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

[MIflyer]

When they developed the Tempest they also had to develop a new smaller version of the 20MM gun to enable it to fit in the thinner wing.

 

[pbehn]

Sorry Schweik, your outlier position is to ignore what is posted, ignore historical facts and carry on waving the flag for a plane that was out of production and used as an advanced trainer by the time the Typhoon made its name for what it was good at. Some of your sweeping statements need lengthy replies, yet a lengthy reply has you complaining of posters wanting to "school you". For example you may be able to shoot down a single B 17 with rifle calibre weapons but the LW wasn't presented with single B 17s they were in massed formations and from late 1943 had escorts, this means you had to shoot down a bomber in the few seconds it was in the gun sight as you made a high speed pass. This was exactly the same problem faced by the RAF, bombers like the Ju88 were increasingly well armoured and had more escorts throughout the BoB, the Ju 87 was batted out of the conflict early on, as was the Bf110 in effect.

 

[Glider]

You forgot something. Us limeys let you yanks do the fighting and winning the war once you'd decided that you wanted a piece of the action.

I am a Limey, living in Leicestershire.

 

[Glider]

When they developed the Tempest they also had to develop a new smaller version of the 20MM gun to enable it to fit in the thinner wing.

They didn't have to develop the MkV 20mms for the Tempest and the first had the Mk II 20mm. The Mk V was a better, lighter weapon and was also used by the Seafire.
The weapons were interchangeable.

 

[wuzak]

To be clear yet again, I was comparing the P-40F (and L) to the Tiffy, and I think it's quite clear they are comparable. Both came out around the same time, both were in combat during the same time period. 3,000 Typhoons were developed compared to 2000 P-40F/L. Both started out as fighters but gradually became important ground attack aircraft. Where is the imbalance?

You keep repeating the 3,000 Typhoons vs 2,000 P-40Fs and Ls.

You keep ignoring that P-40Fs and Ls were produced over a short time frame and most would have made it to operational units. while Typhoons were produced over a longer time frame, and were still being made very late in the war.

It is doubtful that all of the Typhoons ever made into operational units. Or even the majority of them.

 

[Schweik]

I can only repeat what is blindingly obvious. The P40 was slower, had less firepower, less payload, was no better at altitude, had less protection and couldn't dive as fast.
There is no contest.

The P-40 could out turn the Typhoon and had a much better roll rate. These things make a big difference in a dogfight.

The P-40 could also dive faster with better control and with no risk of the tail breaking off..

Why didn't they shoot down swarms of enemy aircraft? Because there were precious few German aircraft in the air over Europe

Really? That is not what I read. The history of the Spitfire is heavily focused on the dark period where they started getting pwnd by Fw 190s or is that propaganda?

and those that were had to contend with the fighter cover which in itself was overwhelming. The P40 operated in an area where axis forces were more active in daylight.

The Med was a secondary Theater for the Germans too- the real action was in Russia. There were a few big battles of course but they had those in Europe as well, Dieppe, Normandy, and a fairly steady level of activity over the channel.

I bet if you counted up victories of UK based Spitfire units in the Channel they would have been pretty high. And I bet if the Typhoon had been a better fighter they would have sent some to the Med like they did the Spit IX and VIII etc.

S

 

[Schweik]

You keep repeating the 3,000 Typhoons vs 2,000 P-40Fs and Ls.

You keep ignoring that P-40Fs and Ls were produced over a short time frame and most would have made it to operational units. while Typhoons were produced over a longer time frame, and were still being made very late in the war.

It is doubtful that all of the Typhoons ever made into operational units. Or even the majority of them.

Sure but more than 1000?

 

[DarrenW]

...the Typhoon became one of the premier Allied ground attack aircraft...

I use to believe this too but now I just don't know. This thread has changed my view on a few things concerning both the aircraft in question, which I previously thought I had nailed down.

