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

[Shortround6]

From Zeno's war birds.

they have one for the P-39Q but it is sideways. http://zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/P-39/P39TOCLC.pdf

Now please note that the P-47 figures are for 0 degrees C and for both take off distances and climb call for a 10% increase for 10 degrees C of air temp. This is pretty standard across all of these charts. It could get cold in the dessert at times but 104 degrees F is 40 degrees C and a 40% reduction (I have no idea if it compounds) in climb rate and 40% increase in take-off distance and the above noted 10% increase (for 35 degrees ) in approach speed and 20% increase in ground roll are certainly going to affect operations and impressions of the aircraft. The P-40 would also suffer a similar or identical percentage change. but since it had a shorter take-off and lower landing speed to begin with the difference would become more pronounced at higher temperatures.
It could get pretty warm in the Russian summer in certain areas but perhaps not for long enough ( months instead of weeks) to make it into many accounts?

I am not sure some of the russian fighters would have been looked at favorably by American or British authorities in regards to handling qualities. The Mig-3 may have been the most notorious and the comment that experienced I-16 pilots had little trouble converting is damning with faint praise as the I-16 was known for have some handling issues of it's own that were rather similar to the Mig-3s.

 

[Schweik]

I never said Russian fighters would have been thought of as having good handling - to the contrary. My point was that they had even worse handling (or more specifically, they were 'twitchier') than the P-39. As in subject to stalls and spins. An aircraft like that can have good qualities too, the I-16 for example had a great roll rate and a very low wing loading. But generally if I had a choice between a Hurricane or an I-16 I'd go with the Hurricane. The Hurri is better for newer pilots in general too on a larger scale, say if you have 1,000 of one vs. 1,000 of the other.

But that is what the Russians had so they probably had an easier time transitioning to the P-39. In fact some of them said exactly that in interviews. That was my point. Generally, in terms of build quality and reliability, it was an improvement - at least the radio worked.

I think the Anglo-Americans were more used to 'comfortable' planes that were a bit easier and more forgiving to fly.

The P-39 also had the added deficit that a lot of pilots were afraid to bail out of it due to the car-door type entry system. The Soviet pilots said it was better to ditch one than to try to bail out. Pilots bailing out in the Solomons did sometimes hit the tailplane.

However I suspect with sufficient training and tactics the P-39 could have been a better fighter in American hands. The Russians were fighting the same enemy as the Yanks were in the Med, sometimes the very same squadrons.

 

[Stig1207]

Statistics. 3300 built 1100 losses. 2/3 used for ground attack so don't expect aerial victories. 1/3 Fighters. So max 2200 available for combat duty. 730 for fighter duty. 260 victories IIRC. So about 3 fighters produced for every 1 aerial victory, which is about the average for Anglo-American fighters. N.B. Luftwaffe, 33,000 Bf 109's produced, 12,000 aerial victories or 2.75 to 1.

If Bf 109's had a mere 12000 aerial 'victories' you can call me Meier.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

I gather hot humid weather has been brought up about the Solomons etc. too, I have to admit I don't grasp what the issue is precisely

Air density (temperature, humidity, altitude) has a HUGE impact on aircraft performance, and a marginally performing plane feels it more than a strong performer. Take a tired Cessna 150 with 1600 hours on the engine since its third overhaul, stuff it with full fuel and 425 pounds of instructor and student, and go flying on a 5°F winters day. You will get adequate, but certainly not stellar performance. Now repeat on a 90°F, 95% humidity day in August, and you will find yourself driving a slugcraft that needs 3x the runway to get airborne, climbs slower than a thermaling glider, and has to be flown like a glider, searching for thermals and avoiding downdrafts. I once sank into a sinkhole in the hills in conditions like that and spent 45 minutes flogging the engine, with the stall horn singing, fighting downdrafts, searching for rising air, and looking for a place to put it down if necessary. Two big guys in a Cessna 150 makes for mighty tight accommodations.

The altitude was definitely a thing, but a lot of the fighting in the Med was down low.

