Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: M.C.202 on November 17, 2001, 10:30:00 PM
-
This is a copy of a post Eric made a while back. It is a good read, and I thought it might be of interest.
From 31 Jan 1997 22:56:57 GMT
When I said that I could prove that the P-40 was more
maneuverable than the Zero, several promptly challenged me and
asked for my proof. I hope the following will satisfy their
challenge.
But first of all, one must know the definition of maneuverability
so here's Webster's.
1. To perform a movement in military or naval tactics in order
to secure an advantage.
2. An intended and controlled variation from a straight and
level flight path in the operation of an aircraft.
3. To make a series of changes in direction and position for
a specific purpose.
4. Evasive movement or shift of tactics.
5. To manage into or out of a position or condition.
6. To bring about or secure as a result of skillful management.
As you can see, a comparison of roll is the most important
attribute an airplane must posses in being more maneuverable than
another one. Turning in a tight turn has absolutely nothing to do
concerning maneuverability.
A different approach may convince some of the readers the
reason why our successes against the Japanese was so outstanding.
After reading the following, don't feel sorry for Japanese, they
started the damn war.
All of the aircraft listed below are contemporaries of the
P-40. As an added comment and question, why do many insist upon
comparing apples and oranges? One must not compare aircraft that
weren't flying on December 7, 1941, otherwise it makes as much
sense as comparing the F-16 with Germany's Fokker triplane.
The best known contemporary fighters of the P-40 were the Japanese
AM62 21, and the Hayabusa Ki-43. Germany's Me. 109 E-3. Briton's
Spitfire Mark I, as well as the Hurricane. Not as well known was
North American's A-36A, forerunner of the P-51. Grumman's Hellcat,
Brewster's Buffalo, Seversky's P-35 and P-43, as well as Vultee's
P-66.
The P-40B had a high roll rate than any of them and was. . .
16 mph faster than the P-43, however its top speed was at 25,000 ft
40 mph faster than the AM6-2 (21) Zero.
40 mph faster than the A-36A
50 mph faster than the Hyabusa, or Ki-43.
60 mph faster than the P-35
70 mph faster than the fixed gear I-96.
195 mph faster than the cruise speed of the Ki-21 Sally.
130 mph faster in a dive than any Japanese fighter.
3 times the roll rate of the Zero. the higher the speed the higher
the difference.
P-40 was 5 mph faster than the Me 109 E-3 at 15,000 feet.
P-40 was 9 mph faster than the Spitefire Mk.IA at 15,000 feet
The P-40 could out turn the Me. 109 E-3, and could out dive it.
The P-40 was not the dog that everyone seem to think it was.
One interesting fact is that when comparing top speed of all of the
above mentioned fighters at 15,000 feet, the P-40 was faster than
any including the P-38 and P-47.
An additional fact is that most combat, especially in the pacific,
was done below 20,000 ft, since the Japanese bomber usually flew
below this altitude. Therefore, for the Japanese to defend their
bomber against attacking fighter combat was actually around 15,000
ft.
The P-40B flown by the Flying Tigers had. . .
Self sealing fuel tanks. . . Japanese aircraft had none.
Armor plate that would stop any bullet fired from a Japanese
fighter or bomber encountered over Burma.
Bullet proof windshield that would stop any Japanese fighter or
bomber's machine gun bullets.
All of our aircraft were much stronger than the flimsily
constructed Japanese aircraft. A number of Zero's shed their wings
at speeds slightly over 350 IAS mph. Japanese would not even
attempt a dive that approached 350 IAS. None of Japan's aircraft
could even stand up to P-40's 30 and 50 caliber guns. It only
required a few incendiary bullet, even from our 30 cal. guns, to
set fire or explode their aircraft.
Although subsequent model P-40s did fall behind the newer model
Me.109s and British Spitfires in performance, however in every
case, each new model Zero that came out remained inferior to its
contemporary P-40.
