The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 24, 2009




New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: The P-40 Thread
RockyMTNClimber    3/11/2009 12:41:01 PM
From time to time old US fighters get mentioned on these boards and I am suprised at how little respect the P-40 Kittyhawk/Warhawk, Tomahawk gets given the sterling accomplishments the aircraft achieved in the hands of Allied pilots during WWII. When the war started in 1941 there were two primary modern US types. The Army's Curtis P-40 and the Navy's Grumman F4F Wildcat. These aircraft both shared the American penchant for aircraft of rugged construction, heavy armament, and pilot protection.

The P-40 featured a supercharged Allison 1170 hp, liquid cooled V12 engine with a critical altitude of 15,000 feet msl (critical altitude is the elevation at which the engine's supercharger will produce sea level manifold pressure). It's advantages over its adversaries were as follows:
P-40 v. A6M Zeke/Zero, P-40 was faster in level flight than any of the contemporary A6M's. it had a maximum dive speed of 480mph v. the Zeke's 350mph. The typical load out of armament for a P-40 was 6 .50 caliber heavy machine guns; the Zeke/Zero had two rifle caliber machine guns in the nose that were suplimented by two short barrelled 20mm cannon. The P-40 had pit armor and self sealing tanks where the Zero was utterly un armored and caught fire with a single hit from a tracer bullet, even a rifle caliber bullet! The P-40 had superior roll and turning rates at any speed above 250mph. As long as the P-40 pilot stayed above 250 mph the Zero could not turn or roll with it! Another critical advantage for the P-40 was its ability to withdraw from a fight by diving away. Litterally, the allied pilot could choose the time and place to engage and disengage.

P-40 v. BF-109; The P-40 had superior dive speed, again allowing the allied pilot to disengage or fight at his choosing. It also could turn inside of the 109 and arguably the US six .50 guns were a better choice for air to air combat.

The ultimate proof is that allied pilots scored consistently better kill ratios against their enemies. This is true whether you are talking about allied pilots fighting A6M or the BF-109 or other types. This is also true when you discuss veteran enemy pilots against allied rookies.

Simply put the P-40 was a great aircraft that allowed allied pilots to win early and win often. It was later overshadowed by better allied aircraft and that is okay too, but give the girl her due.

Check Six

Rocky


 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11   NEXT
JFKY    Wiki quotes a price    3/11/2009 6:41:45 PM
of US $83,000 for the P-47.
 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    Comparisons   3/11/2009 7:01:39 PM

1) You quote its range a plus, I'm merely pointing out that it's range is OK, but as far as long-range needs go it was inferior to the P-51D.  So inferior that it was a role that could not be filled by the P-40.  In many ways it was a fine a/c, in this role it would have been a dog...  The P-47 had as equivalent range, more fire power, was sturdier, and could perform A2A and A2G, I'd give the nod to the P-47 over the P-40, and no neither of them were dogs.  It's merely that the P-40 was an older design that got caught and then passed by later designs, such as the P-47.

2) You're too used to herald/BW blood feuds...that was a joke at BW's expense, re: the P-40 and Spectra, you know, not a dig at the P-40.  You know some folks believe that the Rafale is the end-all-be-all of modern a/c design and can be used multi-role wunderwaffe...I was merely poking fun at that attitude, not you or the plane.


Okay I didn't get the joke, sorry. I am limiting my comparisons to its contemporaries the Zeke and the Bf109 and showing that it could hang with those in its day as well as other allied types. Clearly it was passed by by about 1943 when better allied aircraft started arriving. Still, it fought right to the end of the war and its overall performance in combat was nothing short of excellent.

 
 
Quote    Reply

earlm    P-40 vs 109   3/11/2009 8:49:14 PM
P-40 has advantages in toughness, firepower, ammo capacity, turn, roll, cockpit vision and ergonomics.  It's only disadvantages are rate of climb and altitude performance.  Its poor kill ratio vs the 109 has to be pilot quality.  The majority of 109 kills on the P-40 were Commonwealth pilots.  I am unsure of their tactics or training but it obviously wasn't enough to deal with Marseille and the other Germans.
 
Quote    Reply

benellim4       3/11/2009 9:58:22 PM
Earlier this evening, I was reading this thread while watching a Military Channel program on the P-40. Very interesting. I never had given much thought to the P-40 other than I thought it looked cool.
 
