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
sentinel28a       3/14/2009 8:55:45 PM
Rocky, there's no need for this to get personal, but if the P-40 was better than both the Bf 109 and the A6M, why didn't everybody immediately reequip with P-40s and not even bother with the P-47 and P-51?
 
Reason: range, lack of rear vision, poor performance above 15,000 feet, lack of manueverability, and obsolesence. 
 
The P-40 couldn't make it into Germany.  It suffered from poor vision behind (though admittedly, most WWII fighters designed before or in the first part of the war, did), it lacked a turbocharger, it was too heavy to manuever with Axis fighters, and it was a late 1930s design.  The P-40, as has been mentioned, was a superb aircraft in the vertical and could take massive amounts of punishment and still fly.  It could duel even with early Bf 109E/Fs, and probably hold its own with the G/K.  The Zero it was fine going against as long as it didn't try to dogfight them.  The AVG and the Australians realized this and didn't fight on the Zeroes' terms, which explains their comparatively high kill ratios, just as Australian Spitfires suffered at the hands of A6Ms over Darwin because they attempted to outmanuever the Japanese.
 
As the war grew on, however, the P-40 found itself up against increasingly sophisticated opponents--Fw 190s, Ki-61s, etc.  The airframe simply could not be improved on anymore than it had with the P-40K, without becoming a completely new aircraft.  It couldn't escort bombers because of its range and poor high-altitude performance, and so it was increasingly withdrawn in favor of aircraft that could.
 
If I had to fly Allied fighters in 1942 and 1943, I can't think of a better aircraft to fly than the P-40.  After that, however, gimme a P-51.
 
Quote    Reply

DropBear       3/14/2009 9:51:47 PM
But the data isn't complete, I didn't include the RAAF's 75th squadron ,Port Moresby, who with only 1 week's training in the P40 scored 34-12 against the cream of the IJN Zekes...
 
Whilst it is true that the Marauding Magpies had only been flying the Kitty since the SQN was formed in Towny, QLD as of 4 March 1942, several crews were previously experienced on type.
 
Also, those figures seem rather dubious. The notion that only after a week or so they were scoring kill ratios as suggested is wrong. In fact, after the Maggies left Moresby on 3 May 1942 (with only one remaining operationally serviceable aircraft!!!), the score was 86 enemy aircraft destroyed for the loss of 22 Kitty's and 12 bograts. 436 sorties having been flown.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

DropBear       3/14/2009 10:00:49 PM
Russia I will give you but I note once again you have not presented anything to support your view. New Guinea was the domain of the Australian 75th Squadron and I have already posted their performance, available on wiki and I even threw in a hard bound referencs, and guess what, they ran a positive kill ratio 60 kills - 24 losses (1). The Aussies stayed on the positive side for kills to losses during those early years . You have already been proven wrong on North Africa, I have posted those results and even given you books you can buy to catch up on the data! (I don't have any information ont he 76th Australian RAAF squadron but I would bet an adult beverage they stayed on the positive side as well).
 
 
Feck me, who uses Wiki???
 
Have a look at official RAAF histories or books like "Military Aircraft of Australia". 1994. Wilson, Stewart. or "The RAAF And The Flying Squadrons". 2000. Barnes, Norman.
 
My previous post accounts for kills/losses for 75SQN over New Guinea. Would be tickled pink to see where 60/24 comes from.
 
Curious.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

DropBear    Oops   3/14/2009 10:07:07 PM
Actually, disregard the previous.
 
I was actually thinking of a comment made here re - 76SQN. They ultimately went to Mustangs, so I was thinking of those stated kills instead (it is 3am!)
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

larryjcr    general comments on subject   3/15/2009 11:40:42 AM
Just found this thread.
As to turn rate, the P-40 COULD out turn a Bf-109 ... at least the German pilots who fought them in North Africa all thought so.   It was basic policy NEVER to try and turn with a Curtiss.  FIGHTERS OVER THE DESERT contains a long section of interviews with pilots on both sides of that war, and all the German pilots are in solid agreement on that.
 
The P-40 series was designed to specifications from the Army for a low-altitude fighter to support troops on the ground -- a concept similar to what produced most of the USSRs fighters.  At the time, the specs were written by non-aviator generals who wanted cover for their ground troops, hence the low altitude rated engine-blower (mechancal rather than turbo supercharger) conbination.  What happened above 15K ft. was considered to be unimportant.
 
