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

[Shortround6]

Someone posted statistics along these lines making the Defiant and the Fulmar look good.

The Fulmar looks good. they only built about 600 of them.

The Defiant numbers look like crap, they built 1064 of them. Number of claims after the summer of 1940 is around 50. There were only 2 saudrons operational in the Summer of 1940.

comparing a Typhoon and a P-40F, both of which fought the same main opponent (Bf 109s and Fw 190s) in the same time period and were produced in the same numbers.

You are using a faulty timeline. Yes they fought at the same time but there were only 1200 Typhoons built by the time Curtiss stopped making P-40Ls, yes it takes time to get fighters from the US to the Med theater, but the production of Typhoons was such that they didn't reach the numbers of Merlin P-40s built until around 9-10 months after the last P-40L was built.

There were more squadrons of Merlin P-40s flying for most of that period. And flying out of England the Typhoons had top cover available (but not always used, from Spit IXs for most of that time.)

I believe there were 4 squadrons of Typhoons available at Dieppe and there were also 4 sqaudrons of Spit IXs? The Typhoons were NOT being used in large numbers as a general purpose fighter for most of the time the Merlin P-40s were in combat. By the end of 1942 there up to a dozen Typhoon squadrons either operational or working up (corrections please) but many of the newer ones were being tasked with cross channel ground attack missions and never really flew fighter sweeps or escort type missions. The Mission profile being pretty much a tip and run raid, get in, strafe or bomb and get out. No swanning about looking for a dog fight to get into. With 50-100 miles of water to cross both ways on most missions (few missions were from Dover to Calais) fuel management would be critical. If you are carrying drop tanks you are not carrying bombs.


Your comparison is just too simplistic.

 

[Schweik]

The Fulmar looks good. they only built about 600 of them.

The Defiant numbers look like crap, they built 1064 of them. Number of claims after the summer of 1940 is around 50. There were only 2 saudrons operational in the Summer of 1940.

Yes, I mean production to victory claim ratio and other similar type comparisons like sortie to victory claim and so on. You do have to take in a wider picture. I think it's part of the analysis but certainly not definitive.

You are using a faulty timeline. Yes they fought at the same time but there were only 1200 Typhoons built by the time Curtiss stopped making P-40Ls, yes it takes time to get fighters from the US to the Med theater, but the production of Typhoons was such that they didn't reach the numbers of Merlin P-40s built until around 9-10 months after the last P-40L was built.

I would still say the timelines overlap considerably. There were only ~2000 Merlin P-40s produced right? And their use fell off rapidly after 1943 precisely because there were so few produced compared to their high rate of use in the field during that intense period of combat from mid 1942- early 1944. Once the ones flying in the field were worn out or used up, there were no more replacements. After that the P-40F was over basically because Packard was making V-1650-3 for the new Mustang variants. The Typhoon had a slower ramp-up in terms of both production and use in the field but that ramp-up lasted longer.

So you can take that longer time period into consideration, including the Typhoons heyday after June 1944, or you can handicap it and compare 1943 with 1943, and say 1200 Typhoons in the field vs. 2000 Warhawks. Either way I think it is in the ballpark, it's not a perfect symmetry but it's actually fairly close as these things go. I think the objections are a bit overstated.

There were more squadrons of Merlin P-40s flying for most of that period. And flying out of England the Typhoons had top cover available (but not always used, from Spit IXs for most of that time.)

I believe there were 4 squadrons of Typhoons available at Dieppe and there were also 4 sqaudrons of Spit IXs? The Typhoons were NOT being used in large numbers as a general purpose fighter for most of the time the Merlin P-40s were in combat. By the end of 1942 there up to a dozen Typhoon squadrons either operational or working up (corrections please) but many of the newer ones were being tasked with cross channel ground attack missions and never really flew fighter sweeps or escort type missions. The Mission profile being pretty much a tip and run raid, get in, strafe or bomb and get out. No swanning about looking for a dog fight to get into. With 50-100 miles of water to cross both ways on most missions (few missions were from Dover to Calais) fuel management would be critical. If you are carrying drop tanks you are not carrying bombs.