Some points from the program I'd love for someone to educate me on.
-They said the P-40s weren't good enough to to tangle with the Bf-109, so the Commonwealth forces sent them to the Pacific. That seemed very odd on the face of it. The Zeke/Zero was no slouch. That doesn't seem right. I wonder what the full story is.
-They did point out the superior dive rate. In fact, the pilot they were interviewing said they had to stand on the left rudder. I'm not a pilot, so I'm guessing here, is that because of the torque from the prop?
-They brought up the point about the Allison vs Rolls Royce engines. They also brought up the supercharged engines vs. engines sans supercharger. So what's the real scoop? Some had SC's and some did not? Was this simply an availability issue?

Thanks.
 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    Supercharger a go go   3/11/2009 10:50:44 PM

Earlier this evening, I was reading this thread while watching a Military Channel program on the P-40. Very interesting. I never had given much thought to the P-40 other than I thought it looked cool.
 
Some points from the program I'd love for someone to educate me on.

-They said the P-40s weren't good enough to to tangle with the Bf-109, so the Commonwealth forces sent them to the Pacific. That seemed very odd on the face of it. The Zeke/Zero was no slouch. That doesn't seem right. I wonder what the full story is.


-They did point out the superior dive rate. In fact, the pilot they were interviewing said they had to stand on the left rudder. I'm not a pilot, so I'm guessing here, is that because of the torque from the prop?

-They brought up the point about the Allison vs Rolls Royce engines. They also brought up the supercharged engines vs. engines sans supercharger. So what's the real scoop? Some had SC's and some did not? Was this simply an availability issue?

Thanks.


 
I'll start with answering what a Supercharger & Turbo Super Charger is. All aspirating (piston) engines loose power as they climb up above sea level because the higher they go the less oxygen is available for burning in the fuel air mixture. What a supercharger or turbo super-charger do is compress the air that is available at what ever altitude the aircraft is at to maintain seal level engine performance which is measured in manifold pressure. The compression is created by a set of impellers that spin inside of a little cylindrical chamber. The energy to accomplish this is either bled from the exhaust stack via a small line or it is driven off of an accessory pad on the back of the engine, or in the case of the P40's Allison, it can be a geared drive off of the engine.
 
 
All Curtis P40s left the factory with a supercharger. Repeat, the P40's have superchargers and allot of information out there gets that wrong. The Allison's supercharger was a simple, single stage system that would only maintain sea level manifold pressure to about 15000 feet or so depending upon conditions. Above that the aircraft's performance against other aircraft with multi stage superchargers will begin to fade. The reason the Allies sent it to Africa and the Pacific was because most of the air combat in those theaters took place below 10,000 feet MSL. If needed, the aircraft certainly could have been fitted with a higher performing turbocharger and in fact eventually it was fitted with a Merlin engine. US Turbo super chargers in the P38 and in the P47 were big systems. The P38's TC's were housed in the booms behind the wings with those snail shaped impeller sets you see from above on the Lightning, and the P47's was stuck in the rear fuselage behind the fuel tank and plumbed all the way up to the engine. These were big, heavy, complex systems. The P51's was mated right up under the engine just like the Spitfire's. Smaller, lighter, easier to house.
 
Regarding the Bf109, I have already posted that the P40 was argueably a better performer, at least at the elevations where they saw combat against the 109 in Africa and Italy. One US airgroup, the 325th, with relatively inexperienced pilots ran up a 133-12 kill ratio mostly against Luftwaffe Bf109s (April 1943-Sept1943, the 325th had no combat experience prior to arriving in Africa).  This validates the British experiences of Nick Barr, Australia, 12 P40 kills and Clive Caldwel, 20 1/2 kills in the P40. The P40 was faster than the 109 and I believe could turn inside of it, Senty disagrees. The P40 was the fastest thing above the planet in a dive so a P40 pilot could leave when he decided it was the better part of valor.

Once the P40 pilots learned how to fight the airplane they became very successful against enemy Zekes/Zeros and Bf109s. It's greatest virtue was probably the fact that when things got really tough, the P40 pilot could bug out and live to fight another day. Something the enemy pilot couldn't do.
 
Check Six
 
Rocky
 
Quote    Reply

earlm       3/11/2009 11:12:06 PM
Just so it's 100% clear a supercharger increases pressure.  A turbo-supercharger or turbocharger is a supercharger driven using an exhaust driven turbine.  Plain superchargers require crankshaft power to work.
 
Turbocharger:  P-38, P-47, many US bombers
Supercharger:  All Merlins, all Allisons save P-38, Corsair, Hellcat, all Japanese and nearly all German.
 
