P-40? How good vs Me 109, Spitfire, Hurricane, etc.??????

[Bill Greenwood]

Re; Max Rate of turn is largely a matter of wing loading. By that I mean how much square feet of wing is there to support the weight of the plane?
I am just looking at a calender here at the Boulder airport that gives both P-40 and Spitfire data, i don't have the Zero or 109 figures. It does not say which model P-40, but the Spit figures match a Mk IX.
P-40: 236 sq feet of wing, and 8850 lbs.,( max loaded weight)
Spitfire: 242 sq feet wing area, and 7767 lbs. ( msx loaded weight)
Just from these figures, with 6 sq ft less wing, and 1100 lbs heavier, it is obvious, that a P-40 is not going to outurn a Spitfire if both are at max turn possible.
Now,this is only one measure, but it does show that the P-40 is relatively heavy, not sure if it is the size in being slightly larger than a Spit, or if the Allison is heavier or what.
I don't have the same figures here for 109 or Hurri or Zero, but it is well known that with it's very light weight a Zero has a great turn rate, especially at speeds below 200 mph. At high speeds, over 300 mph, I think the Zero ailerons become less efffective and heavier.
I do know that my Spitfire, being a two seat Mk IX is about 7650 lbs with full internal fuel, plus a full60 gal U S belly tank, and pilots and parachutes in both seats, of course no ammo, is that much lighter than a P-40.

footnote, I looked up the Zero specs. As much wing area as a Spitfire. 242 feet and IT ONLY WEIGHS 5350 lbs gross, so it will climb, 3300 fpm, almost 50 % better than a P-40. I think it will also climb at a steep angle, despite having only 950 hp (I think later models had more), with ceiling of 33,000 feet. Max dive speed is listed as only 410 mph which seems awfully low.
This calender gives the ceiling as P-40 of 31,000 feet and Spit at 41,000 ( would be 43,000 with the high altitude engine, ie Model 76 vs 66.)
According to RAF test pilots one of the advantage a Spitfire has over a 109 is in a turning fight, the Spitfire is a little more efficent and does not bleed off speed as fast with the extra induced drag of a hard turn, and also can do more vertically from a slower speed than the 109. This might be the case with a P-40, just don't know, or how it compares to a Zero or 109.

Last edited by Bill Greenwood on Tue Sep 28, 2010 10:16 pm, edited 2 times in total.

[JDK]

Well... I see your point. Calibre was the wrong word choice. But...

Only the AVG group had a leader who truly understood how to fight the JAF from Day 1. He'd put in the time, got the backing of the Chinese, and built the organization. His pilots never had the steep and painful learning curve that the RAF had. Some mistakes, but relatively few.

I believe that if the AVG P-40s had been led and organized by the mainstrean USAAC, they would have been clobbered as well. Chennault was a fine leader, and a truly great tactician. The group's success is largely attributable to the fact that a man of that ability was in command, totally free to act.

Hi Dave,
Certainly what I was commenting on was not a criticism of Chennault - I'm certainly no expert on the AVG, and what I've read indicates that he was an exceptional achiever - although probably not quite from 'day 1'.

There's no doubt that the AVG achived remarkable results.

My point was while I quite agree the RAF and Commonwealth forces got an initial drubbing, care must be taken in drawing conclusions 'why'. Certainly tactics, training and equipment varied from poor to lamentable - the Singapore Buffalo debacle of the RAAF and RAF was a nasty combination including everything from 'white man's arrogance' to guns that didn't work.

Again, though, there's some flexibility of terms. AVG use of 'early' P-40C types would be different to the later P-40E and similar.

Also there remains (in this discussion) a lot of the misunderstanding of the difference between the Japanese Navy and Army. Tactically, culturally and socio-politically they were very different, and lumping it all under 'Zeros' as well as your good point about heights of combats simply confuses the issue.

And crucially, not all P-40s are equal - the Merlin story in P-40s I'd submit is a distraction compared to separating the early lightly gunned long nose types from the P-40E and N and then again the 'lightened' Gypsy Rose Lee examples, mentioned by gemmer.

And the P-40 did find a second niche in ground attack, and was successful in N Africa and the Pacific in this role. Not relevant to discussing capability in air superiority of course, but the P-40 was vital in N Africa in both roles and vital in the early days of the Pacific as a fighter and later in ground attack. That achievement is often overlooked in favour of later, more glamorous types, again, back to Nathan's point of the P-40 being under-credited today. It was, several times, 'Horatio holding the bridge'.

Regards,

[Bill Greenwood]

One thing about Chennault tactics and leadership, he probably had a lot of authority and could make decisons and implement new things on his own, without a lot of consulting of higher level of approval. I think the RAF had some problems with too much "bumpf" that was resistant to any change.

[JDK]

One thing about Chennault tactics and leadership, he probably had a lot of authority and could make decisons and implement new things on his own, without a lot of consulting of higher level of approval. I think the RAF had some problems with too much "bumpf" that was resistant to any change.

A good point, Bill. To go further, and to give credit where due, I think the Chinese governance he was expected to work within could be as red-tape and protocol bound as the rest of the governance we all know, but Chennault clearly set his own agenda to a remarkable degree. Reading about different US, British and other attempts to work with the Chinese against the Japanese and avoid the Nationalists vs the Communists vs warlords factions and 'real' Chinese war, etc shows how many otherwise very capable Allied leaders got burned or frustrated by the various Chinese factions' priorities and approaches. So all the more achievement by Chennault.

Regards,