 

[Schweik]

Sorry Schweik, your outlier position is to ignore what is posted, ignore historical facts and carry on waving the flag for a plane that was out of production and used as an advanced trainer by the time the Typhoon made its name for what it was good at.

That is incorrect. Ignoring facts? Me thinks thou dost protest too much. P-40s were in combat units both as fighter bombers and still scoring air to air victories right up to 1945.

Some of your sweeping statements need lengthy replies, yet a lengthy reply has you complaining of posters wanting to "school you".

If it was pertinent to anything I had actually said, I would agree. I'm 100% open to and welcoming of actual pertinent data. Even not so pertinent data is interesting as I already said. But it is also a common thing in internet fora to argue against something somebody didn't actually say, like that an Italian HMG is better than an American HMG or that an HMG is better than a cannon. If I post something for brevity, for example comparing the general characteristics of HMGs vs cannon, it can be seen as an opportunity to delve, deep, DEEP into all the exceptions and make a big lecture out of it. For certain readers like yourself, who are aching for a slap down of some kind, they can see this as vindication. I think in high school debating class they call it a Straw Dog. You make up something that your opponent in a debate didn't actually say and then wail away at it, right?

For example you may be able to shoot down a single B 17 with rifle calibre weapons but the LW wasn't presented with single B 17s they were in massed formations and from late 1943 had escorts, this means you had to shoot down a bomber in the few seconds it was in the gun sight as you made a high speed pass.

And this is a classic example. Either your reading comprehension is lapsing or you are trying on purpose to try to win an empty victory. I never said that the Germans didn't need heavy cannon armament later in the war. Of course they did. They were up against swarms of B-17s and B-24s and even medium bombers with heavy armament. Not to mention escorts. So of course they needed to shoot down bombers as fast as possible. On the Russian Front they found that as Il-2s got harder to knock down (especially when they got defensive guns finally) he extra cannon also became necessary. But needless to say, at a cost. The Bf 109G-6 was clearly not as good in fighter vs. fighter combat as the might more lightly armed 109F2 or F4.

What I said was that the Allies didn't need heavy cannon armament later in the war because their job was mostly to shoot down Axis fighters, and to a lesser extent Axis medium or light bombers.

This was exactly the same problem faced by the RAF, bombers like the Ju88 were increasingly well armoured and had more escorts throughout the BoB, the Ju 87 was batted out of the conflict early on, as was the Bf110 in effect.

Ju 88 may have become more well protected that rifle caliber bullets were insufficient, rifle caliber bullets were a little dicey for attacking bombers period. But by 1943 in the Med 4 HMG armed P-40s and 2 cannon / 2 lmg armed Spitfires wiped them out on numerous occasions, and they were also routinely getting annihilated by Flak.

For example on Jan 22, 1944 (during Anzio) the Germans sent a bunch of bombers from "Fliegerkorps X" out to attack the Allied landing fleet. Claims were made by P-40Ls of the 79th fighter group (for fighters), Spitfire Mk Vs of the US 52nd FG, and two RAF Spit IXs. The Germans lost 7 x Ju 88s, 1 x Do 217, 1 x He 111H--11 and a Fw 190G-3. No ships were hit.

Later than night two US piloted Beaufighters of the 414 Night Fighter squadron claimed a Do 217 and a Ju 88, these were apparently 2 x He 177A-3s which were reported lost at that time.

On November 24 1943 the Germans sent a large raid of Ju 88s against Allied airfields on Sardania and lost 13 to flak for no damage. On 10 November they sent a raid of Ju 88s against shipping near Naples and lost 8 to flak, with no ships hit. On November 11 1943 they lost 5 x He 111s, and 3 x Ju-88 to flak for no results. And so on.

 

[GrauGeist]

I use to believe this too but now I just don't know. This thread has changed my view on a few things concerning both the aircraft in question, which I previously thought I had nailed down.

Ground Attack is usually thought of as the destruction of men and equipment and of course, this carries great value, but one other aspect of Ground Attack that's often overlooked, is the disruption of ground forces' movement either during an air attack or altering their movement because of the prospect of an air attack.