Most of the US fighters were very easy aircraft to fly.  The two exceptions were the Mustang and Corsair.  The comment that the P-40 didn't have any vices could as easily have been made about the F4F, F6F and P-47.  Even the P-38, aside from all the usual concerns about a very high power twin-engined aircraft, and, of course, compressability issues, was a plane that wouldn't try to kill you for being a bit heavy-handed with it.  This was a major wartime advantage with a LOT of newly trained pilots learning to fly them, and taking them into combat.  On the other hand, the Mustang's stall characteristics don't bare talking about.  
 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    Pay Attention Drop Bear!!!!!!   3/15/2009 12:33:51 PM

Russia I will give you but I note once again you have not presented anything to support your view. New Guinea was the domain of the Australian 75th Squadron and I have already posted their performance, available on wiki and I even threw in a hard bound referencs, and guess what, they ran a positive kill ratio 60 kills - 24 losses (1). The Aussies stayed on the positive side for kills to losses during those early years . You have already been proven wrong on North Africa, I have posted those results and even given you books you can buy to catch up on the data! (I don't have any information ont he 76th Australian RAAF squadron but I would bet an adult beverage they stayed on the positive side as well).

 

 

Feck me, who uses Wiki???

 

Have a look at official RAAF histories or books like "Military Aircraft of Australia". 1994. Wilson, Stewart. or "The RAAF And The Flying Squadrons". 2000. Barnes, Norman.

 

My previous post accounts for kills/losses for 75SQN over New Guinea. Would be tickled pink to see where 60/24 comes from.

 

Curious.

 

 



Your hard copy source is a book and is included on the post. Pay attention. The audited number is based upon your Gov't publication:
1. RAAF Historical Section (1995). Units of the Royal Australian Air Force. A Concise History. Australian Government Publishing Service: Canberra.
Bllame them not me and while you are at it, tell me where my thesis that the P40 was comptitive with or maybe even superior to the A6M/Bf109 is proved wrong.
Check Six
 
Rocky


 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    Sentinel28a reply (with the greatest respect)   3/15/2009 12:51:25 PM

Rocky, there's no need for this to get personal, but if the P-40 was better than both the Bf 109 and the A6M, why didn't everybody immediately reequip with P-40s and not even bother with the P-47 and P-51?

 I am not being personal except that it seems some keep replying to issues I do not raise. If you go back to my set up piece (like I said in several of my posts so far) you will note that I state the P40 was well replaced by more modern types. So this comment above here is quite silly. IMV (and with great respect for you Senty)

Reason: range, lack of rear vision, poor performance above 15,000 feet, lack of manueverability, and obsolesence. 

 see Above

The P-40 couldn't make it into Germany.  It suffered from poor vision behind (though admittedly, most WWII fighters designed before or in the first part of the war, did), it lacked a turbocharger (no, to correct this statement and make it more accurate, it lacked a multi stage Turbo Supercharger. I had two very long posts covering this so everyone could get a handle upon the technology. Please reread that data and ask questions if I wasn't clear), it was too heavy to manuever with Axis fighters (demonstrated not to be a completely accurate statement. We know for a fact the A6M couldn't turn with a P40 or Wildcat at speeds above about 250mph. I have given you quotes and sources to deal with turning against a Bf109), and it was a late 1930s design.  The P-40, as has been mentioned, was a superb aircraft in the vertical and could take massive amounts of punishment and still fly.  It could duel even with early Bf 109E/Fs, and probably hold its own with the G/K.  The Zero it was fine going against as long as it didn't try to dogfight them.  The AVG and the Australians realized this and didn't fight on the Zeroes' terms, which explains their comparatively high kill ratios, just as Australian Spitfires suffered at the hands of A6Ms over Darwin because they attempted to outmanuever the Japanese.

 See Above

As the war grew on, however, the P-40 found itself up against increasingly sophisticated opponents--Fw 190s, Ki-61s, etc.  The airframe simply could not be improved on anymore than it had with the P-40K, without becoming a completely new aircraft.  It couldn't escort bombers because of its range and poor high-altitude performance, and so it was increasingly withdrawn in favor of aircraft that could.

 Agreed. None of which matters in this conversation. My thesis has been written several times already but here it is again: "The P40 was competitive against or maybe even superior to the contemporary opponents the Axis forces put up against it, the A6M and the Bf109" . It deserves more respect than it is getting, not with historians, but with the popular cult media, history channels, and the internet in general.
If I had to fly Allied fighters in 1942 and 1943, I can't think of a better aircraft to fly than the P-40.  After that, however, gimme a P-51.

With out a doubt I'd take a P40 over a A6M or a Bf109. In a P40 I can survive and fight at a time and place of my choosing compared to the two aircraft it faced early in the war. I'd rather have a P51 or a P47 in the years 1943 and  on. Funny that is about how it worked out for US.