Now why in the hell would anyone consider the Zero to be the best
fighter of the war, or even consider attempting to dog-fight with
Zero?
Hell it didn't even start out that way. . .
The above is not just my opinion, but garnered from available
facts I assume still available today. Also tests conducted by the
US military on captured fighters, as well as the outstanding result
of those who flew the P-40s when using proper tactics against enemy
aircraft.
What was truly obsolete happened to be the turning or dogfighting
combat that had been used during of WW I.
One author, writing for the Smithsonian's Air & Space magazine
claims, "The Zero to be the most fabulous fighter to come out of
the war." What an ill informed ludicrous statement. They either
never flew the Zero, never fought the Zero as it should have been,
and most likely are not pilots, nor aeronautical engineers, so how
the hell do they know.
Aviation buffs always come up with the statement that the Zero
was more maneuverable than the P-40. Emphatically not true. Flown
properly the P-40 was an outstanding fighter, especially in the
Chinese theater of war.
Actually the P-40 was more maneuverable than the Zero.
Unfortunately, those that claim otherwise do not know the defini-
tion of maneuverability as defined by Webster's dictionary.
Interesting comments by Saburo Sakai concerning the Zero:
In a short but informative interview with Saburo Sakai, Japans
leading living Ace, I said, "Commander, what was the Zero's top
speed?" His answer, "The A6M2 had a top speed of 309 mph. and a
maximum allowable dive speed of 350 mph. It became extremely heavy
on the controls above 275 mph, and approaching 350 mph, the Zero's
controls were so heavy it was impossible to roll. A further
comment by Sakai was that the skin on the wings started to wrinkle,
causing the pilot great concern, since a number of Zero's had shed
their wings in a dive." A captured Zero tested by Americans
military, showed its top speed to be 319 mph, this was a later
model, the AM6M5, and was tested without guns or ammunition.
Therefore Saburo Sakai's statement that the top speed of the A6M2
and A6M3 of 309 mph would seem correct.)
Compare this to the P-40's 355 mph, and he the maximum
allowable dive speed of 480 mph, (occasionally our pilots dove as
fast as 510 mph) 130 mph faster than the Zero. The P-40's roll
rate at 260 mph was 96 degrees per second, three times that of the
Zero's mere 35 degrees at the same speed.
Japanese pilots were taught the antiquated importance of
Dogfighting, or turning combat as used in WW I. Unfortunately our
military pilots were taught the same thing, dogfighting. But the
Americans didn't have the equipment with which to be successful.
When the Japanese encountered Chennault's hit and run tactics, they
were at loss. It wasn't in their book, and they didn't know how to
handle the situation. Even Tokyo Rose complained bitterly on one
of her English language broadcast, saying that the Americans were
coward and afraid to stay and fight..........
If you have stuck with me this far I'll comment on the tumble
and the Bell P-39 and the P-51's high speed stall problem in a
future posting, assuming of course for those who may be interested.
Also there are those including Dan Ford, a frequent visitor on
this net, who say the AVG never fought the Zero. I believe I have
undisputable proof that we did, but will also post this information
in a sperate posting.
Regards,
Erik
END OF QUOTE
-
That ignores an awful lot of what is relevant in the pacific war.
1. 25,000 ft is a meaningless altitude to compare speeds at as the pacific war rarely saw combat altitudes about 10,000 or 15,000 ft.
2. The armor plate on the P-40B may very well stop the bullets of any Japanese fighter in the CBI theatre when the AVG was operating, but that has no bearing on the Zero. The Zero's 20mm cannon could most certainly punch through and destroy a P-40.
3. It ignores the fact that the Zero would easily out climb the P-40B.
4. It ignores the typical tactic of turn fighting that was employed at first, a tactic that the Zero will dominate.
In short, if that piece of historical revisionism were accurate, we would have slaughtered the Zero without breaking a sweat.
-
S!
Most of the kills that the AVG P-40's got in China were against the aging 'Nate' Army fighter, which had a top speed of around 240mph. It was armed with 2 rifle calibre machine guns.
