# Most 'Underrated' Aircraft of WW2?



## amrit (Apr 18, 2007)

Following from the excellent question posed by Lucky13, I'd like to know what aircraft people think has received a raw deal.

A number of the polls here have argued over the worst aircraft, sometimes basing their views on dated information, or information passed down from those with prejudiced views during the war.

For me it has to be the Buffalo and P-36 Mohawk.

The Buffalo because of its excellent service for the Finns, and the fact that it did actually provide a commendable stop-gap service in Singapore (after reading Buffalos over Singapore) I really admire the pilots and the aircraft for what they achieved DESPITE all the difficulties. Most of the negative views seem to be based on Midway being extrapolated across the board.

And the same for the Mohawk (over Burma it did sterling service, despite the circumstances).

There must be other aircraft that look cr*p on paper but then turned out to have achieved more than one could expect.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 18, 2007)

Good one Amrit and I agree about the Mohawk - I would also throw the Hurricane in there as well.


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 18, 2007)

Brewster Buffalo maybe? Flown by the Finns they scored quite a few kills.....

"In Finland, the Brewsters enjoyed their greatest success. The planes did not arrive in time for the Winter War, but their impact in the Continuation War was remarkable. The plane was never referred to as the Buffalo in Finland; it was known simply as the Brewster, or sometimes by the nickname Taivaan helmi ("Sky Pearl") or Pohjoisten taivaiden helmi ("Pearl of the Northern Skies"). The 44 Brewsters used by the FAF received the serial numbers BW-351 to BW-394. Other nicknames were Pylly-Valtteri ("Butt-Walter"), Amerikanrauta ("American hardware" or "American car") and Lentävä kaljapullo ("flying beer-bottle"). It appears the workmanship of the Finnish airframes was also better than those produced later; this was a common phenomenon as the aircraft factories were manned by an unskilled work force after the start of World War II.


Brewster XF2A-1 prototype, similar to the F2A-1 sold to the Finnish Air ForceThe Brewster was regarded as being very easy to fly and many Finnish pilots commented that it was a "gentleman's plane" while the Messerschmitt Bf 109 (also used by the FAF) was "a killing machine." Brewsters were also popular within the FAF because of their long range and endurance, and their good maintenance record. This was due in part to FAF mechanics, who solved a problem plaguing the Wright Cyclone engine by inverting one of the piston rings in each cylinder, thus enhancing the engine reliability.

In the end, the Brewster gained a reputation as one of the most successful fighting aircraft ever flown by the Finnish Air Force. In service during 1941-1945, the Brewsters were credited with 496 Soviet and German aircraft destroyed, against the loss of 19 Brewsters: a victory ratio of 26:1. However, the substantiation of this claim on German and Soviet records is so far incomplete, and all claims have not been managed to be connected on actual losses (as of 2006).

During the Continuation War, Lentolaivue 24 (Fighter Squadron 24) was equipped with the B-239s until May 1944, when the Brewsters were transferred to Hävittäjälentolaivue 26 (Fighter Squadron 26). Most of the pilots of Lentolaivue 24 were Winter War combat veterans and the squadron achieved total of 459 kills with B-239s, while losing 15 Brewsters in combat. For example, between 25 June 1941 and 31 December 1941, LeLv 24 scored 135 kills with Brewsters at a cost of two pilots and two Brewster Buffaloes.

The top-scoring Buffalo pilot was Hans Wind, with 39 kills in B-239s. Wind scored 26 of his kills while flying BW-393 and Eino Luukkanen scored seven more kills with the same plane. BW-393 is credited with 41 kills in total, possibly making it the fighter aircraft with the greatest number of victories in the history of air warfare.

The top scoring Finnish ace, Ilmari Juutilainen, scored 34 of his 94 and one-half kills while flying B-239s, including 28 kills with BW-364.

Although the Buffalo was clearly obsolete in 1944, barely holding its own against Soviet fighters, with most airframes worn out, LeLv 26 pilots still scored some 35 victories against the Soviets in the summer of 1944. The last aerial victory by a Brewster against the Soviet Union was scored over the Karelian Isthmus on 17 June 1944. After Finland agreed to a truce, it was obliged to turn against its former ally, Germany, and a Brewster pilot, Lt Erik Teromaa (11 kills), claimed a Luftwaffe Stuka on October 3, 1944, during the Lapland War.