Well again, there is overlap. The intended use of the P-40s after mid-1942 was mostly as fighter bombers. DAF policy was to more or less ignore the Luftwaffe, since they outnumbered them, and to concentrate on affecting the ground war by attacking tanks etc. Which did turn out to be a better strategy than the Luftwaffe was using (help the experten rack up kills), but it was also somewhat short sighted as the Luftwaffe could not be ignored. The P-40s were used in spite of the intentions of the leadership as fighters and some of the US P-40Fs in particular pressed into service in fighter sweeps and escort missions mainly due to the lack of other suitable aircraft, the P-38 being a slight or partial disappointment. The P-38 ultimately settled into what seemed to be it's proper niche of long range, high altitude escort for the (surprisingly effective) B-24s, while the P-40s escorted medium bombers and did medium altitude, medium range fighter sweeps, and the Spitfires did interceptor and short range fighter sweep missions.

This was typical of the history of the P-40 in that it was intended to be basically on it's way out, into the lesser mission of fighter-bomber strikes, but it was pressed back into service as a fighter.

Didn't the Typhoon also sometimes escort Mosquitoes and other fast bombers? Seems like it would be ideally suited for that.

Your comparison is just too simplistic.

Perhaps, I would say it's a limited comparison. Obviously anything purely hypothetical like this has to be. But the objections to it are a bit too categorical in my opinion. (Not to mention in some cases emotional)

S

 

[Kevin J]

It ought to out shine the Typhoon, 1200-1300hp 12 cylinder engine vs 2200hp 24 cylinder engine. a 6100-6600lb empty weight airplane to an over 8000lb empty weight airplane,
I sure hope the P-40 was cheaper in initial cost.

numbers produced to victories ratio has so many holes and big enough ones to drive a fleet of tractor trailers through all running parallel.

The numbers for the British use of Typhoons and Spitfires over several months in 1944 has been posted at least twice. Same tactical air force, same theater, close to the same numbers of squadrons. same time period. Same enemy opposition. Yet the numbers of air to air kills and the number of bombs dropped are way off.
You know, just maybe (heavy sarcasm) the planes were not tasked with the same job/missions during this time period even though operated by the same tactical air force.

This makes total nonsense out of the idea that you can compare different theaters at different times, against an enemy who's mix of aircraft is different and who has a different defensive set of problems of their own. Just saying there were 109s in NA and 109s in NW Europe therefore the defence was the same over looks pilot ability, fuel availability (both were short, bu thow short?) Priority of the defenders for engineering which types of air strikes/sweeps and so on.

Neither plane operated in a vacuum, both had support from other types of fighters to a greater or lesser extent on different missions/days.

One should note that the British (obviously delusional) built around 350 Typhoons after the US stopped making P-40s. and several hundred of the last P-40s built went directly to scrap yard/s. Fall of the 1944 and the US didn't want them and they couldn't find anybody else to foist them off on.

I'm taking a simplistic approach to Typhoon use. There was one fighter to every two ground attack squadrons so only 1100 fighters to 260 victories. So 4 to 1. Merlin Warhawk production 1681 to USA. About 600 victories. So 3 to 1 ratio.
Spitfire victories in NW Europe. Griffon Spitfires, about 1000, victories about 1000. Excellent. 2nd TAF Merlin Spitfires, 400? Awful, except where's the opposition? Answer being destroyed over Germany by the USAAF.

 

[pbehn]

You mean as in "Tempest"?

Of course, reading the posts here you would think it didn't exist, why would you keep Typhoons in service when the war ended if you have the Tempest.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

Total Allied Claims vs. Axis losses (including crash-landed aircraft): 133 claims / 83 actual losses

And I think that if you consulted the rabid canine you'd discover that all of the overclaiming was by P40 pilots.

 

[wuzak]

And their use fell off rapidly after 1943 precisely because there were so few produced compared to their high rate of use in the field during that intense period of combat from mid 1942- early 1944. Once the ones flying in the field were worn out or used up, there were no more replacements. After that the P-40F was over basically because Packard was making V-1650-3 for the new Mustang variants. The Typhoon had a slower ramp-up in terms of both production and use in the field but that ramp-up lasted longer.

You do realise that Packard didn't stop making 1 stage 2 speed Merlins (XX series)? That in fact they went to Britain as the Merlin 28 for use in the Lancaster and Mosquito (actually a different variant with reversed coolant flow), as well as to Canadian Hurricane, Mosquito and Lancaster production and Australian Mosquito production?

I don't have the numbers, but I believe that single stage engine production was well in excess of 2 stage production.

The P-40F and L came about because the original contract to build Merlins in the US required that 1/3 (3,000 from 9,000) of production was for US consumption. The only suitable airframe at the time was the P-40, so that is what was done. After the initial contract was fulfilled, the Merlin P-40 was dropped, but had the USAAF had the desire for more P-40Fs the Packard's production of Merlins was probably sufficient.