-
Hi,
I'm not entirely happy with the original post.
Referring to Webster's for a definition of manoeuvrability should provide the insight that top speed is not a manoeuvrablity, but a performance parameter. Using superior top speed as proof of superior manoeuvrability lends little credibility to the post.
Chastizing the Air & Space author for the use of the word "fabulous", which clearly addresses the reputation of the Zero and not its techical capabilities, is very poor thinking for someone who's proven he knows how to handle Webster's.
Certainly the P-40 had regions at the fringe of the envelope where it was greatly superior to the Zero. However, the truth is that the location of these regions was unknown to both sides when the war began, and in the middle of the envelope, as well as on the slow and the high fringes, the Zero soundly beat the P-40. What's more, US tactics at the beginning of the war were obsolete and inadequate for modern fighter combat, and effectively, the P-40 was unable to win over the Zero before that latters weaknesses were discovered and the development of better tactics was accomplished.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
P-40 is faster than the P-47 and P-38 at 15,000 ft? both of the latter did 345 mph on the deck and about 390 mph at 15,000 ft if I remember correctly not? that means that at sea level the 38 and 47 were almost as fast as a P-40 at its peak speed at altitude and at 15k both were 40+ mph faster than the P-40.
-
Another two planes that were flying and very much in combat operationos by December 7 1941 were the FW190A (July 1941) and Bf109F, both easily outperform any 1941 P40 variant. And the FW190A easily outmanuveres the P40 by your criteria as it rolls much much better and is faster, climbs better, accels better, and prolly dives better too. The 109F, climbs better, is faster, accels better, donno about dive but prolly simmilar, may roll a bit worse (i donno), and they prolly turn about the same with 109F maybe having an advantage from accounts ive read.
Sorry P40 was outdated design in 1941. The AVG used them very well but against vastly inferior planes, fixed gear lightly armed slow machines.
-
There's nothing to disagree with in the original post. He's just making the case that the high speed performance of the P-40 rendered the low speed performance of the Zero useless. It's just E fighting versus turn-n-burn, the same matchup as the Fw-190A and the Spit V. With a 40 mile an hour speed advantage and the ability to jink and dive away, the P-40 could dictate the fight against the Zero. The only way the Zero could dominate is if the fight was low E. He goes out of his way not to imply that the P-40 could have handled European fighters of it's day, just that it was faster at 15K than most.
Thousands of P-40s saw action in WWII, the AVG was just a tiny group that got a lot of publicity. Early in the war when Zeros cleared the skies of P-40s it was because of the tactical advantages the Japanese held at the moment, not because the Zero was uber. The Zero was an exceptional piece of aeronautical engineering, but it was a mediocre combat machine, ill-suited for WWII air combat.
ra
Grunherz: the P-40 is probably the only plane flying in 1941 that could roll with the 190, at least up to 350mph.
[ 11-18-2001: Message edited by: ra ]
-
Has anyone seen the Fighter Combat Study booklet"Curtiss P-40C vs Mitsubishi A6M2" by Murray Rubenstein? c1976
Very interesting reading which takes all the above items into account and compares the different advantages and disadvantages.
I also have "F6F-5 vs the J2M3 Raiden" by Tacitus Publications. Which is the same guys but with computer data outputs. c1988
Ifyou don't have good radar your just a target!
-
Would be interesting to see how he feels about P-40 vs. Ki-44. As I understand it, these fights proved quite difficult for the P-40 bacause they had a very hard time diving away and had no hope of climbing out. I wonder where's the article on that? :p
-
Hum... I think I should have said who Eric is.
Eric Shilling, WWII and pre WWII combat fighter pilot, Flight Leader with the Flying Tigers.
What he said is from his view from the cockpit of the plane in combat, and through testing a lot of WWII birds.
He got to fly a bunch of aircraft, including one of my favorite obscure ones , the C.W. Daemon.