Quote    Reply

DropBear       3/11/2009 11:58:18 PM
Simply put the P-40 was a great aircraft that allowed allied pilots to win early and win often. It was later overshadowed by better allied aircraft and that is okay too, but give the girl her due.
 
The RAAF operated 848 Kitty's with eight operational sqns. It was pretty much all we had to throw up against the Japanese to defend Port Moresby, Milne Bay, Rabaul and of course Darwin.
 
Of note, the final RAAF plane to be lost in WW2 was P-40N (A29-1161) of 80SQN.
 
Here is a good shot of one of the more famous Kitty's with 78SQN. "Watch my form".
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

DropBear       3/12/2009 12:06:51 AM
This validates the British experiences of Nick Barr, Australia, 12 P40 kills and Clive Caldwel, 20 1/2 kills in the P40.
 
Not sure if you meant that all "Killer" Caldwells kills were made in the P-40, as he actually claimed an A6M Zero and a Nakajima B5N when he was OC of 452 and 457SQN's RAAF. His mount for the Pacific theatre were Spits, not Kitty's.
 
It is said, however, that he is the highest scoring allied pilot on Kitty's.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

DropBear       3/12/2009 12:35:12 AM
Its poor kill ratio vs the 109 has to be pilot quality.  The majority of 109 kills on the P-40 were Commonwealth pilots.  I am unsure of their tactics or training but it obviously wasn't enough to deal with Marseille and the other Germans.
 
Two RAAF sqns operated Kitty's in the African theatre. 3 and 450SQNs. The latter started out the campaign with Hurricanes. 450SQN initially did escort duties for fighter-bombers, so the tactics were not as fluid (cleared weird) as when they were operating in the fighter sweep roles in latter months of the campaign. They were also involved in Army Close Support (Army Co-op) and shipping strikes (during their tenure off the Dalmation Coast in the Med AoO). So it can be seen that tactics were more or less inclined towards cabrank and escort missions moreso than pure fighter sweeps. 450SQN did claim a fair whack of Axis equipment and planes with the unit receiving/awarded 8 DFC, 5 DFM and 1 DCM from ops in North Africa.
 
3SQN also converted from Hurricanes to Kitty's, however, their ops were more orientated towards shooting stuff down as opposed to blowing stuff up. 3SQN can claim to be the highest scoring sqn of any Commonwealth Unit with 25,663 op hours flown accounting for 217.5 enemy planes in four and a half years of continuous service!
 
Not bad for a bunch of blokes from the bottom of the world. 
 
 
Quote    Reply

sentinel28a       3/12/2009 2:48:57 AM
I don't know, Rocky.  Against a Bf 109E, yes, the P-40 could turn inside of it.  A Bf 109F...I would have to question that.  What's your sources? I'm happy to admit it if I'm wrong. 
 
No question that the P-40 was better in the vertical--maybe a Jack might could hang with it in the Pacific.
 
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Most US A/c   3/12/2009 10:01:11 AM
were good in the vertical...especially the dive (in the Second World War).  Powerful engines, and a lot of weight.  As we say in my 12 Step Group, "This is a statement, not an indictment."  Very few US a/c were going to win a turning fight, but they, usually, could our-run or out-dive, or both their opponents, giving them the advantage to engage or not.  A smart pilot choosing when to engage or when to break off, is the key to victory,, it seems to me...
 
Wouldn't swear to it, but someone wrote that nothing out-dove the P-40...it might be true, but I'd say the P-47 takes the cake on that...P-47's had compression problems in the dive, the controls locked up, due to their high speeds.
 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    More than you'll ever want to know about SuperChargers!   3/12/2009 11:30:32 AM
 Just so it's 100% clear a supercharger increases pressure.  A turbo-supercharger or turbocharger is a supercharger driven using an exhaust driven turbine.  Plain superchargers require crankshaft power to work.<Earlm
 
Yes, it is 100% clear a supercharger increases manifold pressure for the specific purpose of maintaining engine performance with altitude. As I noted above, either system (TC or SC) may be driven by a number of options. The P40's Allison engine ran off of a geared accessory drive on the engine.  The Merlin's system was the best of the allied lot because it fit neatly into that streamlined forward cowling, where-as, the early US types were physically very large, heavy, and very persnickety to operate. What you get with the Turbo-Supercharger is a second stage compressor. This second stage compressor remains dormant up to a design specified pressure altitude where a mechanical linkage notices a drop in manifold pressure, when measured against the throttle setting. At a preset pressure value an aneroid sensor would switch on the second stage to keep the air intake volume up as the aircraft climbs into ever thinner air. When the second stage engages the pilot has to reduce his throttle setting so as to not over boost the manifold (do that and you throw the engine away after landing). If all of that sounds terribly complicated for a 20 year old pilot fresh off of the farm and a 1939 airplane to manage it is.
 