 

[michael rauls]

Of course, reading the posts here you would think it didn't exist, why would you keep Typhoons in service when the war ended if you have the Tempest.

The Tempest, now thers a phenomenal plane that really hasn't got its due over the years.

 

[Schweik]

You do realise that Packard didn't stop making 1 stage 2 speed Merlins (XX series)? That in fact they went to Britain as the Merlin 28 for use in the Lancaster and Mosquito (actually a different variant with reversed coolant flow), as well as to Canadian Hurricane, Mosquito and Lancaster production and Australian Mosquito production?

I don't have the numbers, but I believe that single stage engine production was well in excess of 2 stage production.

The P-40F and L came about because the original contract to build Merlins in the US required that 1/3 (3,000 from 9,000) of production was for US consumption. The only suitable airframe at the time was the P-40, so that is what was done. After the initial contract was fulfilled, the Merlin P-40 was dropped, but had the USAAF had the desire for more P-40Fs the Packard's production of Merlins was probably sufficient.

I read about Canadian production of Packard merlins, and it's a bit confusing since it said that those Merlin 28 etc. engines were taken out of Hurricanes for example when the latter were shipped over to the UK and replaced with British made Merlin XX's. My understanding had been that the US Packard plant was basically going flat out making -3 merlins for the P-51B/C/D/K from early 1943 onward, but I'd be glad to learn more details about that.

 

[pbehn]

The Tempest, now thers a phenomenal plane that really hasn't got its due over the years.

And almost indistinguishable from the Typhoon when in flight.

 

[Shortround6]

Well again, there is overlap. The intended use of the P-40s after mid-1942 was mostly as fighter bombers.

Well, that depends on which P-40 we are talking about doesn't it?
Since the P-40F which is the subject of this thread doesn't show up in combat until the very end of 1942 saying it was intended as a fighter bomber is bit much. (P-40 Production had ended months before and even the P-40K was being phased out of Production when the P-40F was going into combat.

ANd what did the US have for "fighters" in NA at the end of 1942? Some P-38s and P-39s and P-40s in somewhat equal numbers, or at least P-40s and P-39s assigned to Torch in somewhat equal numbers. ANd here we get into interpretations of "intended" as fighter groups have to be equipped and trained months before they are deployed into combat.

Without actual memos or letters we are guessing as to what was "intended". They may very well have intended the P-40K and the following P-40M and N as fighter bombers although the provision of the higher altitude Allison with 125 less HP for take-off seems to belie that.

The use of the P-40F in NA with it's best altitude performance for an American fighter (aside from the P-38) at the time. also seems a bit counter to the Idea that the P-40 was intended as a fighter bomber at this time.

 

[Kevin J]

And almost indistinguishable from the Typhoon when in flight.

If only Hawkers had stuck a laminar flow wing on the Hurricane in 1940, there would have been no need for either the P-40F/L, Typhoon or Tempest.

 

[pbehn]

If only Hawkers had stuck a laminar flow wing on the Hurricane in 1940, there would have been no need for either the P-40F/L, Typhoon or Tempest.

They were still changing dope wings for metal skinned ones in 1940 lol.

 

[Shortround6]

I read about Canadian production of Packard merlins, and it's a bit confusing since it said that those Merlin 28 etc. engines were taken out of Hurricanes for example when the latter were shipped over to the UK and replaced with British made Merlin XX's. My understanding had been that the US Packard plant was basically going flat out making -3 merlins for the P-51B/C/D/K from early 1943 onward, but I'd be glad to learn more details about that.

I don't believe there is any such thing as a Canadian Packard Merlin engine. I am not sure there was ever a Canadian Merlin (there were Australian ones)

as for details please read :http://www.enginehistory.org/References/WWIIEngProduction.pdf

or least see table 28 at the very end which gives Packard production by month and by single stage and two stage from Sept 1941 through Dec of 1944 (Packard built 7171 single stage engines in 1944)

 

[Schweik]

Well, that depends on which P-40 we are talking about doesn't it?
Since the P-40F which is the subject of this thread doesn't show up in combat until the very end of 1942 saying it was intended as a fighter bomber is bit much. (P-40 Production had ended months before and even the P-40K was being phased out of Production when the P-40F was going into combat.

Your timeline is a bit off there. P-40F was in combat before Torch. Elements of the 57th FG were in action in July 1942 (embedded with RAF squadrons), with two complete squadrons operational in August and all three by October as an independent fighter group. RAF 260 had Kittyhawk II from Feb 42, and RAAF 3 from Sept 42.