Quote from Karnak :
That ignores an awful lot of what is relevant in the pacific war.
1. 25,000 ft is a meaningless altitude to compare speeds at as the pacific war rarely saw combat altitudes about 10,000 or 15,000 ft.
End Quote.
Eric said:
An additional fact is that most combat, especially in the pacific,
was done below 20,000 ft, since the Japanese bomber usually flew
below this altitude. Therefore, for the Japanese to defend their
bomber against attacking fighter combat was actually around 15,000
ft.
So both of you agree. In another forum he gives
“ The AVG's H81A-2 was 355/360 mph at 14,500 feet compared to the H81-A2's speed of 340 mph.”
Quote from Karnak :
4. It ignores the typical tactic of turn fighting that was employed at first, a tactic that the Zero will dominate.
In short, if that piece of historical revisionism were accurate, we would have slaughtered the Zero without breaking a sweat.
End Quote
Eric said:
Japanese pilots were taught the antiquated importance of
Dogfighting, or turning combat as used in WW I. Unfortunately our
military pilots were taught the same thing, dogfighting. But the
Americans didn't have the equipment with which to be successful.
When the Japanese encountered Chennault's hit and run tactics, they
were at loss. It wasn't in their book, and they didn't know how to
handle the situation. Even Tokyo Rose complained bitterly on one
of her English language broadcast, saying that the Americans were
coward and afraid to stay and fight...
End Quote
Henning (HoHun) said:
Certainly the P-40 had regions at the fringe of the envelope where it was greatly superior to the Zero. However, the truth is that the location of these regions was unknown to both sides when the war began, and in the middle of the envelope, as well as on the slow and the high fringes, the Zero soundly beat the P-40. What's more, US tactics at the beginning of the war were obsolete and inadequate for modern fighter combat, and effectively, the P-40 was unable to win over the Zero before that latters weaknesses were discovered and the development of better tactics was accomplished.
End Quote.
In another posting Eric said:
It doesn't take combat experience to know your own airplane, nor
that of your enemies. This information was handed to us on a silver
platter by Chennault.
End Quote.
There was a lot known about the Zero, it's just that many did not believe it :(
From Eric in the same post:
These figures were obtained by numerous tests conducted by test
pilots who had tested flown both airplanes.
Examples of comparative roll rates.
Speed Zero's roll rate P-40B's roll rate
200 mph 55 degree/sec 95 degree/sec
240 mph 45 degree/sec 105 degrees/sec
280 mph 40 degree/sec 110 degree/sec
320 mph 38 degree/sec 105 degree/sec
360 mph 20 degree/sec 100 degree/sec
400 mph Zero can't roll 90 Degree/sec
Comment: The P-40B was 15 mph faster than the P-40C it also had a
higher roll rate than the "C."
End Quote.
I would not call the 200 to 400mph range "the fringe of the envelope" ;)
bolillo_loco, GRUNHERZ, and Karnak ask about speed and climb in 1941/42.
At http://www.p-40.com/ (http://www.p-40.com/) the powerplant of the A.V.G. P-40 is discussed.
Someone at Allison remembered that they had a warehouse of "off-dimension " parts, that didn't meet either US Army or British contract spec. but were otherwise sound. The proposal was that by hand fitting and matching and repairing these parts, suitably engines for the order could be provided.
When tested these engines developed more horse power and used less fuel than the standard US military , or British engines. This supplied the needed 100 engines and the balance came from a later production run. A follow up on these engines that were made out of hand fitted matched parts were later found to have a better field record than the standard engines.
These engines were built to Allison Specifications 145A, rather than Spec 120D and identified as the V-1710-C15A. There were no military designation for these engines.
It is estimated that in the heat of the battle or disengaging from enemy fighters, some engines had drawn between 1600 and 1700 Horse power. (This would give a power to weight ration of better than even the vaunted Zero had.)
