Paper comparing the flight performance of the P-40E Warhawk and the A6M2 Zero

[Holtzauge]

Attached below are some figures from a paper that can be downloaded from my website, and which compares the flight performance of the Mitsubishi A6M2 Zero and the Curtiss P-40E Warhawk.

The paper mostly confirms what is today regarded as common knowledge, i.e. that the Zero was the more agile fighter that climbed and turned better, while the Warhawk was faster and dived better.

However, what the paper adds to the table is that it puts actual numbers on these differences, and provides an idea about just how large or small these were at various heights and flight conditions.

In addition, while the P-40E had its official maximum performance numbers constrained by an officially sanctioned War Emergency Power limit, pilots soon discovered that this limit could be exceeded by a substantial margin with no apparent ill effects, and which meant that the Warhawk could actually climb and fly much faster than what was stated in the official flight manual, something that is also discussed in the paper.

In putting this paper together, I have of course had to make assumptions about both aircraft's basic data and also leaned on some historical sources for reference. Inevitably, there may therefore be things that could benefit by being worked over some more, and any constructive feedback is therefore most welcome.

But with all of that having been said and done, hopefully this paper will anyway bring some new insights into how these two aircraft compared in terms of flight performance.

 

[BlitzPig_EL]

I'm sure you have seen the letter sent by Allison to the USAAF about P40 operators in the Pacific and North Africa re-gearing the superchargers and running the V1710 to 72 inches of manifold at low levels with no reliability issues.

[Holtzauge]

Isn't that the one I attached at the end of the paper or is there another one?

One thing about going up to the 72" boost though, is that it only helps very close to the ground: You can see it in the speed and climb figures posted in the OP. And while I have not simulated it, I'm sure the resulting figures would be impressive, like maybe 600 km/h at SL and a FTH speed of say 610-620 km/h, coupled with a SL climb rate of maybe 19.5 m/s.

But the problem is that these numbers would drop off rapidly as soon as you start to climb. But for sure, if you are chasing something at SL or trying to shake a Zero, a 60-72" boosted P-40E would be like a dragster compared to a Volkswagen Zero down low. 

Edited November 29 by Holtzauge

[BlitzPig_EL]

My mistake was not going to the link.  Apologies.  

As I recall from a discussion about the Allison letter back in old IL2, the estimates put the output of the V1710 at 1800bhp plus or minus.

Would be handy indeed to run away from a sticky situation. 

Thanks for the work on this.  I hope we see a P40 at some point in CP.

 

Edited November 28 by BlitzPig_EL

[Trooper117]

13 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

I hope we see a P40 at some point in CP.

 

Right on, and the P-39/P-400...