P-40 vs Zero Maneuverability (long)

[HoHun]

Hi MC,

>When you add speed in level flight, speed in a dive, and toughness of the airframe it is well past the "fringe of the envelope", but you are right, I would not say it had great superiority, just superiority.

You can't afford to be that inaccurate with terms if you start a discussion by having Erik pull out Webster's to prove his point.

Speed in a dive in particular is one of the parameters that defines the extreme edge of the envelope, and top speed in level flight obviously is pretty much the high speed fringe of the envelope.

Toughness has nothing to do with flight parameters at all.

Top speed and dive speed are performance parameters, not manoeuvrability parameters, so that quoting them to "prove" that the P-40 was more manoeuvrable than the A6M entirely misses the point.

Likewise, the word "fabulous" is not a description of technical capabilities, and it's certainly better justified to use this adjective with the Zero than with the P-40.

The P-40 has undeniable and valuable advantages, but Erik's message is inadequate to the standards he sets for himself by pulling out Webster's right at the beginning.

Your posts are indicating great enthusiasm for the P-40, but your arguments could easily be more convincing if you'd be a bit more precise in interpreting other people's points.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Wutz]

The P40 is not as bad as people like too think. Back in my War Birds days, I always flew the P40c(Thomahawk) Vs Spit I and P40E(Warhawk) vs Spit Vb.
I am not saying that War Bird flight model is that correct. But from what M.C.202 Have said it fits my image pretty well. It retains Energy realy well. "Think of it as a poor mans spit" the War Bird manual said. The P40 is a real underdog, but if you take it for a ride, The Rotweiler in it is soon discoverd.

And Btw the Zero is a piece of crap, in my oppinion. Based on the old ww1 turnfight idea. No.. the Japs sure coulde make some fine AC like the Ki-100 and Ki-84. But the Zeke was not built for speed, but turning. And in my oppinion speed is the most important factor in ww2. But hey that is my oppinion   and I might be wrong. So dont hate me  

[M.C.202]

Hi there, HoHun

Quote:
You can't afford to be that inaccurate with terms if you start a discussion by having Erik pull out Webster's to prove his point.
SNIP
but Erik's message is inadequate to the standards he sets for himself by pulling out Webster's right at the beginning.
SNIP


End Quote

Part of that is he is Eric, and I'm not   , to quote  an old S.N.L.

I posted this old post by Mr. Shilling to give a look into the thoughts and viewpoints of someone who was there, and who was part of  my fav early war air unit that had Yanks in it.

Quote
but your arguments could easily be more convincing if you'd be a bit more precise in interpreting other people's points.
End Quote

I try to look and how a thing is said as well as what is said (my professors in J school stressed that sort of thing), and if I missed the mark, sorry.
When you say:

Top speed and dive speed are performance parameters, not manoeuvrability parameters

I must disagree, manoeuvrability  to me (rather than Eric) includes speed, distance traveled in a given time, as one part thereof .
As to :

Toughness has nothing to do with flight parameters at all.

Ya got me there, I was tieing it to the general overall  package, not  flight parameters. My bad.  

Quote
Your posts are indicating great enthusiasm for the P-40,
End Quote

For the the early Hawk birds in general, P-36 and early P-40's, with the H81A-2 in as my fav. The later ones were cursed with "Forditis" (the unneeded bloating of a good idea, like what happened to the T-Bird and Mustang autos).

My Best,

[HoHun]

Hi MC,

>>Top speed and dive speed are performance parameters, not manoeuvrability parameters

>I must disagree, manoeuvrability to me (rather than Eric) includes speed, distance traveled in a given time, as one part thereof .

My definition is in accordance with Robert Shaw's "Fighter Combat", who defines manoeuvrability as the ability of a fighter to change the direction of its velocity vector. (You may have heard about Shaw's book being called the "fighter pilots' bible".)

>Ya got me there, I was tieing it to the general overall package, not flight parameters.

I wouldn't have objected if Eric would simply have called the P-40 a great overall package :-) But it certainly wasn't more manoeuvrable than the Zero, and the Zero was a fabulous package for sure. Just think of it as the fighter that combined a Mustang's range with a Spitfire's manoeuvrability!

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Naudet]

I think someone forgot to add an important point here.

Eric was a flight leader with the Tigers, he flew and P40 and what is important he survived.

That means he looks at the P40 a different angle that we.
It's like referring to a good old friend.

From some former LW pilots u will always get the following sentence:
"The BF109 was an incredible fighter, i wouldnt have traded it for anything else."

Why they say that? They were used to it They spent so many flying hours in it, that they could fly in on the extreme edge. So it may look to them as the bird made em survive, but actually it was their skill.

If you look at 1941, there is no doubt that the best fighter at this time was the FW190A.
Why? Cause in all categories you can lay over it, it was the best, with one execption the turning radius.
Speed, Climb, Dive, Roll, Firepower, High Speed Handling, Field of View, Air-Combat-Tactics, Pilot education etc. ... the FW190A in 1941 was the best overall package you could get.

The P40 surely had some edges over the ZERO and Erics view on it is subjective. But the minor superiority the P40 developed with the Tigers, was based on proper tactics that were ajusted to the P40 performance issues. But in the rest of the Pacific the ZERO had this advantage.

It is a matter of fact, that you can only get the best out of a plane if you use the right tactics. So i would never looked at those things as seperated. They are the two sides of one coin.

[Angus]

A little word here to save the face of the precious little zero  
The Zero was a carrier plane, so there you have something the P40 could not do.
And the Zero also had another factor with it, partly due to its structural lightness, which was range, - incredible P51 like range.
For both above mentioned factors, the Zero would be found in places the P40 would not.
Another word for the comparison.
At the end of 1941 it is not completely fair to compare the P40 with the 109E, nor the Spitfire I, but the 109F and the Spitfire V.
In the African campaign of 1942, these were clashing, the P40 being clearly inferior to the 109F tended to be used as an attack plane, escorted by Spitfires.
And the end of P40:
Both Spitfires, 109's and 190's were manufactured to the end of the war (and further even) with increasingly more enginepower, all the way to 2000Hp+, while the out dated P40 was not, there was a limit to the usefulness of endless Hp's to an airframe that could not benefit from it.