Check Six
 
Rocky

 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    Herald reply   3/15/2009 1:15:33 PM
In perfect hindsight perhaps you are right about radial v. liquid cooled. I'd say that the engineers of the day were more comfortable with the V12 configuration than they were with ever higher powering radials. I believe that the Big radials were more expensive to produce (didn't they have much closer tolerances in mfg than the V12?) and we are talking about a 1930's design airplane here not a 1941 design. The big radials weren't available when the powerplant choice was made for the P40.
The decision on the supercharger ultimately had more effect upon the P40 than the decision to go radial v. liquid cool, and that may have been a fore-gone conclusion, XP40 first flew in Oct 1938 & was designed in the years between 1935 to then. I'd suggest everyone take a look at the booms on a P38 (which had the same Allison power plant with the big Multi Stage Turbo-Supercharger extending all the way back into the booms) and tell me how we get that system into that slick P40 airframe. Waiting for the next gen radial engine wasn't an option I'd say.
 
Check Six
 
Rocky
 
Quote    Reply

HERALD1357       3/15/2009 1:25:22 PM

In perfect hindsight perhaps you are right about radial v. liquid cooled. I'd say that the engineers of the day were more comfortable with the V12 configuration than they were with ever higher powering radials. I believe that the Big radials were more expensive to produce (didn't they have much closer tolerances in mfg than the V12?) and we are talking about a 1930's design airplane here not a 1941 design. The big radials weren't available when the powerplant choice was made for the P40.


The decision on the supercharger ultimately had more effect upon the P40 than the decision to go radial v. liquid cool, and that may have been a fore-gone conclusion, XP40 first flew in Oct 1938 & was designed in the years between 1935 to then. I'd suggest everyone take a look at the booms on a P38 (which had the same Allison power plant with the big Multi Stage Turbo-Supercharger extending all the way back into the booms) and tell me how we get that system into that slick P40 airframe. Waiting for the next gen radial engine wasn't an option I'd say.

 

Check Six

 

Rocky

 
 
 
 
I'll have more later.
 
Herald
 
 
Quote    Reply

sentinel28a       3/15/2009 3:28:41 PM
Thanks for the compliment, Rocky.  It's appreciated.
 
I'll put up what Geoffrey Perret said about the P-40 in Winged Victory (which is a great book, BTW):
 
"Curtiss used the experience derived from the XP-37 to build a new prototype, the Model 81 (XP-40).  This consisted of the old Curtiss P-36 airframe mated to a new Allison liquid-cooled engine, without turbocharging.
 
"The XP-40 made its debut at a great time for a less-than-great airplane.  Its maiden flight was in October 1938...opinion in the Materiel Division was against the plane: it was another Curtiss flop.  The Allison engine had a published rating of 1160 hp. That may have been true at a test bench in Detroit, but in an XP-40 at 10,000 feet it produced considerably less, around 700hp.  Still, Curtiss was the only manufacturer able to start large scale production of a new fighter...
 
"Meanwhile, Arnold continued hoping someone would present him with a small, lightweight interceptor.  Curtiss came up with yet another plane, the XP-46.  It was really an advanced version of the P-40, but Curtiss said it would fly at 410 mph.  While Curtiss got to work building two prototypes, the Materiel Division urged Arnold to stop production of the P-40...Arnold said no.  Nothing, but nothing, could be allowed to interfere with production.  It would be better, he argued, to take the P-46's engine, if that turns out all right, and put it into future P-40s.
 
"In the end, Arnold was right.  When the stripped down XP-46 made its maiden flight in February 1941 it hit 400 mph.  Its sister ship, however, was a combat-ready aircraft, with self-sealing fuel tanks, armor plate for the pilot, and ten machine guns.  It flew at 355 mph, not much faster than the current P-40B.
 
"The P-40C was about to go into production and couldn't be modified without a major interruption.  The next 2342 planes, however, P-40Ds and P-40Es, would get the engine from the XP-46, an Allison that generated a true 1150 hp.  Too bad it lacked a turbocharger, or even a modern two-stage, two-speed gear driven supercharger.
 
"The nearest thing to a solution was to equip the 1311 P-40Fs ordered in late 1941 with a Packard-built Merlin engine.  These came equipped with an integral two-stage supercharger that brought some improvement about 15,000 feet, but not enough to make it a true interceptor.
 
"All P-40s, in fact, would be at their best at low altitudes.  Between 5000 and 10,000 feet, P-40Es and Fs were as good as Spitfires.  Over 15,000 feet, they were ordinary...a P-40's weight allowed it to dive out of trouble.  This wasn't a plane made for dogfighting.  It was made for bushwhacking--one killing, diving pass, then head for the deck and home.
 
"The British deployed hundreds of P-40B/C/Ds to the Western Desert in 1941-42, where they played an important role in keeping the Luftwaffe from turning occasional air superiority into a permanent state of affairs.  January 1942 found Chennault's AVG defying the Japanese by flying obsolescent P-40Bs with unlooked-for success over Burma.  Chennault devised tactics that allowed his outnumbered pilots to exploit all the P-40's hidden strengths and overcome its obvious defects.
 
