e. German - in the Med) opponents as the Typhoon.... so I think it's a reasonable comparison.

Not quite. The US in the NA/Med theatre had to use the P-40F as their main air superiority fighter as they had little else available. When they got Spitfire Vs, they used those for air superiority and interceptions rather than P-40Fs. The majority of P-40F combats were at low and medium altitudes, with a lot combats being against mediocre to fair opponents. By contrast, the Channel Front had some of the best of the Luftwaffe's fighters and pilots. By the period you mention (late 1942 through mid-1943 into 1944) the Typhoon was already the RAF's second choice as interceptor and air superiority fighter in the Channel theatre to the higher-flying Spitfire IX, mainly due to the nature of combat sorties over the Channel Front - lots of high-altitude sweeps and escorts. Even so, the Typhoon was still the primary choice for low-level interceptor of FW190 Jabos over the Channel. Indeed, with D-Day fast approaching and some doubts whether Beamont's Hawker Tempest Wing was going to be ready in time, 263Sq RAF and their Typhoons were kept back from 2nd Tactical Airforce to provide low-level interceptor defense for the UK's South Coast harbors, because the Typhoon was still seen as the best available option against the best enemy fighters at low level. There is simply no way anyone would have considered the P-40F the best option for any role by 1944.

Schweik said:
not sure if Typhoons were used in the Pacific or CBI

In May 1943, three Typhoons were tested in Egypt with 451Sq RAAF, an experienced Hurricane IIc unit. As far as I know, those were the only Typhoons to operate outside the European Theatre. In the RAF's main theatre in the Far East (India/Burma) the incidences of land-based air combat were becoming so rare for the RAF by mid-1943, that they decided they already had enough Spitfires, and kept the Hurricane IIs for ground-attack. This was to simplify the logistics and maintenance picture. When they reconsidered with Tiger Force towards the very end of the War, the Tempest was already replacing the Typhoon.

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

P-40 or Typhoon

P-40

Typhoon

Tech Sergeant

Tech Sergeant

Banned

Banned

Tech Sergeant

Captain

Tech Sergeant

Tech Sergeant

Banned

Banned

Tech Sergeant

Captain

Tech Sergeant

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Senior Master Sergeant

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Banned

Staff Sergeant

Staff Sergeant

Banned

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads