What's the best end-of-WW2 propeller fighter?

**glyn** · 02 Dec 06,, 21:07

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

They definitely took punsihment usually only associated with radial engined fighters.

This guy flew his P40 200 miles back home to base like this...

Ailerons, Schmailerons, who needs 'em?

The P40 was actually one of the best turning Allied fighters of the war. Where it struggled was in flat-out top speed and rate of climb. Used properly, it was a lethal implement of US foriegn policy.

When I was an ATC cadet we had an instructor who had flown the Mohawk (P-36) in India. He said he enjoyed aerobatics in that more than any other type he had flown, which rather surprised us. As to the Warhawk, Tomahawk, Kittyhawk family I'm sure the .50" cal MGs were a significant part of its success. It was effective against not only aircraft but many types of ground vehicles.
The RAF clung to the idea of an octet of fast firing rifle-calibre MGs for too long.

**robert** · 03 Dec 06,, 04:26

Originally Posted by glyn

The Rolls (usually Packard built) jobbies were the K and L models. The British called these Kittyhawks (earlier models were Tomahawks) and the Americans used 'Warhawk' throughout.

I agree with all of your basic points; the P-40 was not a great aircraft performance-wise, but it was tough, reliable, and most importantly, there in numbers. It deserves much more respect than it's often given.

Two small points; the Merlin-powered versions were the P-40F and P-40L; the P-40K was the follow-on to the P-40E, still with the Allison engine. One easy way to tell if a P-40 has a Merlin or Allison is to look at the upper cowling; if there's an air-intake it's an Allison,

if there's no air intake, it's a Merlin.

The British designations for their versions of the Curtiss 81/87 series (equivalent to the US P-40) were fairly confusing, and don't correspond strictly to which engine was installed. For example, the Kittyhawk Mk.III could have either a Merlin or Allison. Curtiss changed the model number of the P-40 series from Curtiss Model 81 to the Curtiss Model 87 with the P-40D, and that was where the change from Tomahawk to Kittyhawk occurred. The Tomahawks were Model 81s; the Kittyhawks were Model 87s. Pete Bowers' Curtiss Aircraft 1907-1947 gives the following breakdowns for British variants:

Tomahawk Mk.I: equivalent(except for British equipment, guns, etc.) to the P-40

Tomahawk Mk.IIA: equivalent to the P-40B

Tomahawk Mk.IIB: equivalent to the P-40C (100 of the 930 earmarked for the RAF were released to China for the AVG)

Kittyhawk Mk.I: equivalent to the P-40D

Kittyhawk Mk.IA: equivalent to the P-40E

Kittyhawk Mk.II: equivalent to the P-40F or P-40L, depending on which batch they were from

Kittyhawk Mk.III: Here's where it really gets complicated; equivalent to the P-40K-1 (first 192), P-40L (next 160), or P-40M (last 264).

Kittyhawk Mk.IV: equivalent to the P-40N.

**glyn** · 03 Dec 06,, 09:59

Guilty as charged, M'lud! I was trying to keep the explanation simple and ended up over-simplifying. I actually refered to my Putnams as well.

**Bill** · 03 Dec 06,, 17:33

Originally Posted by sappersgt

That would go a long ways to explain why the kept producing Wildcats even after better aircraft were available. IIRC the FM models were specifically for duty on escort carriers?

Most of them actually served as CAS/Attack birds from the decks of US carriers in the pacific, or rather, a lot of them did.(i cant say if it was 'most' or not).

By the end of the War the USN was using carrier groups composed almost entirely of fighter types, be they FM-2s, F4Fs, F6Fs, or whatever else.

The Kamakaze dominated USN thinking at the time, for good reason.

**hello** · 03 Dec 06,, 17:54

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

They definitely took punsihment usually only associated with radial engined fighters.

This guy flew his P40 200 miles back home to base like this...

The P40 was actually one of the best turning Allied fighters of the war. Where it struggled was in flat-out top speed and rate of climb. Used properly, it was a lethal implement of US foriegn policy.

The P-40 could take a lot of hits and still fly back, just like the A-10 that wears its shark mouth today.

The Warhawk got left out of the Pacific War after 1943 as it didn't have the long range of the P-38(whos two engines look like P-40 noses stuck under a wing) and wasn't a carrier fighter to make up for it, although it could out-turn the P-38.

The Corsair wasn't on carriers until 1944, and it didn't have the twin-engined P-38s range either, but it got included nevertheless, and was still fighting kamikazes off Okinawa at the wars end. This, despite the challenge it was to fly. This probably was because it was the fastest thing in the Pacific until the P-47 and 51 came down south, and it could almost turn with the Zero if used properly.

Before the Corsair, the P-40, P-39 and F4F were beating the Zero only because of determined pilots and tactics which the Japanese never managed to counter. But the Corsairs price and challenging characteristics meant that the cheaper, more flyable Hellcat got the majority of the action and fame.

**glyn** · 03 Dec 06,, 18:51

Originally Posted by hello

The P-40 could take a lot of hits and still fly back, just like the A-10 that wears its shark mouth today.

I thought it was the AVG in China who wore the sharkmouth? 112 Squadron RAF also used it. The P-40 in the photo is wearing the British roundel, and the photo is credited as Australian.

The Warhawk got left out of the Pacific War after 1943 as it didn't have the long range of the P-38(whos two engines look like P-40 noses stuck under a wing) and wasn't a carrier fighter to make up for it, although it could out-turn the P-38.

The Corsair wasn't on carriers until 1944,

The British were flying Corsairs from their smaller carriers before the US Navy approved the F4U for operations from their larger carriers. They even clipped the wings so they could fit the lower hangars, which made it even hotter in the landing regime.
and it didn't have the twin-engined P-38s range either, but it got included nevertheless, and was still fighting kamikazes off Okinawa at the wars end. This, despite the challenge it was to fly. This probably was because it was the fastest thing in the Pacific until the P-47 and 51 came down south, and it could almost turn with the Zero if used properly.

The F4U far outclassed the Zero for power, speed and armament, but the Zero was far superior at turning and if the Corsair pilot tried dogfighting the lighter aircraft it would almost certainly come off second best. The Americans soon learned to make diving attacks where their speed and firepower counted.

Before the Corsair, the P-40, P-39 and F4F were beating the Zero only because of determined pilots and tactics which the Japanese never managed to counter. But the Corsairs price and challenging characteristics meant that the cheaper, more flyable Hellcat got the majority of the action and fame.

Ooh, you cynic! As if the US couldn't afford to buy the Hognose

**robert** · 03 Dec 06,, 21:17

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

Most of them actually served as CAS/Attack birds from the decks of US carriers in the pacific, or rather, a lot of them did.(i cant say if it was 'most' or not).

By the end of the War the USN was using carrier groups composed almost entirely of fighter types, be they FM-2s, F4Fs, F6Fs, or whatever else.

The Kamakaze dominated USN thinking at the time, for good reason.

The FM also played a major role in the Battle of the Atlantic, equipping 13 composite squadrons These squadrons, escorting from escort carriers in the Atlantic, comprised a mix of FMs and TBMs, and sunk (or contributed to sinking) 54 German U-boats.

In the Pacific, the FM had a great combat record, one which is often overlooked. Also operating off escort carriers, the FM detroyed 422 Japanese aircraft for the loss of 13 to enemy aircraft. In 1945, the record was 187 to 1. Yes, 187 aircraft destroyed for one loss to enemy aircraft...

**robert** · 03 Dec 06,, 21:25

I thought it was the AVG in China who wore the sharkmouth? 112 Squadron RAF also used it. The P-40 in the photo is wearing the British roundel, and the photo is credited as Australian.

The AVG adopted the sharkmouth after seeing photos in the Illustrated London News of No. 112's Squadron's Tomahawks using it in the Middle East.

However, although No. 112 intiated the use of the sharkmouth on the P-40, they got the idea from seeing it applied to the Luftwaffe Bf 110s of ZG 76. The sharkmouth on combat aircraft goes all the way back to WW1, as this picture of a German Roland C.II prooves...

**hello** · 04 Dec 06,, 01:11

Originally Posted by glyn

Ooh, you cynic! As if the US couldn't afford to buy the Hognose

How come you reply inside the quote? That makes quoting you harder. What's the Hognose? Of course the U.S could afford F4Us(if that's what you mean), but if the Hellcat could fight the Zero well, was (much)easier to fly, and was cheaper too, why not?

The Germans were first to use the sharkmouth. The AVG and RAF too copied it off the Bf110 Zerstorer bomber-destroyers. The AVG got absorbed by the 23rd Fighter Group, USAAF, and now that sharkmouth is found on their A-10s. The RAF and Luftwaffe didn't keep it. After the Bf110 got replaced by the Hornisse, Me262 and Komet in the Luftwaffe, the sharkmouth was dropped.

The F4U far outclassed the Zero for power, speed and armament, but the Zero was far superior at turning and if the Corsair pilot tried dogfighting the lighter aircraft it would almost certainly come off second best. The Americans soon learned to make diving attacks where their speed and firepower counted.

Yeah, the Americans were using diving attacks with the P-40 and Wildcat too, as well as with all their other fighters. The Corsair was probably the first plane in the Pacific that didn't have to use the Thatch Weave for defence, but just as a trap for Japanese fighters. If a Wildcat made an error in the Weave with Zeros waiting, it, or the plane its weaving with, is going to get downed unless one of them pulls something fast. With the Corsair, it can just run away and come back, unless its escorting something. Did the Japanese ever develop a counter for the Weave, like shooting at the cross-point?

Another plane I missed was the Nakajima Ki-84 Hayate. It was the replacement to the Oscar, and superior to the Zero, but it was way too little, way too late. Inexperienced pilots, poor construction quality, lack of supply and bombing of factories meant that this Japanese aircraft would never have much impact on the war. If it had been built well and flown by better pilots, it was superior to the F6F in speed and turning. However, the F6Fs successor, the F8F, would outclass the Hayate as the Hellcat had done the Oscar, so the Ki-84 had no chance of impacting the war.

**robert** · 04 Dec 06,, 01:59

Originally Posted by hello

The AVG got absorbed by the 23rd Fighter Group, USAAF, and now that sharkmouth is found on their A-10s. The RAF and Luftwaffe didn't keep it.

The RAF did, actually...

**hello** · 04 Dec 06,, 03:47

The sharkmouth in the top picture looks sad, the one on the Lightning bored, and the ones on the Tornados pitiful. The Harrier's sharkmouth is almost closed.
Nothing like the A-10s.

I wonder what a shark-mouthed Eurofighter Typhoon would look like.

**Bill** · 04 Dec 06,, 07:33

It really didn't matter much if a Hellcat or Corsair could outturn a zero, both were vastly superior energy fighters, and both were almost literally impossible to actually shoot down, a trait that even the F4F shared with them.

From wiki:

The Japanese ace Saburo Sakai describes the Wildcat's ability for absorbing damage:

"I had full confidence in my ability to destroy the Grumman and decided to finish off the enemy fighter with only my 7.7mm machine guns. I turned the 20mm. cannon switch to the 'off' position, and closed in. For some strange reason, even after I had poured about five or six hundred rounds of ammunition directly into the Grumman, the airplane did not fall, but kept on flying. I thought this very odd - it had never happened before - and closed the distance between the two airplanes until I could almost reach out and touch the Grumman. To my surprise, the Grumman's rudder and tail were torn to shreds, looking like an old torn piece of rag. With his plane in such condition, no wonder the pilot was unable to continue fighting! A Zero which had taken that many bullets would have been a ball of fire by now."

Compared to the Wildcat both the F6F and the F4U were much stronger and more robust fighters(and much larger), and both had been refined with the lessons the F4F taught, which is....radial engines with cockpit/reservoir armor can take unbelievable punishment and still fly.