The Typhoon proved to be of great value during the D-Day landings and supporting the breakout in the days following by not only striking German targets, but by disrupting German troop movement with it's presence.

 

[Schweik]

Ground Attack is usually thought of as the destruction of men and equipment and of course, this carries great value, but one other aspect of Ground Attack that's often overlooked, is the disruption of ground forces' movement either during an air attack or altering their movement because of the prospect of an air attack.

The Typhoon proved to be of great value during the D-Day landings and supporting the breakout in the days following by not only striking German targets, but by disrupting German troop movement with it's presence.

I would definitely agree with this. I also think the Typhoons ability to intercept V-1s is no joke, each one of those could have meant dozens or hundreds of civilian lives saved.

But the P-40 also played a major role in some significant ground battles like D-Day. maybe not quite as important but probably pretty close. However some of these are tangental to the thread because they were mostly other variants of P-40s

• The Australian P-40E was credited by the local ground commander as being the decisive factor in the Australian victory at Milne Bay, and was also important for Kokoda trail. Aussie and US P-40s played a key role in the defense of Darwin.
• P-40s were considered critical to keeping the Burma Road open and thus supplies to China keeping them in the war.
• RAF Kittyhawks and US P-40Fs were considered critical both in air cover and fighter bomber / strafing attacks at El ALamein, Kasserine Pass,, Tobruk, Medenine, the Gareth Line and Gambut.
• RAF Kittyhawks and US P-40Fs were considered critical in the capture of the fortified Island of Pantelleria (in fact it was a note dropped by the US 325th Fighter Group that apparently induced the surrender itself, the only such event attributed purely to air power in the war)
• RAF Kittyhawks and US P-40Fs played a major role in the invasion and capture of Sicily, Corsica and Sardinia and were critical to the defense of the beachhead at Anzio.

 

[Glider]

The P-40 could out turn the Typhoon and had a much better roll rate. These things make a big difference in a dogfight.

Does it help to turn tighter, of course. Does it make a big difference, no it doesn't. The Zero could easily turn inside a Hellcat but the Hellcat was a better fighter. The Hurricane could turn inside the 109 and 190 but they were the better fighters. The 109 could turn inside the P51 but the P51 was the better fighter. I could go on, the list of examples is huge.

The P-40 could also dive faster with better control and with no risk of the tail breaking off..

Only if you believe your fantasy that the P40 was the fastest diving plane of the war despite the only evidence being a propaganda film. By the way, was that the same advertising company that promised the RAF the 400mph P39 in 1940?

Why didn't they shoot down swarms of enemy aircraft? Because there were precious few German aircraft in the air over Europe

Really? That is not what I read. The history of the Spitfire is heavily focused on the dark period where they started getting pwnd by Fw 190s or is that propaganda?

I strongly suggest you spend more time on research. The Spitfire V wasn't as good a fighter as the Fw190 no one would disagree with that. PS this is another example of the tighter turning aircraft not being as good as the faster fighter.
But its interesting that the Whirlwind initially, later supported by the Typhoon were able to undertake GA missions over occupied territories with considerable success. However there were relatively few German aircraft in Europe at the time. The main period of activity for the Typhoon in numbers was of course the Invasion in June 1944 and the build up, until the end of the war. A period where the Luftwaffe were totally overwhelmed.

The Med was a secondary Theater for the Germans too- the real action was in Russia. There were a few big battles of course but they had those in Europe as well, Dieppe, Normandy, and a fairly steady level of activity over the channel.

Partly true. It wasn't the main feature of the German priorities, but it was important enough for Germany to divert resources directly from the Russian Front to the Med at critical times.

I bet if you counted up victories of UK based Spitfire units in the Channel they would have been pretty high. And I bet if the Typhoon had been a better fighter they would have sent some to the Med like they did the Spit IX and VIII etc.

