The fight between a P40 in the horizontal plane and an attacking Me109 in the vertical is not an equal contest if the 109 has an altitude advantage. The 109 is not forced into a series of HOs but has the option to time the manouvre to approach the P40 from the high 5-7 - the high or lo yoyo. In this scenario s defending P40 would be lucky and very well flown to attain a HO. If the 109 and P40 approach each other on equal terms the 109 has the option to climb away - and attack with an altitude advantage I don't think the energy tactics as described by Shaw were a "passing fad" They aren't that different to the advice given in wartime fightign notes by the AFDU -r even these notes by Finnish Colonel Wind http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/WW2History-CaptainWindsAirCombatTacticsLecture.html I agree that not everything can be explained in terms of mechanics. The advice to turn and face may be based on the based on the moral compnant of fighting power - psychological advantage of forcing the enemy to face someone who can shoot at them, even if the mechanics say its a tactic which should lose.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/me109g6-tactical.html not quite on topic but intresting. there is only one refrence to the spitfire being a MK9 in the first test. that would make it the two stage turbo charged unit
This report was made some time in 1944. There were two marks of Spitfire in the tests. The Mk IX, the main variant from mid 1942 and the Mk XIV introduced as the new RAF main high altitude fighter. The Me109G was introduced in mid 1942 and roughly comparable to the Spit Mk IX.
P-39s weren't used in North Africa? They seemed to be fast or faster than the P40s, and held their ground against Zeros in lower altitudes.
Yes, they were flown by the 81st & 350th Fighter Groups and two squadrons of the 68th Reconnaissance Group. The Tuskegee Airmen also flew them for a brief period of time. The only real success the P-39 found was in the hands of the Soviet Union were it performed very well.
In that essay posted about the air war from Operation Torch on, it says the US only used P40s and Wildcats. It doesn't mention P39s at all.
Didn't read it all, but by the gist of the title, it seems concerned with the actual invasion. The P-39s were reinforcements to Torch & were flown over after the invasion had succeeded. On the flights over several P-39s wound up in Portugal because of mechanical problems or weather. http://www.oocities.org/tavaresl.geo/airacobra.htm
According to Chuckhawks.com The P-40 could out-roll and out-dive a Zero, and was faster, but less maneuverable.
Later P-40 models also had excellent dive acceleration and dive speed, excellent high-speed maneuverability, good roll-rate, and could absorb punishment.
From everything I read, for what the P-40s and P-39s were designed for, they excelled. They single-stage, single-speed supercharger gave it poorer high altitude performance, but at low and medium altitudes, as it was intended to be used or, they were good fighters, and held their own or outclassed their opponents at those altitudes.
Was it lack of military funding or strategical vision that held down the early fighters? Even the P38 lacked a good high altitude supercharger.
Does anyone know why the manufacturers didn't include a second stage supercharger for higher altitude when all the other European fighters had one? The P39 could hold its own and sometimes out perform the BF 109 and FW190 at low to medium altitudes, but once they got higher that was it, until later models made some improvements.
Cactus Air Force too. They liked using them for ground attack with, I think, 500 lb pounds, according to the book I read. That seems pretty heavy though. They wanted more P-39s and P-400s but none were available. The SOP was for them to leave the area if any fighters showed up. Can't remember where I read that but it might have been Guadalcanal Diary.
I think there were problems making an effective supercharger for the Allison engine. They made one work for the P38, but the supercharger took up a lot of space. Nor was it as good at high altitudes as the P47, or the Merlin engines optimised for high altitude in the P51 and Spitfire.
Yea, they removed it from the P-39 because it interfered aerodynamically with the design, so it must have been cumbersome.
P-38 was designed from the start as an interceptor. I think the P-40 was more of a dog fighter design. I suspect the P-39 was as well but that's speculation.