F4F Wildcat versus P-40E Tomahawk

HoHun · 07-12-2008, 07:11 AM

Hi Koolkitty,

>HoHun, could you post a comparson with the F4F-3's performance chart as well? (like you did in the Spit/Seafire Vs. Zero thread)

Sure! But wouldn't it be fair to use a P-40C for direct comparison to the F4F-3? I'd first have to run those numbers then ... no biggie, I just don't have them immediately ready.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

kool kitty89 · 07-13-2008, 03:40 AM

Well in terms of introduction to service fully combat combat ready (with armor and self sealing tanks, thus excluding the P-40/Tomahawk Mk.I) the P-40B would be closest to the F4F-3.

But getting into the P-40C and F4F-4, both having the same engines as their predicessors, but being heavier due to added equipment/capabilities an thus had poorer performance. (an the F4F-4 also having a different armament configuration) The P-40E (not to mention D/Kittyhawk Mk.I) is something else due to the change in engine, allowing WEP and better low alt performance, and the change in armament as well. (though due to the added weight performance above ~5,000 ft was worse than the earlier a/c, and fuel capacity range was reduced: changed back with P-40F and K iirc)

I think the P-40B and F4F-3 comparison would be interesting (particularly as I don't think I've seen your charts for calculated performance of the early P-40 or Tomahawk). Though the original question and title were about the F4F-3 and P-40E. (incorectly labeled Tomahawk, as already discussed...)

HoHun · 07-13-2008, 04:33 PM

Hi Koolkitty,

>I think the P-40B and F4F-3 comparison would be interesting (particularly as I don't think I've seen your charts for calculated performance of the early P-40 or Tomahawk).

Oops - as I discovered, I hadn't actually analyzed the early P-40 variants at all!

Here is a set of graphs for the P-40B at 37.2" Hg/3000 rpm (1040 HP at 14500 ft according to the Specific Engine Flight Chart on Peril's site).

I've chosen a top speed of 352 mph given at Curtiss P-40B as well as with the weight of 7632 lbs given there.

It turns out that the original P-40 nose was a bit better aerodynamically than the enlarged nose of the P-40E and later models - probably no surprise to anyone :-)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

kool kitty89 · 07-13-2008, 09:58 PM

Umm... I think you transposed part of the weight figure from Curtiss P-40B

You wrote 7632 lbs and it says:

Quote:

weight was increased to 5590 pounds empty, 7326 pounds gross, and 7600 pounds maximum loaded

HoHun · 07-14-2008, 03:25 AM

Hi Koolkitty,

>Umm... I think you transposed part of the weight figure from Curtiss P-40B ;)

You're right - the calculations were done for the correct weight figure, though. I should not have reported the figure from memory here - too easy to make a mistake that way :-/

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

joy17782 · 07-14-2008, 09:20 PM

like i said before THE PLANE IS A PLANE AND THESE TWO WERE ABOUT EVEN AND IT WILL BE UP TOO THE DRIVER TOO DECIDE WHO IS BETTER but me i like the p-40 and john wayne in the flying tigers !!!!!!!!. the first combat plane i seen in a movie with my dad on sunday back in the 70s , so its the p-40 for me

HoHun · 07-15-2008, 04:11 AM

Hi Joy,

>like i said before THE PLANE IS A PLANE AND THESE TWO WERE ABOUT EVEN AND IT WILL BE UP TOO THE DRIVER TOO DECIDE WHO IS BETTER

Hm, in many aspects the performance comparison between the F4F-3 and the P-40B closely resembles the comparison between the Hurricane I and the Spitfire I.

Now I know that the Hurricane has its fans too, but the Luftwaffe pilots said: "We were always happy when we met Hurricanes", so there is no doubt what they considered the better fighter.

Well ... the conclusion for the F4F vs. P-40 case should be obvious.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Jerry W. Loper · 07-15-2008, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HoHun

Hi Joy,

>like i said before THE PLANE IS A PLANE AND THESE TWO WERE ABOUT EVEN AND IT WILL BE UP TOO THE DRIVER TOO DECIDE WHO IS BETTER

Hm, in many aspects the performance comparison between the F4F-3 and the P-40B closely resembles the comparison between the Hurricane I and the Spitfire I.

Now I know that the Hurricane has its fans too, but the Luftwaffe pilots said: "We were always happy when we met Hurricanes", so there is no doubt what they considered the better fighter.

Well ... the conclusion for the F4F vs. P-40 case should be obvious.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

I'm pretty sure it was Adolf Galland who said he was happy to meet Hurricanes. But of course, Galland was an ace with 104 victories, so what was easy for him, probably wasn't so easy for the average German fighter pilot.

HoHun · 07-15-2008, 05:05 PM

Hi Jerry,

>I'm pretty sure it was Adolf Galland who said he was happy to meet Hurricanes. But of course, Galland was an ace with 104 victories, so what was easy for him, probably wasn't so easy for the average German fighter pilot.

If you mean to advocate the rather absurd notion that the Hurricane was not considered to be greatly inferior to both the Spitfire and the Me 109 by the Luftwaffe pilots, I'd like to ask you to collect some evidence and start your own thread for it.