The problem is that except for "ground tethered" missions like CAS, you can't COUNT on the combat being down low as long as the bad guys have altitude capable aircraft. On the eastern front down low is where the action was; in the Med it was all over the sky.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[fubar57]

http://zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/P-39/P39TOCLC.pdf​

 

[Kevin J]

If Bf 109's had a mere 12000 aerial 'victories' you can call me Meier.

Okay, Meier, how many? I'm pretty sure I got the info from a youtube documentary on it. I always thought it was 15000 before that.

 

[Stig1207]

Okay, Meier, how many? I'm pretty sure I got the info from a youtube documentary on it. I always thought it was 15000 before that.

Jg52 claimed more than 10000 victories and only flew the Bf 109. How many altogether were claimed by Jagwaffe pilots flying the 109 I don't know, but 12000-15000 is not even going to be close; though I would hazard a guess that it's probably about 3 times the numbers you are mentioning.

 

[Kevin J]

Jg52 claimed more than 10000 victories and only flew the Bf 109. How many altogether were claimed by Jagwaffe pilots flying the 109 I don't know, but 12000-15000 is not even going to be close; though I would hazard a guess that it's probably about 3 times the numbers you are mentioning.

Okay, so you're talking about claims. Is that the total of confirmed, probables and damaged? IIRC during the BoB the Luftwaffe claimed to have shot down about 2000+ Spitfires and 1200+ Hurricanes, an over claim ratio of almost 4 to 1. You've got to wonder what these guys were on. Ah. I remember, crystal meths, pervitin.

 

[P-39 Expert]

"Nice try?" Lol. I really don't get where some of y'all are coming from half the time. I was kidding a little but only about the political feasibility of it, I really was not being tongue in cheek in terms of the training angle. I'm quite serious. It just seemed unlikely to bring Soviet pilots in even though they did work with the Soviets on the design of late model P-39s and especially, the P-63.

What I meant specifically is that US pilots expressed a dismal level of trust in flying the P-39 which I suspect came down to training. There is a quote from one of the pilots in MAW IV to that effect though I don't remember it verbatim, the gist was the US pilots were afraid to put the P-39s through their paces (apparently with good reason given the number of fatal crashes) and couldn't wait to get out of them. The mystery of why the Soviets did so well with the P-39 and liked it so much is something many have tried to get to the bottom of. I certainly can't claim to know definitively but my theory is that it came down largely to training and experience in the following ways:

• they were more used to 'twitchier' planes since many Soviet pilots transitioned from planes like the I-16, LaGG-3, or MiG 3 which were notoriously prone to stalls and spins.
• they were forced to use it in Russia where for all it's faults it was one of their best available fighter options (they had Yak-1 and Yak 7 but not enough, and many pilots were going into combat in 1942 and even 1943 in far less capable types) vs. in the Med where there were other options, (though the US were forced to use P-39s in the Pacific for a while). So in Russia in other words there was a kind of training crucible where pilots either died or figured out how to fly P-39s in combat (or both, in many cases).
• they spent a long time, including an initial 4 month workup, doing transition training and figuring out the P-39, where as some US and Allied units had relatively little transition training. The same was true for P-40s as well and they also had trouble, but eventually figured them out I think largely with British / Commonwealth help (most US units and in particular unit leaders embedded with RAF squadrons before going independent)

Your theory that the P-39 didn't fly as well in hot weather doesn't seem likely a complete answer to me. Do you have evidence of that? I can imagine some differences but I am doubtful that would fully account for the differences.

People think it's always winter in Russia but they have summer every year, and summers were hot in particular in certain parts of the Russian Front, notably in the Caucasas around the Kuban and Crimean zones where P-39s scored some of their more famous victories.

The high today in Tiblisi is expected to be 93 F / 34 C, and it's not even August yet.

It's the WEIGHT. Russian P-39s performed much better in climb because they fought them at around 7200# without wing guns, the IFF radio etc. The AAF flew them at 7650-7850#, even heavier for the Q. 450 pounds equates to 550fpm better climb. Completely different performance.

 

[Schweik]

Well even that is a bit confusing because they took wing guns out of Hurricanes, Spit V's and P-40s in North Africa, and took out other things too to reduce weight, so why not do the same with the P-39s?