"Then and late, this rugged, reliable aircraft was overshadowed by more glamorous foreign rivals, but many who flew the P-40 loved and trusted the aircraft." 
 
I just put this up to give more information.
 
Quote    Reply

HERALD1357    More data.   3/15/2009 5:45:14 PM
 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    Senty reply,   3/15/2009 6:25:15 PM
Sentinenal28a. Your source is incomplete.Let me start with a post from  a Alison web site:
ht***tp://www.aviation-history.com/engines/allison.htm
The few turbo-supercharged Allisons that were made, were allocated to P-38s, making the high-altitude performance of that plane its best feature. All 14,000 P-40s got gear-driven superchargers, and as a result, were never first-class fighter planes. Donaldson R. Berlin, the P-40's designer, has said that P-40s experimentally equipped with turbo-superchargers outperformed Spitfires and Messerschmitts and that if it had been given the engine it was designed for, the P-40 would have been the greatest fighter of its era. This may be to some extent the bias of a proud parent, but there is no doubt that the deletion of the turbo-supercharger ruined the P-39 .
 
Next: I will refer you to copies of the Allison P40B/C power charts complete with supercharger blower and gear compression ratios:
htt***p://www.raafwarbirds.org.au/targetvraaf/p40_archive/pdfs/1710-33.pdf
 
Note the supercharger type and actual performance data.
 
This isn't your fault that you don't understand this since many most sources get this wrong. I have it right, and I have proved it. Please confirm you understand the documents as all that engine data can get technical.
 
Check Six
 
Rocky
 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    More Allison history (if a copy of the Tomahawk's Pilot manual doesn't convince you about its SINGLE STAGE SUPERCHARGER:   3/15/2009 6:37:06 PM
 
htt***p://www.outlawpulling.com/PDF/Allison%20Aircraft%20Engine.pdf
The Army had earlier decided to concentrate on turbosuperchargers for high altitude boost, believing that further development of mechanical turbochargers would allow their engines to outperform European rivals using superchargers. Turbosuperchargers are powered by the engine exhaust and so do not draw power from the engine, whereas superchargers are connected directly by gears to the engine crankshaft. Superchargers as a result require increasing proportions of engine power as altitude increases (the two stage supercharger of the Merlin 60 series engines consumed some 230-280 horsepower at 30,000 ft). General Electric was the sole source for research and production of American turbosuperchargers.Turbosuperchargers were indeed highly successful in U.S. bombers, which were virtually all powered by radial engines. The P-47 fighter had the same combination of radial engine (R-2800) and turbosupercharger and was also quite successful, apart from its large bulk, which was caused by the need for the ductwork for the turbosupercharger.
However, mating the turbosupercharger with the Allison V-1710 proved to be far more problematic. As a result, designers of the fighter planes that utilized the V-1710 were invariably forced to choose between the poor high altitude performance of the V-1710 versus the increased problems brought on by addition of the turbosupercharger. The fates of all of the V-1710 powered fighters of World War II would thus hinge on that choice. The original XP-39 was built with a turbosupercharged V-1710. Numerous changes were made to the design of the production version (after a review by aerodynamicists at Langley Field), including a decision to drop the turbosupercharger. This decision came out of a combination of the severe teething problems encountered with the turbosupercharger mated to the V-1710, as well as the belief of the Army at that time that high altitude performance was not necessary in a fighter plane. The P-39 was thus stuck with poor high altitude performance and proved unsuitable for the air wa r in Western Europe, which was largely conducted at high altitudes. The P-39 was rejected by the British, used briefly by the U.S. in the early Pacific air war, and then was exiled by the USAAF to the Soviet Union under the Lend Lease program. The Soviets were still able to make good use of P-39s because of its excellent maneuverability and because the air war on the Eastern Front in Europe was largely short ranged, tactical, and conducted at lower altitudes. The P-40, which also had only the single stage, single speed supercharger V-1710, would have similar problems with high altitude performance.
 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    Senty question;   3/15/2009 6:59:31 PM
Since the P39 and the P40 have the exact same engine are about the same size weight and wing loading, why is there such a difference in the type's combat records?
 
Answer:  ?
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

YelliChink       3/15/2009 9:24:20 PM
Rocky:
 
Russians seem to love P-39 a lot, to the degree that they made contract with Bell to produce P-63. 
 
Herald:
 
I don't know. Inline engines were killed due to jet engines. Otherwise, fighter with inline engines do have higher speed in general. Bearcat is slower than Mustang. The problem with V-1710 is that USAAF never fund a project to develop high performance two-stage, two-speed superchargers, while the turbosupercharger used is optimized to R-2800 and other radial engines. When, later in the war, V-1710 did got two-stage superchargers, it performs only slightly inferior to Merlin despite pretty un-optimized work.
 
What USAAF should have done is to have Plan B funded for two-stage superchargers just in case turbosupercharger fail.
 
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