Just to remind you, the thread is about comparing the Typhoon to the P40. However the P40 wasn't nearly as good as the Typhoon for all the reasons stated. The Spitfire IX on was a much better fighter than the Typhoon which is why the Spitfire was top cover to the Typhoon.

In Christopher Shores original book, Fighters over Tunisia there are a number of interviews with pilots at the time who were asked to rate the fighters. All of them put the Spit IX first, Most put the Spit V or P38 second with the 190 and 109
All put the P40 next and the P39 last

 

[Schweik]

You forgot something. Us limeys let you yanks do the fighting and winning the war once you'd decided that you wanted a piece of the action.

I don't know where this and all the flag waving comments come from. This isn't a "pick on the Limeys" festival and I'm not waving any flag. I like aircraft from all over the world in WW2, including British, US, Soviet, Japanese, Italian and German designs. And others! If you have read my posts on this forum I don't think you have ever heard me criticize the Spitfire or the Mosquito, or the Beaufighter, or the Tempest for that matter. Or the whirlwind. All favorites of mine. In fact I've been praising the Spitfire, the Machi 202, the Bf 109F and the Yak1 in this very thread and others in the last few days (and getting grief for it.)

This thread started when someone in another thread, I think Graugeist, off-handedly noted that the Typhoon was vastly better than a P-40. I said "I'm not so sure about that but I don't really care". He replied "Well I CARE" etc. so I started this thread to explore the subject. When I opened the thread I really didn't know all the details except that the Typhoon had some teething troubles and both aircraft were around at the same time. The reason I focused on the (mostly US flown) P-40Fs is that they (the aircraft not necessarily the units) were the most competitive against the Luftwaffe. I have been trying to point out that P-40s were not necessarily the helpless sheep to Luftwaffe wolves that many, many people have insisted all over this forum and throughout the interwebs (and in many books). This is easiest to disprove with this specific model the Merlin engined P-40. Need I point out by the way, that the Merlin is a British engine?

By the way speaking of the P-40F, aside from the 15 US and 2 RAF squadrons flying them in the Med, there were also about 3 Free French squadrons of Groupe de Chasse II/5 La Fayette (GC II/5). I don't know how many victory claims they made but those should be included in the 592 by US units and ~ 40 by RAF units.

 

[Schweik]

Does it help to turn tighter, of course. Does it make a big difference, no it doesn't. The Zero could easily turn inside a Hellcat but the Hellcat was a better fighter. The Hurricane could turn inside the 109 and 190 but they were the better fighters. The 109 could turn inside the P51 but the P51 was the better fighter. I could go on, the list of examples is huge.

Yes but you forgot the other key factor - turn and roll. The Hurricane could turn very sharply but it couldn't roll and it couldn't dive. That is why it couldn't compete after 1941. The Spitfire and the P-51 ... and the Fw 190 all had excellent roll rates. As did the P-40. Turning is an option, rolling lets you choose different options as soon as you need to.

Only if you believe your fantasy that the P40 was the fastest diving plane of the war

I never said that, I just think the P-40 pilots didn't have to worry about their tail falling off in a dive mate. And I didn't base that opinion on propaganda I based on on dozens of pilot interviews. Pilot after pilot (both Axis and Allied) noted that the dive speed of the P-40 was an advantage in combat.

But its interesting that the Whirlwind initially, later supported by the Typhoon were able to undertake GA missions over occupied territories with considerable success. However there were relatively few German aircraft in Europe at the time.

Whirlwinds were great fighters, their only limit really was range.

Just to remind you, the thread is about comparing the Typhoon to the P40. However the P40 wasn't nearly as good as the Typhoon for all the reasons stated. The Spitfire IX on was a much better fighter than the Typhoon which is why the Spitfire was top cover to the Typhoon.

P-40F specifically. And I suspect it actually was. Can't claim to know, but the Typhoon was available in combat units for four years. That is a long time and it's more than twice as long as the P-40F was in the field in any numbers. Maybe the amount of sorties was equivalent, but I doubt it was higher. And if the Typhoon was a better plane they probably would have sent it to the Med along with the Spitfire.