There were many other modifications to the B-239 that were made locally in Finland during its career. Some of these were the installation of pilot seat armor and replacing the single 0.30 in (7.62 mm) machine gun with a 0.50 in (12.7 mm) machine gun. By 1943, all except one Finnish B-239 had four 0.50" machine guns. The wing guns had 400 rounds and fuselage guns 200 rounds each. The 0.30 in (7.62 mm) had 600 rounds. In spring 1941, before reflector sights — the Finnish Väisälä T.h.m.40 sights, which were based on the Revi 3c — were installed, metric instruments were installed.

During the war, Finnish designers devised a new aircraft, the Humu based on the Brewster Buffalo, but domestically produced from cheaper materials such as plywood. Only a single prototype was built, as the plane was clearly obsolete in 1943 and deliveries of Messerschmitt Bf 109s filled the needs of fighter squadrons.

The last flight made by the Buffalo in Finnish service was on 14 September 1948. Besides the Humu prototype, the hood and fin (with 41 kills) of BW-393 survive in a museum. The BW-372 is displayed today in NAS Pensacola's aviation museum, restored in Finnish colours."

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 18, 2007)

Hmm the 3 that I think are the most underated are the Bf 109, Buffalo and Hurricane.


----------



## Glider (Apr 18, 2007)

The A20 Havoc or Boston never gets the credit for what it achieved from the early days of the war until the end. 
When thinking of light bombers, the USA tend to think of the B25 or B26, the British the Mossie, the Russians the IL2 or Pe2, but all used the A20 to great effect.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Civettone (Apr 18, 2007)

I feel the A-20, P-39 and Hurricane are underrated. But it's still rather positive because these belonged to the winning side.
The story is quite different for the Italian or German aircraft. For Germany alone, I have the Me 163, Ba 349, Bf 110C, He 111H, Ju 87, Bf 109G and He 177 to think off.

If this was a poll I would go for the Komet.
Kris


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 18, 2007)

A-20, P-40, P-47 (for some), Hurricane, Several late war fighters from Italy.


----------



## Civettone (Apr 18, 2007)

Hunter, why the P-40?

Kris


----------



## timshatz (Apr 18, 2007)

Hunter368 said:


> Several late war fighters from Italy.



Agree with that one. The last of the Italian fighters were very good. 

Toss in the Lagg 5 and Lagg 7. Never hear about them in the west but they were great birds.


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 18, 2007)

Civettone said:


> Hunter, why the P-40?
> 
> Kris



P-40 did a very nice job in the Pacific and China. Most people think or thought the P-40 was a piece of crap.

It was surprisingly a decent plane.....at the time. It was never a top performer but it did perform better then most people give it credit for.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Apr 18, 2007)

Civettone said:


> I feel the A-20, P-39 and Hurricane are underrated. But it's still rather positive because these belonged to the winning side.
> The story is quite different for the Italian or German aircraft. For Germany alone, I have the Me 163, Ba 349, Bf 110C, He 111H, Ju 87, Bf 109G and He 177 to think off.
> 
> If this was a poll I would go for the Komet.
> Kris



The German plane that I would go for isn't on your list, the Do217, in my mind second only to the Mossie as a medium bomber, well ahead of the B25 B26 and Pe2 in my book.
It was active in all parts of the world, could hold its own against the best planes that were put against it, plus it was one of the first planes to use guided weapons with some significant results. But no one ever seems to give it the credit it deserves.


----------



## phouse (Apr 18, 2007)

I believe the Do-217 certainly belongs in the top 5 of most under-rated aircraft of WW2.


----------



## grwhyte (Apr 18, 2007)

I would like to submit the British Wellington bomber. It was well constructed could take a great beating and keep on going. As well it could carry a fairly heavy bomb load for a bomber of the early part of the war.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Civettone (Apr 18, 2007)

Well, I wasn't aware that the Do 217 is considered a bad aircraft. It's a damn good bomber with good armament, speed and bomb load. It could also carry Hs 293s and Fritz-Xs. 
So I wouldn't consider it underrated. But perhaps it depends on what you've read about it. 

I know that the Do 17 is considered a rather bad bomber although it performed very well until taken out of service. 
Kris


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 18, 2007)

Wasn't the Do 217 too heavy to be a succesful nightfighter??

Do 217J, K, M and N was just so so for what I've heard. But, I could of course be wrong....


----------



## grwhyte (Apr 18, 2007)

When thinking of heavy night fighters I think that the p-61 blackwidow would be just as heavy as the Do 217 and that did very well out in the Pacific


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 18, 2007)

Like her namesake, she had a real sting....


----------



## grwhyte (Apr 18, 2007)

you can say that again radar, 4 20mm cannons, 4 .50 cals. plus rockets and bombs. I wouldn't want to get caught in her web.