I'm not prepared to have the threads hijacked by people partisaning outsider opinions each time I mention a bit of what is rather well-established history.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Jerry W. Loper · 07-15-2008, 05:26 PM

Nobody who knows anything about World War II aircraft would claim that the Hurricane was equal in performance to the Spitfire and Me-109, and I'm aware of "Spitfire snobbery," the German airmen's tendency to claim they'd been shot down by Spitfires when in fact they'd been shot down by Hurricanes. As the war progressed, later models of the Spitfire and Me-109 far surpassed the Hurricane, but in the summer of 1940, the Hurricane's performance was sufficient that the RAF was able to hold out despite the fact that the Luftwaffe's Me-109s outnumbered the RAF's Spitfires and Hurricanes combined (with the Hurricanes constituting about 2/3rds of the RAF's single seat fighter force).

HoHun · 07-15-2008, 05:37 PM

Hi Jerry,

You're on my ignore list now.

Kind regards,

Henning (HoHun)

kool kitty89 · 07-16-2008, 03:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HoHun

Hi Joy,

>like i said before THE PLANE IS A PLANE AND THESE TWO WERE ABOUT EVEN AND IT WILL BE UP TOO THE DRIVER TOO DECIDE WHO IS BETTER

Hm, in many aspects the performance comparison between the F4F-3 and the P-40B closely resembles the comparison between the Hurricane I and the Spitfire I.

Except in climb rate comparisons. (the Spit and 109 being somewhat superior to the Hurricane)

drgondog · 07-16-2008, 11:51 AM

Jerry - now that you have ruffled the 'feelers' of one of the members - to the point of being 'ignored' - should I send Hemlock?

It simply is a fate worse than solitary confinement on bread and water.

I feel your sorrow. On the positive side he did close out with 'kind regards'

Bill

PS - I believe the Hurricane had more air to air awards over the LW than the Mustang (and the Spit? Not sure about this) so I suppose most of the victims were laughing too hard to give it their best effort?

Jerry W. Loper · 07-16-2008, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drgondog

Jerry - now that you have ruffled the 'feelers' of one of the members - to the point of being 'ignored' - should I send Hemlock?

It simply is a fate worse than solitary confinement on bread and water.

I feel your sorrow. On the positive side he did close out with 'kind regards'

Bill

PS - I believe the Hurricane had more air to air awards over the LW than the Mustang (and the Spit? Not sure about this) so I suppose most of the victims were laughing too hard to give it their best effort?

I'll start off with answering the original post's question of which is better, the P-40 Tomahawk or the F4F-3 Wildcat. IMO, it's the P-40 even though we're comparing an early model P-40 with a late model F4F. IMO the P-40B and F4F-3 were roughly equivalent in firepower (two .50-cal. and four .30-cal. in the P-40B, and four .50-cal. in the F4F-3), maneuverability, and durability, but what gave the P-40B the edge was its speed, 352 m.p.h. vs. 331 m.p.h. (Later P-40s became faster than the Tomahawk, with some later models reaching 370 m.p.h., while the next model of Wildcat, the F4F-4, was actually slower at 318 m.p.h.) I think Carl Molesworth wrote in his Osprey Duel book about the P-40 and the Ki-43 Oscar that the Zero and Oscar were among very few fighters more maneuverable than the P-40.

As for the getting ignored and the Spitfire/Me-109/Hurricane business, getting ignored is no big deal, and in 1940 the main performance difference between the Spitfire and Me-109 and the Hurricane was that the two former planes were about 30 m.p.h. faster, had better climb, and the German plane had better firepower and could get away from both British planes in a dive because of the Me-109's fuel injection. Although German pilots underrated the Hurricane, British pilots who flew it praised it, and famous aviation writers and fighter pilots like Francis K. Mason, Tony Holmes, and Peter Townsend have written that while the Spitfire and Me-109 had the better performance specs, in 1940 the Hurricane acquitted itself well in air combat against all German types. (Mason wrote in his book Battle Over Britain that the performance differences of all three of these planes "cancelled out in combat.")

drgondog · 07-16-2008, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerry W. Loper

I'll start off with answering the original post's question of which is better, the P-40 Tomahawk or the F4F-3 Wildcat. IMO, it's the P-40 even though we're comparing an early model P-40 with a late model F4F. IMO the P-40B and F4F-3 were roughly equivalent in firepower (two .50-cal. and four .30-cal. in the P-40B, and four .50-cal. in the F4F-3), maneuverability, and durability, but what gave the P-40B the edge was its speed, 352 m.p.h. vs. 331 m.p.h. (Later P-40s became faster than the Tomahawk, with some later models reaching 370 m.p.h., while the next model of Wildcat, the F4F-4, was actually slower at 318 m.p.h.) I think Carl Molesworth wrote in his Osprey Duel book about the P-40 and the Ki-43 Oscar that the Zero and Oscar were among very few fighters more maneuverable than the P-40.

I agree that for both horizontal and climb from same altitude.

As for the getting ignored and the Spitfire/Me-109/Hurricane business, getting ignored is no big deal, and in 1940 the main performance difference between the Spitfire and Me-109 and the Hurricane was that the two former planes were about 30 m.p.h. faster, had better climb, and the German plane had better firepower and could get away from both British planes in a dive because of the Me-109's fuel injection. Although German pilots underrated the Hurricane, British pilots who flew it praised it, and famous aviation writers and fighter pilots like Francis K. Mason, Tony Holmes, and Peter Townsend have written that while the Spitfire and Me-109 had the better performance specs, in 1940 the Hurricane acquitted itself well in air combat against all German types. (Mason wrote in his book Battle Over Britain that the performance differences of all three of these planes "cancelled out in combat.")

I further agree those comparisons. In a very high degree of engagements the victor will be the one with the better pilot and/or significant initial tactical advantage.