In Christopher Shores original book, Fighters over Tunisia there are a number of interviews with pilots at the time who were asked to rate the fighters. All of them put the Spit IX first, Most put the Spit V or P38 second with the 190 and 109
All put the P40 next and the P39 last

He has a lot like that, I don't think Shores is a fan! And there were certainly pilots who didn't like the P-40 or who thought it was inferior to the 109, but I can post just as many (and have done, though they seem to be ignored) praising the P-40. See here for examples of eight experienced pilots, seven of whom were aces (British, Australian, American and Russian) who flew the P-40 as well as numerous other aircraft who thought it was an excellent fighter it and specifically noted it could shoot down Zeros, Bf 109s and Fws.

It's worth noting by the way that each of those Aces got arguments and push back when they pointed out that the P-40 was a good fighter if flown correctly.

 

[Shortround6]

Uh, no. No bruh, that is not what it is. Here is what happened, I went out and had a couple of beers, and a couple of y'all wen't nuts writing encyclopedias.

Listen, I'm perfectly happy to read a long dissertation about the ballistic properties of different aircraft ordinance, it's exactly the kind of thing I come to this board for. And I know one or two of you guys are real anxious to see me get "schooled" because you are annoyed that I'm taking an outlier position on a subject you feel you already own.

But please, lets be real - I never argued that Italian 12.7mm was better than an MG 151, let alone that it was better than a Hispano, nor that it was better than a US .50 or a Soviet 12.7mm. I'm happy to read all those details (even though I don't even buy all the arguments being made in that three part dissertation). However, I don't have a dog in that particular hunt so I'll refrain from opining there. You are arguing with yourself.

Gee, you don't like facts, why is this not surprise. You said "I'm not sure that I buy a single 20mm cannon, no matter how fearsome, is superior to two 12.7mm machine guns - but if it is I would assume it's pretty close"

Now, as I tried to point out, in some cases you could be right (if you leave out the fearsome part). in other cases you are dead wrong, it depended on the particular 12.7mm machine gun and the the 20mm gun you are comparing. It also depends on how the guns were mounted. Synchronized heavy machine guns usually took a big hit to rate of fire/effectiveness.

Try to remember, this ALL started when I poked a hole in the excuse that was given as to why P-40Fs had more victory claims in a few months to two years than Typhoons had in 4 years. Namely that excuse was that supposedly they were shooting down obsolete Japanese bombers and other fillage. When I pointed out that they were not stationed in the Pacific, but were in fact shooting down Bf 109s and MC 202s, it was suggested, falsely, that the latter were inferior fighters (per the above incorrect assertion i.e. 'fillage'). When I pointed out that almost all of the Allied pilots in the region, and most aviation writers etc. classified the Bf 109F and MC. 202 as 'equivalent' - I was told "No way! the MC 202 has inferior guns!"

Ok I will freely admit I was in error about the Use of the P-40F in the Pacific. Now as to the MC202 being an inferior fighter. It performed well, very well considering it was using the same engine as a 1939/1940 109E (but then the 109F prototype performed much better than the E using the same engine) in part due carrying about 2/3rds the weight of guns and ammo as the 109E) however we still have the firepower problem. You can dress it up and put lipstick on it but the MC202 had real problem with firepower. see below.

Then I pointed out that while both aircraft were somewhat lightly armed compared to say, a Fw-190, the Bf 109F - considered the best Axis fighter at that time, wasn't particularly heavily armed either. The F2 (1,230 built) had a single 15mm cannon and two rifle caliber machine guns. The F4 (1,841 built) had a single 20mm cannon (granted a very good one) and two rifle caliber machine guns. Maybe that's slightly better than an MC. 202, but we are not talking P-47 vs. Mc 200 armament here. It's an incremental difference a best, and not one that really means a lot in fighter vs. fighter combat - two nose mounted 12.7mm machine guns can take out any WW2 fighter in less than 10 seconds if they can hit the target.

The 109F-4 is rated by some people as having over 4 times the firepower of a two 12.7mm gun Italian fighter. see. WORLD WAR 2 FIGHTER GUN EFFECTIVENESS
and find the line for Fiat G.50 Freccia. Mr Williams is counting the effect of the explosive content in his calculations, not just weight of metal/projectiles.
adding in the wing guns on the MC202 which don't show up until the 9th production batch the difference is about 3 times. Perhaps you think that 3-4 times the fire power is just an increment or "slightly better", I don't.

Thanks for the video, it was interesting but you may have shot down your own argument with it,

I believe, as a guess, that the pilot recovered a piece from this type of 20mm shell

from Luftwaffe Cannons & Machineguns.
I am guessing that it is the rear part of the shell where the tracer element was. The HE charge for this shell was 6 grams of HE (not including the tracer)

I am making no guesses as to what sort of shells caused the other damage. however at times the German ammo belts contained 40% of this type of shell.

same source
which contained (usually) 20 grams of HE

There were also several APHE rounds with solid noses Up to 5 grams of HE and a base fuse.

Now lets get back to the MC202 and It's 12.7mm ammo

source may be from Christian Koll
round on the right is the HE with 0.8 grams of HE. That is right, 0.8 grams or 13% of the explosive that went off in the wing of the P-40. How many such hits would take to bring down the P-40?
Please note that the Italian AP round is going to have about 60% of the penetrating power of the US .50 cal so depending on the AP rounds in the belt to get through the seat armor after going through other parts/items in the rear fuselage might not be good bet.

AS for " two nose mounted 12.7mm machine guns can take out any WW2 fighter in less than 10 seconds if they can hit the target." Please show me a combat report that says a pilot
held a firing position for 10 seconds and was hitting the target for all ten seconds (or even 8), not just fired his guns for 10 seconds with the target somewhere in the gun sight.

DId MC202s bring down US/Allied fighters? certainly, would more have been lost if the Italian fighters had more effective armament?
yes

"And we all know that."

So lighten up yourself. I have several outlier positions myself (like not swallowing the one gun in the fuselage is worth two in the wings kool-aid).

basic problem with this comparison is that NW Europe (at least the part the Typhoon could reach) was NOT a target rich environment for much of the Typhoons career.
You can't shoot down what isn't there. anymore than fighter squadrons in the Aleutian Islands were going to rack up big scores.

It took from Sept of 1941 to Sept of 1942 to build the first 500 Typhoons (two batches of 250 planes each) and it took until May of 1943 to build another 700( 3rd batch), That is built, not issued or in squadron service.
I believe (could be wrong) that there were 4 squadrons of MK IX Spitfires operational in Aug of 1942, By March of 1943 the LF MK IX was entering production and the MK IX with the improved Merlin 66 followed a few months after. The Griffon powered MK XII entered service (in small numbers) in April of 1943.
the 4th major batch of Typhoons (600 planes) took until Dec of 1943 to complete.
1800 planes in two years and 3-4 months and by the end of 1943 any air superiority work to be done was being done Spitfires, P-47s, P-51s and so on.
Number of Typhoons being used for air superiority is not going to great at any one time during this period (early part of the period is when the engines were only lasting 20 hours) open to correction?
and idea of shipping these things to North Africa given the engine problems they were having in England was a logistical nightmare that wasn't going to happen.

 

[slaterat]

The Typhoon is far superior to the P-40. The P-40 is much closer to the Hurricane than the Typhoon. The Typhoon compares well to the FW 190 and the F4U. Lets compare performance, all numbers from "Flying to the Limit", which summarizes and uses RAF test data.

Climb rate, Typhoon 2,700 ft/min at 2000' and 8.7 mins to 20,000 ', P-40f 2020 ft/min at 2000', 10.9 minutes to 20,000'

Speed, Typhoon 375 TAS at 10k and 394 at 20 k, P40 F, 328 at 10k and 352 at 20k.

For most of the flight range the Typhoon maintains a 40 to 50 mph advantage.

Diving tests on a Kittyhawk I went to the dive limit of 460 IAS, at which time the ailerons were,"virtually immovable"

The limiting speed for the Typhoon in a dive was 525 IAS , at 460 IAS the Typhoon could still bank from 45 degrees one side to 45 the other, applying 1/4 aileron , in 5.75 seconds

The Typhoon also has better firepower of the 4x20 mm cannons.

So to summarize, the Typhoon is faster in level flight by 40 to 50 mph, it climbs and dives faster and is more controllable when doing so, it also has far superior fire power, apart from that the P-40 might have a turn advantage.

 

[slaterat]

Three Typhoons were sent to North Africa for testing in June of 43. Francis K Mason, "The Hawker Hurricane" p 152

 

[pbehn]

Northern France, Belgium and Netherlands in 1943/44 was a target rich environment but the targets weren't aircraft.

 

[Schweik]

Northern France, Belgium and Netherlands in 1943/44 was a target rich environment but the targets weren't aircraft.

I think any aircraft that intruded over Northern France or say, Norway or the Low Countries in 1943 / 44 fairly swiftly found enemy fighters to entertain them. Isn't this the main reason that most of the complex "Rhubarb" had such high casualty rates?

 

[Schweik]

The Typhoon is far superior to the P-40. The P-40 is much closer to the Hurricane than the Typhoon. The Typhoon compares well to the FW 190 and the F4U. Lets compare performance, all numbers from "Flying to the Limit", which summarizes and uses RAF test data.

Climb rate, Typhoon 2,700 ft/min at 2000' and 8.7 mins to 20,000 ', P-40f 2020 ft/min at 2000', 10.9 minutes to 20,000'

Actual initial climb rate for the P-40L* was 3,300 ft/min (source - page 234)

Speed, Typhoon 375 TAS at 10k and 394 at 20 k, P40 F, 328 at 10k and 352 at 20k.

P-40F top speed was actually 370 TAS at 20k according to English testing, source

For most of the flight range the Typhoon maintains a 40 to 50 mph advantage.

20-30 mph, and lets note that the wing loading was considerably higher (40.9 lb / sq ft for Typhoon Mk 1b vs. 33.9 for P-40L) and Typhoon roll rate was considerably lower, which is probably more of a problem. It's worth pointing out that Bf 109s, MC 205s and Fw 190s had similar speed advantages over the P-40F/L and yet hundreds went down to their guns.

Diving tests on a Kittyhawk I went to the dive limit of 460 IAS, at which time the ailerons were,"virtually immovable"

The limiting speed for the Typhoon in a dive was 525 IAS , at 460 IAS the Typhoon could still bank from 45 degrees one side to 45 the other, applying 1/4 aileron , in 5.75 seconds

That is impressive about the banking at speed, P-40s could dive as fast but they had to use trim tabs over 500 mph. Handling up to 480 mph was considered excellent. It is also worth pointing out that while the test you mentioned was on a Kittyhawk I (P-40D), the P-40F/L had the lengthened tail** which improved high speed control.

The Typhoon also has better firepower of the 4x20 mm cannons.

No argument there. How much ammunition?

So to summarize, the Typhoon is faster in level flight by 40 to 50 mph, it climbs and dives faster and is more controllable when doing so, it also has far superior fire power, apart from that the P-40 might have a turn advantage.

Faster, but not quite so much faster as you claim, doesn't climb faster at least at low altitude, P-40F/L definitely and quite obviously does have a considerable turn and roll advantage. P-40 also doesn't poison the cockpit with fumes or lose the tail in one of those dives. And the P-40F/L shot down twice as many enemy aircraft while still performing the same CAS / fighter bomber role.

*This also applies to the 'stripped' P-40Fs
** some of the early P-40F did not have the long tail, later run ones all did as did all of the P-40L