I don't want to confuse the technical side of the conversation too much but it is important to understand that the choice not to install a Turbo-Supercharger (ala P47, P38) into the P40 may have had allot to do with the complexity inherit with those early systems. A huge problem with using a multi stage supercharger (like the Merlin's) is that all of that compressing of air generates an amazing amount of heat in a very tight space. Enough to melt alloys. In fact it is not uncommon in these aircraft that "pre-detonation" would begin to occur burning the fuel air mixture before it ever gets to the piston. Hyper critical fuel air mixture management is required to prevent this (one way of cooling the air is en richening the mixture a skoosh in order to evaporate that heat energy off in the evaporation of the fuel). One can imagine having to deal with all of this while an A6M is trying to maneuver onto your tail. The only way to deal with the Turbo Supercharger's heat problems was to add what we call an "inter cooler". take the super compressed air and cool it down before allowing it into the manifold. US designed systems were many times the weight and volume of the simple single stage supercharger the Allison had on it.
 
The Merlin achieved all of this with a much more manageable system in terms of maintenance, operational simplicity, and size. That is why the Mustang wasn't the Mustang until we bought the Merlin tooling and manufacturing rights here in the US. Neither the F4F wildcat or the P40 had the more complex systems and in fact they really didn't need them for the theaters they operated in. Pacific & Mediterranean. Hence, it is a non issue in this conversation.
 
For any who care I am a rated commercial pilot (at one time I had a CFI rating) with operational experience in both the simple SC and more complex TSC (that's where my check six moniker comes from).  I hope I didn't bore any of you with these lengthy discussions about how these things work.
 
Check Six
 
Rocky
 
Quote    Reply

HERALD1357    No you didn't.    3/12/2009 12:00:25 PM
Seems to me I need to do some homework on the available US radials and turbocharger options to see if there was a weight manageable and slipstream acceptable development path for the P-40 in the 1938 period.
 
Unrelated:
 
I really don't see why the P-39 was BOLOED. The original prototype was supposed to be a high altitude interceptor and was so designed. The 37mm cannon was a huge mistake though!
 
Herald
 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    In fairness Senty, I already have...   3/12/2009 12:11:39 PM

I don't know, Rocky.  Against a Bf 109E, yes, the P-40 could turn inside of it.  A Bf 109F...I would have to question that.  What's your sources? I'm happy to admit it if I'm wrong. 
 
No question that the P-40 was better in the vertical--maybe a Jack might could hang with it in the Pacific.
I posted Nicky Barr's comments and a link above. Nicky who got 12 of his kills in the P40 said in the interview that when a 109 got onto his tail he would pull into a turn until his vision blurred and stayed there. The nuance is that the P40 was agile enough to hold that 5+ g turn indefinately, which is very remarkable.
 
Also, plenty of sources on line to look at Clive Caldwell's action reports. He uses the horizontal plane, the Brits were not fond of the yo-yo. Note: the RAF fought F model Messerschmidts in Africa while flying the earlier Tomahawks. The USAAF in the Med fought F's and G's when we chewed them up with 325th Air group (see post above).
 
My best source is: Tomahawk-kittyhawk aces of the Commonwealth, by Andrew Thomas, Osprey Aircraft series, 2002. I have loaned my copy out so I don't have a page number for reference but you can get a peek at:
ht**tp://books.google.com/books?id=1yH8EJzhyYcC&pg=PA43&lpg=PA43&dq=william+ronald+cundy+and+p40+kittyhawk&source=web&ots=uVdHVGDXx4&sig=qoyPCFtGZ5Md55MqDlQ-8xcx56U#PPA46,M1
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Rocky what do you ACTUALLY mean...   3/12/2009 12:16:47 PM
I don't think a WWII a/c can hold a continuous 5g turn...so I guess you REALLY mean that the P-40 could hold it longer than the Bf 109.
 
Herald, I'd say the 37mm gun was the point of the high altitude interceptor...it was the bomber buster, the whole point of the high altitude intercept...not that the P-39 turned out to be a high altitude a/c of any sort.
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy