While the Dewoitine D.520 was technically superior in most performance analyses, the Hawks had the best combat record.
To be fair, the D.520 was pretty much brand new at that time, and only a handful were available. So I'd bet my next paycheck the Hawk pilots were better trained on their aircraft.
While the Dewoitine D.520 was technically superior in most performance analyses, the Hawks had the best combat record.
To be fair, the D.520 was pretty much brand new at that time, and only a handful were available. So I'd bet my next paycheck the Hawk pilots were better trained on their aircraft.
Eric Brown (British test pilot who flew pretty much every aircraft made during ww2), said that the D.520 was not a very good aircraft to fly.
“It was a nasty little brute. Looked beautiful but didn't fly beautifully. Once you get it on the ground, I was told not to leave the controls until it was in the hangar and the engine stopped. You could be taxiing toward the hangar and sit back when suddenly it would go in a right angle.”
So yeah there's that.
While the Dewoitine D.520 was technically superior in most performance analyses, the Hawks had the best combat record.
To be fair, the D.520 was pretty much brand new at that time, and only a handful were available. So I'd bet my next paycheck the Hawk pilots were better trained on their aircraft.
It's not just the training involved. The real issue with the D.520 (and every airplane in French service in 1940) was that maintenance was a disaster. Many of the planes were missing important parts when they were shipped to their squadrons. Some didn't even have guns in them. So, operationally, the Hawks were better positioned to fight than were the MS. 406s and D.520s. That being said, the Hawk could out-turn the 109, and the D.520 couldn't. Plus the Hawk was known for being a very fast aircraft in the dive which was hugely advantageous. Also, the P-36, while slower than the 109, was only about 30km/h slower at the peak altitude of the P-36 (which was only 3000m). This would have been much more disadvantageous in the Battle of Britain, where engagements were happening at 6-8km of altitude, but the Battle of France, like the Eastern Front, was tactical, with the 109s primarily flying in support of ground troops, protecting Stukas and running fighter sweeps. The result was a lower combat altitude which put the P-36 in the place of least possible disadvantage. These factors combined go a long way towards explaining why the Hawk performed so much better in France than it did elsewhere, and also why one-third of all French Armee de l'Air victories were scored with this type.
While the Dewoitine D.520 was technically superior in most performance analyses, the Hawks had the best combat record.
To be fair, the D.520 was pretty much brand new at that time, and only a handful were available. So I'd bet my next paycheck the Hawk pilots were better trained on their aircraft.
Eric Brown (British test pilot who flew pretty much every aircraft made during ww2), said that the D.520 was not a very good aircraft to fly.
“It was a nasty little brute. Looked beautiful but didn't fly beautifully. Once you get it on the ground, I was told not to leave the controls until it was in the hangar and the engine stopped. You could be taxiing toward the hangar and sit back when suddenly it would go in a right angle.”
So yeah there's that.
Raw performance and ease of flight are two very different animals. The P-36, by comparison, was beloved by its pilots in the US. They were sad to switch to P-40s which weren't so beautiful to fly.
Raw performance and ease of flight are two very different animals. The P-36, by comparison, was beloved by its pilots in the US. They were sad to switch to P-40s which weren't so beautiful to fly.
I'm a historian, not a flight expert, so obviously I don't know as much about specific capabilities of aircraft, but the P-40 seems to get a lot of hate even though it served admirably against all kinds of foes on nearly every front. I don't think that there was a type of aircraft that the P-40 didn't engage and defeat at some point, possibly the FW 190, which is probably for the best.
My point is that from a historical standpoint the P 40 was an excellent aircraft that made a major contribution to allied victory, even if it gets a bad rap from its pilots. Also it was the mainstay fighter of my own nations air force until we replaced it with corsairs, so maybe I'm a little biased towards it.
Raw performance and ease of flight are two very different animals. The P-36, by comparison, was beloved by its pilots in the US. They were sad to switch to P-40s which weren't so beautiful to fly.
I'm a historian, not a flight expert, so obviously I don't know as much about specific capabilities of aircraft, but the P-40 seems to get a lot of hate even though it served admirably against all kinds of foes on nearly every front. I don't think that there was a type of aircraft that the P-40 didn't engage and defeat at some point, possibly the FW 190, which is probably for the best.
My point is that from a historical standpoint the P 40 was an excellent aircraft that made a major contribution to allied victory, even if it gets a bad rap from its pilots. Also it was the mainstay fighter of my own nations air force until we replaced it with corsairs, so maybe I'm a little biased towards it.
Which nation would that be?
As to your assessment of the P-40, you're spot-on. It was a good plane, but it was also a compromise. The trouble was, the US was behind in the race to build quality aircraft. We weren't prepared for WWII. The P-38 was having major teething troubles, the P-39 wasn't yet in production, so a stopgap was needed, and that was the P-40 - basically an inline engine thrown onto an existing airframe. As a compromise, it turned out to be a good one. The Allison engine, while not providing great high altitude performance, did give the P-40 a major speed boost over the P-36. It lost out in its rate of climb and its horizontal maneuverability however, but in fighter combat, speed is life.
So, the P-40 was then manufactured in large numbers both to bulk up US forces as the war broke out, but also to be sent to allied nations. It made a strong showing in the China-Burma-India theater against the Japanese in the hands of first the American Volunteer Group, and then in the hands of the US Army Air Forces. They were able to use boom and zoom tactics to take out the Japanese - something they wouldn't have been able to do with the P-36 Hawk. The Zero is better than the Hawk in every way except durability. But the Zero is not as fast as a P-40, and nowhere near as fast in a dive. This gave the Americans one advantage, and one advantage was all they needed. They were able to use hit and run tactics to kill Japanese Ki-43 Hayabusas (primarily, though later Zeroes as well) for few losses in return.
The P-40 was also sent to service with the Australians and the British, and it served admirably in North Africa. A P-40E Kittyhawk (going by British nomenclature) is roughly equal at the low altitudes flown in the desert to a 109F. The P-40 had a slower rate of climb, but was faster in the dive, it had a lower ceiling and was overall slower, but it was the 109's superior in horizontal maneuverability. This enabled it to hold its own. Similar things could be said about the earlier Tomahawk in terms of its performance against the 109E. The P-40 also served well against its Italian opponents, being more than a match for the Fiat G.50 and Macchi Mc.200 Saetta, though the new Mc.202 Folgore gave the P-40 a run for its money, but by that time most Commonwealth units were flying Spitfire Vs.
So, all in all, the P-40 did its job. It held back the tide of the Axis advance long enough for newer and better fighters to be developed like the P-38 (ironically begun before the P-40), P-39 (everyone hates on it, but it did stellar service in the USSR), P-47, and P-51, as well as various British and Soviet designs.
Edited by NightshrikeI'm from New Zealand, also we should probably make a thread in off topic about real life aviation, even though no one uses off topic.
I'm from New Zealand, also we should probably make a thread in off topic about real life aviation, even though no one uses off topic.
Ah! Should have realized that. I've always wanted to go there. I love birds, and you've got so many amazing ones there. That and I think Maori culture is fascinating. If NZ ever makes its own jet fighter, I hope they name it the Karearea. That or the Kea, those things can be nasty if you're a sheep.
I'm from New Zealand, also we should probably make a thread in off topic about real life aviation, even though no one uses off topic.
Ah! Should have realized that. I've always wanted to go there. I love birds, and you've got so many amazing ones there. That and I think Maori culture is fascinating. If NZ ever makes its own jet fighter, I hope they name it the Karearea. That or the Kea, those things can be nasty if you're a sheep.
Yeah Kia's are pretty cool, they can destroy unattended cars just because they're curious about what's inside the big metal thing.
We did do a pretty sweet upgrade to our A-4 skyhawks called Project Kahu, which is a name for a species of harrier hawk, but I think there's a lot more potential in our bird names that is untapped.
Right, the largest harrier in the world and the only one used in the sport of falconry with any regularity - very cool! I really, really, really want a pet Kea, though I know it's all kinds of illegal and bad idea. They're so cute.