**glyn** · 04 Dec 06,, 12:01

To which worthy line up the Sabre could also be added.

**Bill** · 04 Dec 06,, 22:35

I of course love the Tiger teeth on the Louisiana 'Ragin' Cajun' A-10s(the actual descendents of the AVG), but the P-40 still looks the best with the teeth IMO:

**Garry** · 05 Dec 06,, 12:09

Originally Posted by hello

-
Edit:
As for the P-39 and P-63, I knew about them, but there aren't enough options. Sure, they probably had as much significance or more than the Do335, but the 335 is there because it has one of the best/the best performance. The Airacobra was used a bit by the Cactus Airforce in Guadalcanal, but nothing major, at least compared to their use of the F4F. It, like the P-40, was bad at high altitude, but had a huge through-the-hub 37mm cannon which sent the engine behind the cockpit. The U.S also removed it from frontline air-to-air service once the P-38 came along.

The major threat to the P-51Ds bomber-escorting was the Me262 jet. One Me262 ace, Hauptmann Franz Schall, took 10 P-51s and 6 bombers. However, the Me262 is a jet and this thread is about prop planes.

Originally Posted by robert

You're mixing up the P-63 Kingcobra and the P-39 Airacobra. The P-63 arrived too late to be used against the Germans. It was used by the Soviets in small numbers against the Japanese in the August 1945 offensive. Its only aerial victory occurred on August 15, 1945, against a Japanese fighter, probably a Ki-43.

Strangely enough, we don't know the identity of the pilot with the sole P-63 victory - we know that he was flying as a wingman to Soviet 26-victory ace Vyacheslav Sirotin, but somebody forgot to record his name for posterity...

Alexandr Pokryshkin had 59 victories, about 47 them while flying the P-39 Airacobra (he had several kills early in the war, but I'm not sure of the exact number he had when he transitioned to the Airacobra). The pilot who had the most victories while flying the Bell Airacobra was Grigorii Rechkalov, who gained 52 of his 56 kills on the P-39. This represents the highest total gained while flying a US-built aircraft type, in any air force.

Two excellent books that cover the P-39's career in VVS service are. P-39 Airacobra Aces of World War Two by George Mellinger and John Stanaway, and Attack of the Airacobras: Soviet Aces, American P-39s, and the Air War Against Germany by Dmitriy Loza. The most important thing to remember when assessing the P-39's use in Soviet hands is that is was used primarily as an interceptor, not a ground attack aircraft, as had been thought in the West for many years.

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

The P39 struggled at high altitude, but down in the weeds it was a monster, and i have seen it stated more than once that at low altitude it could out-turn almost any plane of WWII.

Too bad they couldn't produce Merlins in unlimited numbers, cause a Merlin engined P-39 would've been some kind of monster. Or the P40 Warhawk.

Hi! I am not missing P-39 and P-63. My grandpa flew P-63 it in the end of the war and in far east. He was flying in Poland and Germany. There was a whole "eskadrilia" of P-63 flying there in the regiment where other eskadrilia were armed with P-39.... P-63 was WAY BETTER!!! its gun had HIGH muzzle velocity vs somewhat normal of P-39. This gun gave very good precision!!! It was P-63 which could shoot bombers from as far as 2 km away!!! What bomber could do with its machine guns on such a distance?!?!?!? Only hope that fighter keep P-63 much further away (which is unlikelly).

As for turning... in Soviet AF both P-39 and P-63 were famous for their low maveuvrability.... and instability.... on low speed it was falling to flat spin which was impossible to remedy. That is why MANUALS were prohibiting low speed maneuvres for Kobras... and being quite a heavy aircraft Kingcobra had to increase radius of turning. However it was VERY FAST! If either of Kobra wanted to disengage even Fw 190 could not catch up... (actually speeds were somewhat close). If there is a thing to put as a single character for Kobras it would just one - MR BIG GUN.

Kobras could carry few bombs and P-63 could even do some ground work... but IL-2 was much better suited, armed and armored for that.