ANd what did the US have for "fighters" in NA at the end of 1942? Some P-38s and P-39s and P-40s in somewhat equal numbers, or at least P-40s and P-39s assigned to Torch in somewhat equal numbers. ANd here we get into interpretations of "intended" as fighter groups have to be equipped and trained months before they are deployed into combat.

Well I'm not sure what you mean, they certainly had a need for fighters. And the theory was that the P-40s would be doing more fighter bomber missions since DAF had already demonstrated their utility for that purpose. The theoretically more advanced P-39 and the categorically more advanced and higher flying P-38 were supposed to do most of the Air Superiority work. However the writing was already on the wall for the P-39s so plans started to change, and once introduced to combat in the Med they proved incapable of holding their own and had to be withdrawn from frontline missions. The P-38s did a lot better but they too proved to have some limitations, so the P-40F was put back into the fighter role by Dec 42 by which time no less than three US fighter groups (33rd, 79th, and 57th) were partly or fully operational with them, along with the two RAF squadrons.

Without actual memos or letters we are guessing as to what was "intended". They may very well have intended the P-40K and the following P-40M and N as fighter bombers although the provision of the higher altitude Allison with 125 less HP for take-off seems to belie that.

The P-40Ks only saw limited use in the Med, when 57th FG briefly ran out of P-40F/Ls one squadron was replaced with that type, of which they went through about 100 from what I understand. The RAF also got ~100 of them, which they liked a lot, but mostly got the P-40M instead which was definitely more suitable for fighter bomber missions and was generally used for that purpose. As was the P-40K for that matter in this Theater. As far as I know the US didn't use any P-40M in the Med, they were supposed to be for export only but they ended up with some in the Pacific and CBI.

The use of the P-40F in NA with it's best altitude performance for an American fighter (aside from the P-38) at the time. also seems a bit counter to the Idea that the P-40 was intended as a fighter bomber at this time.

I think they tried to make it as capable as they could, and it seems anecdotally that only by doing the field stripping, i.e. taking out the two guns and forward fuel tank, did the P-40F become considered to be suitable for fighting Bf 109s, and then just barely. But most of the units were intended for fighter bomber missions since that was the main mission of the DAF, and that is indeed what most of them did. The lack of suitable cover meant that they were first pressed into service as escorts for other P-40 units, and then as they seemed to be serviceable for that mission they were increasingly used as escorts for medium bombers, until in 1943 one of the newly arriving fighter groups, the 325th was officially assigned as an escort squadron to a B-26 bomber group which ended up operating a lot over Pantelleria, Sicily, Sardinia and southern Italy.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

If only Hawkers had stuck a laminar flow wing on the Hurricane in 1940, there would have been no need for either the P-40F/L, Typhoon or Tempest.

Great idea. Pray tell, how could they pull that off in the midst of the BoB? Jees, that and a Meredith radiator, and they wouldn't have had to bug NAA at all, and P38s would have gotten fixed sooner, and P47s would have gotten their long range tanks sooner, and the bomber boys would have got beaten up even worse waiting for their escorts to make the scene. Ain't speculatin' fun?
Cheers,
Wes

 

[Schweik]

What about putting a pair of Merlin XX engines in a Whirlwind circa 1942? Would that have been possible?

 

[pbehn]

What about putting a pair of Merlin XX engines in a Whirlwind circa 1942? Would that have been possible?

No.

 

[P-39 Expert]

Regarding performance of the P-40F vs the SpitV tropical, wwiiaircraftperformance.org shows the P-40F top speed as 364mph@19300' and the SpitfireV Trop as 354mph@17400'. P-40F was actually marginally faster than the tropicalized SpitV.
Climb rates show the SpitV Trop as 2660fpm@14000' and the P-40F as 1860fpm@15000'. SpitV Trop climbed a good bit better.
Typhoon as tested in November 1942 reflected speed of 394mph@20200' and climb of 2000fpm@17800'. Typhoon was clearly faster and climbed a little faster than the P-40F.

 

[pbehn]

What about putting a pair of Merlin XX engines in a Whirlwind circa 1942? Would that have been possible?

They are bigger heavier thirstier engines requiring more cooling. You need a complete new plane with a Whirlwind cockpit.

 

[Schweik]

Couldn't you say the same thing about putting a Merlin 60 on a P-51A? Or a V-1710 into a P-36?