How good a plane was the P-40, really?

[NTGray]

I used to think that the P-40 was basically a mediocre plane that could get good results in the hands of exceptional pilots like the Flying Tigers, but I have been revising my opinion upward in recent years. Note the assessment given in Wikipedia:

Although it gained a postwar reputation as a mediocre design, suitable only for close air support, more recent research including scrutiny of the records of Allied squadrons indicates that this was not the case; the P-40 performed surprisingly well as an air superiority fighter, at times suffering severe losses, but also inflicting a very heavy toll on enemy aircraft. Based on war-time victory claims, over 200 Allied fighter pilots—from the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, South Africa, the US, and the Soviet Union—became aces flying the P-40.

Given that more P-40s were produced than any other American army or navy fighter other than the P-47 and P-51, it would seem that the people in charge had a high opinion of the plane at the time.

Your thoughts?

 

[pbehn]

I used to think that the P-40 was basically a mediocre plane that could get good results in the hands of exceptional pilots like the Flying Tigers, but I have been revising my opinion upward in recent years. Note the assessment given in Wikipedia:



Given that more P-40s were produced than any other American army or navy fighter other than the P-47 and P-51, it would seem that the people in charge had a high opinion of the plane at the time.

Your thoughts?

It is like the UK Hurricane, later fighters may have been superior, questions would b asked if they werent. Historically the P-40 deserves credit for being there, wherever "there" was.

 

[GregP]

I think the P-40 was a pretty decent fighter for the time it was developed. Later fighters were better but, as suggested above, they darn well SHOULD have been since they were designed to BE better.

The P-40 rolled very well, better than later designs.
It climbed decently at low altitudes, on the order of 3,000 fpm.
It had the same armament as the P-51 / F6F, so the guns weren't a negative.
It was limited to about 15,000 feet as a fighter. Could reach the 30,000 feet, but wasn't really performing well there.
Turned well. Not like a A6M, but pretty well.

Main disadvantages were:
1) Restricted to low altitudes. About 15-16,000 feet as a fighter.
2) Not very fast. You had to work to get it faster than 320 mph.
3) Relatively short range ... 850 miles. That means about 350 mile radius if you want some reserve fuel.
4) Relatively poor initial pilot training with regards to combat-readiness.

Main Advantages:
1) Rugged and available.
2) The engine was very reliable.
3) Was available in some numbers early.

Possible:
Had they built the P-40Q, it wouldn't have been a P-51D, but it WOULD have been head and shoulders better than the regular P-40 in the theaters where the P-40 was being used a a primary aircraft.

 

[tomo pauk]

Good fighter when used under 15000 ft.
It was let down by requiring to carry ever more firepower and protection while receiving crumbs wrt. engine update.

 

[Deleted member 68059]

I used to think that the P-40 was basically a mediocre plane that could get good results in the hands of exceptional pilots like the Flying Tigers, but I have been revising my opinion upward in recent years. Note the assessment given in Wikipedia:



Given that more P-40s were produced than any other American army or navy fighter other than the P-47 and P-51, it would seem that the people in charge had a high opinion of the plane at the time.

Your thoughts?

It was described as obsolete by about the mid point of WW2 by the USAAF itself, when short of advanced trainers they instead used what they called QUOTE: "obsolete types" to stand in for them, one of which on this list was the P-40.

Things moved so fast you need to specify a year really, in very early 1940 a Hurricane was very decent, by mid 1941 they were trying to work out what on earth to do with them.

 

[varsity07840]

I think the P-40 was a pretty decent fighter for the time it was developed. Later fighters were better but, as suggested above, they darn well SHOULD have been since they were designed to BE better.

The P-40 rolled very well, better than later designs.
It climbed decently at low altitudes, on the order of 3,000 fpm.
It had the same armament as the P-51 / FF, so the guns weren't a negative.
It was limited to about 15,000 feet as a fighter. Could reach the 30,000 feet, but wasn't really performing well there.
Turned well. Not like a A6M, but pretty well.

Main disadvantages were:
1) Restricted to low altitudes. About 15-16,000 feet as a fighter.
2) Not very fast. You had to work to get it faster than 320 mph.
3) Relatively short range ... 850 miles. That means about 350 mile radius if you want some reserve fuel.
4) Relatively poor initial pilot training with regards to combat-readiness.

Main Advantages:
1) Rugged and available.
2) The engine was very reliable.
3) Was available in some numbers early.

Possible:
Had they built the P-40Q, it wouldn't have been a P-51D, but it WOULD have been head and shoulders better than the regular P-40 in the theaters where the P-40 was being used a a primary aircraft.