 

[P-39 Expert]

Well even that is a bit confusing because they took wing guns out of Hurricanes, Spit V's and P-40s in North Africa, and took out other things too to reduce weight, so why not do the same with the P-39s?

No idea. May '42 Bell supposedly distributed how to take 1000# off a P-39. Now some of that was undoubtedly fuel which IMO the P-39 sorely needed. Just removing the wing guns and nose armor plate saved 300#. That alone would have added 360fpm climb.

 

[pbehn]

My back is aching again reading this.

 

[fubar57]

LMAO

 

[pbehn]

LMAO

No matter where you start you end up putting them thar guns and tank in and out, I prefer it in N Africa to be honest.

 

[Schweik]

No matter where you start you end up putting them thar guns and tank in and out, I prefer it in N Africa to be honest.

Don't feel bad, they did it to Hurricanes too, didn't help much though.

 

[Schweik]

I'm probably being over generous to the Typhoon and its production to loss ratio is like the Thunderbolt at 4.5:1. Imagine a flight of four Typhoons going into attack in pairs. The first 2 get away with it, but when the second pair go in the AA is on the ball, and either the 3rd or 4th in the flight gets shot down. Losses were horrendous. Top cover was either Spitfires or Thunderbolts.

In the Med, I have USAAF victories of 592 and British Commonwealth of 420 for the Kittyhawk / Warhawk versions. Don't know what the Tomahawk totals were. Never added them up.

So the cost effectiveness of the Warhawk is far superior to the Typhoon and Kittyhawk as a production:loss ratio.

Oh by the way, I have that DAF had 77 Tomahawk victories were scored in the Middle East / North Africa from a quote in a book, though I don't know if that includes South African squadrons - they ended up using Tomhawks far later than anyone else. Just need to count them up in MAW.

Pacific Victory Roll shows an additional 150 Australian and 99 New Zealand P-40 victory claims in the Pacific. US P-40 pilots claimed 660.5 in the Pacific

If only I could get hold of Soviet numbers...

 

[Milosh]

Oh by the way, I have that DAF had 77 Tomahawk victories were scored in the Middle East / North Africa from a quote in a book, though I don't know if that includes South African squadrons - they ended up using Tomhawks far later than anyone else. Just need to count them up in MAW.

Pacific Victory Roll shows an additional 150 Australian and 99 New Zealand P-40 victory claims in the Pacific. US P-40 pilots claimed 660.5 in the Pacific

If only I could get hold of Soviet numbers...

What were the losses?

 

[fubar57]

GregP mentioned from Francis Dean's America's Hundred Thousand, P-40: 67,059 combat sorties flown, 553 combat losses, 481 air kills, and 40 ground kills. ETO only supposedly

 

[wuzak]

Well even that is a bit confusing because they took wing guns out of Hurricanes, Spit V's and P-40s in North Africa, and took out other things too to reduce weight, so why not do the same with the P-39s?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't guns removed from the Spitfire V for the specific task of intercepting very high flying German reconnaissance aircraft, namely the Ju-86P (or R?)?

 

[Schweik]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't guns removed from the Spitfire V for the specific task of intercepting very high flying German reconnaissance aircraft, namely the Ju-86P (or R?)?

Yes, 145 squadron in Aboukir Egypt. They stripped everything out of a Spit VC and put in two 0.5 inch for a couple of special missions to get the Ju 86Ps in August of 42 (supposedly at 49,000 ft!)

But they also more commonly removed a pair of the .303s from Spit V's in a few squadrons to improve roll rate and overall higher altitude performance against the Me 109s and Macchi 202s. There seemed to be a general dissatisfaction with the Spit Vs in the Med, not so much that they were worse than the 109s but that it was a little too even. I think the 109F, particularly the F4 was just a more even match for the Spit V than the early Emil had been for the Spit I and II.


You know by the way, it occurred to me that the P-47 had a unique engine for the Med, but it didn't seem to stop them sending it in as soon as they could.... so I'm less convinced by the supply chain challenge of the Sabre, at least beyond a certain point in time.