At one time on a photo recon flight, while circling my objective, apparently I had run into my own prop wash, but at the moment thought it was A A fire. I pushed the throttle forward but when I settled down I saw that I pulling 50 in Hg, and quickly reduced it to 40 inches. According to the Horse power chart was 1380 HP.
The AVG's H81A-2 was 355/360 mph at 14,500 feet compared to the H81-A2's speed of 340 mph.
End Quote (some editing)
-
This contemporary of the P-40 seems to have been left out. The AVG fought these too.
Ki-44-II
Maximum speed 376 mph at 17,060 feet. An altitude of 16,405 feet could be reached in 4 min 17 sec. Service ceiling was 36,745 feet
^This IMO was the best "combat" fighter in the Japanese inventory early in the US conflict.
Its biggest strike against it was poor range (which is probably why it never saw service in NG/S, and the Ki-61 was used instead). Had the best power/weight ratio and acceleration of any Japanese fighter, and would run up the exhaust stacks of a P-40 in the early stages of a dive.
It just wasnt liked much by old school IJA pilots because it wasn't as manuverable at low speeds as the Ki-27 or Ki-43. Too bad them, and very good for the U.S.
^ was the A-36A really *that* slow? I am surprised. >
-
Hi MC,
>I would not call the 200 to 400mph range "the fringe of the envelope"
So what? I wouldn't call a roll rate advantage "great superiority" either.
>It doesn't take combat experience to know your own airplane, nor
that of your enemies. This information was handed to us on a silver
platter by Chennault.
Neither the US Navy nor the USAAF were influenced by Chennault's findings, and the superiority of the Zero in the early part of the war is a historic reality.
The Luftwaffe had learned the lessons from the Spanish Civil War, but the Flying Tigers were far from being the USAAF's Legion Condor.
Had the US services adopted the Tigers' tactics in time, the Zero might not have gained the fabulous reputation it enjoys today - but that's idle speculation. The Japanese had the weapon and the matching tactics, the US forces did not.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
The ability to engage and disengage at will is the greatest advantage a pilot can have. I totally agree that the P40 has certain advantages over the Zero.
-
Silo said:
This contemporary of the P-40 seems to have been left out. The AVG fought these too.
Ki-44-II
Maximum speed 376 mph at 17,060 feet. An altitude of 16,405 feet could be reached in 4 min 17 sec. Service ceiling was 36,745 feet
^This IMO was the best "combat" fighter in the Japanese inventory early in the US conflict.
Its biggest strike against it was poor range (which is probably why it never saw service in NG/S, and the Ki-61 was used instead). Had the best power/weight ratio and acceleration of any Japanese fighter, and would run up the exhaust stacks of a P-40 in the early stages of a dive.
It just wasnt liked much by old school IJA pilots because it wasn't as manuverable at low speeds as the Ki-27 or Ki-43. Too bad them, and very good for the U.S.
^ was the A-36A really *that* slow? I am surprised.
End Quote
It's a nice pick for a mid war IJA bird.
The edge on guns would go to the P-40, but not by much, speed to the Ki44 by 15mph, climb by more. Roll to P-40 by about 15-20% (from what I remember).
First in combat in mid '42?
--------------------
Sil
-
Hi there, you (HoHun) said:
So what? I wouldn't call a roll rate advantage "great superiority" either.
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.
Quote from HoHun:
Neither the US Navy nor the USAAF were influenced by Chennault's findings, and the superiority of the Zero in the early part of the war is a historic reality.
SNIP
Had the US services adopted the Tigers' tactics in time, the Zero might not have gained the fabulous reputation it enjoys today - but that's idle speculation. The Japanese had the weapon and the matching tactics, the US forces did not.
End Quote
Faults of brass are not the fault of the bird. That lack of action on information is why I added the :(
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
My best )
M.C.202
( I love to jabber about the aircraft, and the people that flew them)
-
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)
-
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 :D and I might be wrong. So dont hate me :rolleyes:
-
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 :D , 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,
-
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)
-
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.
-
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.