The only model that could get close to 3,000 FPM in a climb at low altitude was the original P-40, no suffix, which pre dated the P-40B.

 

[Juha3]

Some say that the main advantage the P-40 had in the later war years was the good connections which the Curtiss Corp had with the Congress

 

[GrauGeist]

The P-40's legacy can be seen by the fact that it was one of the only fighters to serve in every single theater of war - ETO, MTO, Eastern Front, Aluetians, PTO and CBI.
It was even used by the Japanese in 1943 for the defense of Rangoon (50th Hiko Sentai).

 

[special ed]

Of course, I have no proof, however I believe the P-40 (and versions) was the WW2 era fighter flown by more pilots worldwide than any other fighter. Most or many USAAF pilots had hours in a P-40. Chinese pilots, some German & Japanese pilots, Russian pilots, UK pilots, Dutch pilots as well as civilian pilots, then & now. My 9th grade history teacher flew P-40s and never left the USA. How many others flew P-40s in the US but never left the country?

 

[pbehn]

Of course, I have no proof, however I believe the P-40 (and versions) was the WW2 era fighter flown by more pilots worldwide than any other fighter. Most or many USAAF pilots had hours in a P-40. Chinese pilots, some German & Japanese pilots, Russian pilots, UK pilots, Dutch pilots as well as civilian pilots, then & now. My 9th grade history teacher flew P-40s and never left the USA. How many others flew P-40s in the US but never left the country?

When you are building up an air force you need aircraft to build it with, if the P-40 didnt exist, what else was there, prior to the new designs that started to arrive from late 1942 onwards?

 

[GrauGeist]

There was the P-39, you know.

 

[33k in the air]

There was the P-39, you know.

[Emilia Clarke voice] Best fighter ever! [/Emilia Clarke voice]

 

[J.A.W.]

[Emilia Clarke voice] Best fighter ever! [/Emilia Clarke voice]

To be fair, the much-maligned P-39 was very much a 'good pilot's aircraft'* - if somewhat limited in its roles.

Certainly, some ultra-harsh & very experienced critics praised it as a flying machine - from Soviet aces so usually scathing
about 'capitalist' fighters (even if giving the Bell bird Kudos was against 'the Party Line') - to blunt ol' Chuck Yeager...

* That is to mean, an aircraft for real good pilots, & not a 'pilot friendly' fighter.

 

[Shortround6]

The only model that could get close to 3,000 FPM in a climb at low altitude was the original P-40, no suffix, which pre dated the P-40B.

A lot of the later ones could manage 3000fpm or even close to 3500fpm. HOWEVER, only over narrow band of altitude.

Using 57-60in of MAP (depending on version of engine) but the fall off from 10,000ft to 15,000ft was enormous.

And again, peak climbing speeds were done at around 150-160mph IAS so if the plane was doing 250mph IAS there was a lot less power to climb with.

And again, for all the tales of 70in MAP that was at just about sea level and the plane would loose about 2.25in of MAP for every 1000ft of altitude.
This is for the planes with the 8.80 supercharger gears

 

[PAT303]

The P-40's legacy can be seen by the fact that it was one of the only fighters to serve in every single theater of war - ETO, MTO, Eastern Front, Aluetians, PTO and CBI.
It was even used by the Japanese in 1943 for the defense of Rangoon (50th Hiko Sentai).

Was it you who made that brilliant comment about the P40, the aircraft equivalent of the Willy's Jeep?.

 

[GrauGeist]

Was it you who made that brilliant comment about the P40, the aircraft equivalent of the Willy's Jeep?.

Yessir, some time back.

 

[J.A.W.]

Was it you who made that brilliant comment about the P40, the aircraft equivalent of the Willy's Jeep?.

I have to say, I recently watched a small town airshow, & was most impressed at how the P-40 performed in the hands of an expert,
some of the manoeuvres (probably a bit naughty, but no CAA present to ground him) were almost frightening (no hyperbole*)...

* & no Allison horses were spared either, it was screeching!

 

[Shortround6]

Amazing what a warbird can do when operating at over 1000lbs less weight.
Modern fuel cells, less armor, no ammo (423lbs for 1410 rounds) and less than full fuel tanks?

 

[J.A.W.]

Amazing what a warbird can do when operating at over 1000lbs less weight.
Modern fuel cells, less armor, no ammo (423lbs for 1410 rounds) and less than full fuel tanks?

Yeah, like how many 'pick up' drivers never really carry a load, so they think they've got a muscle truck?

(Ok that was being a bit unkind to the P-40, it was flown real hard, but so neatly, the mark of a pro).

 

[PAT303]

Yessir, some time back.

One of the best comments I've ever read on here.