----------



## amrit (Apr 18, 2007)

Planes that have gotten a raw historical deal - in no particular order:

Buffalo
P-36 Mohawk
A-20 Havoc/Boston
P-40
P-47
P-61 BlackWidow
Hurricane
Wellington
Me 109
Me 109G
Me163
Me110C
Do17
Do217
JU87
He111H
He177
Ba349
"Other late Italian fighters"
Lagg 5
Lagg 7
Vultee Vengeance
*Will update this list as other aircraft are listed*


----------



## Civettone (Apr 18, 2007)

Too heavy, too slow, and not easy to fly. It was too much of a conventional bomber.

The P-61 did well in the Pacific? I can imagine, given their opposition. In Europe, the P-61 was rather a disappointment. Moderator Erich likes to mention how they completely failed to intercept the Stukas.

Kris


----------



## grwhyte (Apr 18, 2007)

OK I see that the focus has been mostly on the E.T.O. Let's move on and see what the Pacific has to offer. Shall we see if the Pacific has anything to offer. May I suggest the Japenese Tony fighter. fast, nimble, average firepower.


----------



## amrit (Apr 18, 2007)

The Vultee Vengeance was another aircraft that proved itself worthy of acclaim but has been denegrated as unsuccessful. It performed brilliantly in Burma.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Civettone (Apr 18, 2007)

Perhaps the Ki-45? A bit the Bf 110 story, not a good fighter but overall a good and versatile airplane.

Kris


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 18, 2007)

How about the Halifax...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 18, 2007)

amrit said:


> Planes that have gotten a raw historical deal - in no particular order:
> 
> Buffalo
> P-36 Mohawk
> ...


And then I'll put it into a poll.


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 19, 2007)

*Crew training and competition from the Mosquito*
Crew training and competition from the Mosquito
Training of P-61 crews commenced in a variety of ways. Several existing night fighter squadrons operating in the Mediterranean and Pacific Theatres were to transition directly into the P-61 from Bristol Beaufighters and Douglas P-70s, though most P-61 crews were to be made up of new recruits operating in newly commissioned squadrons. After receiving flight, gunnery or radar training in bases around the U.S., the pilots, gunners and radar operators were finally combined and received their P-61 operational training in Florida for transfer to the European Theatre or California for operations in the Pacific Theatre.

The 422nd Night Fighter Squadron was the first squadron to complete their training in Florida and, in February 1944, the squadron was shipped to England aboard the Mauritania. The 425th NFS was soon to follow aboard the Queen Elizabeth.

Upon arrival in England, the two squadrons found they were without any aircraft. The crews passed the time by flying the base's Airspeed Oxford and Cessna C-87, as well as visits to local towns and occasionally to London.

The situation deteriorated in May 1944 when the squadrons learned that several USAAF Generals believed the P-61 was too slow to effectively engage in combat with German fighters and medium bombers. The RAF shared this view, based on a single P-61 they had received in early May. The RAF championed switching to their De Havilland Mosquito Mk XVI. Several pilots in the 422nd NFS threatened to turn in their wings if they weren't permitted to fly the "Black Widow." At the end of May, the USAAF insisted on a competition between the Mosquito and the P-61 for operation in the European Theatre. RAF crews flew the Mosquito Mk XVI while crews from the 422nd NFS flew the P-61. In the end the USAAF determined that the P-61 had a slightly better rate of climb, and could turn tighter than the Mosquito. The RAF disputed these claims and continued to push for the use of the Mosquito but the P-61 was considered the victor. In later tests conducted by the manufacturers, the two aircraft were actually found to be very similar in performance with no clear advantage for either aircraft. 


*WWII service*

P-61 in support of D-Day, 1944.The 6th NFS based on Guadalcanal received their first P-61s in early June, 1944. The aircraft were quickly assembled and underwent flight testing as the pilots transitioned from the squadron's aging P-70s. The first operational P-61 mission occurred on June 25. On June 30, 1944, the P-61 scored its first kill when a Japanese G4M Betty bomber was shot down.

In England, the 422nd NFS finally received their first P-61s in late June, and began flying operational missions over England in mid-July. These aircraft arrived without the dorsal turrets so the squadrons' gunners were reassigned to another NFS that was to continue flying the P-70. The first P-61 engagement in the European Theatre occurred on July 15 when a P-61 piloted by Lt. Herman Ernst was directed to intercept a V-1 "Buzz Bomb". Diving from above and behind to match the V-1's 350 mph speed, the P-61's plastic rear cone imploded under the pressure and the attack was aborted. The tail cones would fail on several early P-61A models before this problem was corrected. On July 16, Lt. Ernst was again directed to attack a V-1 and, this time, was successful, giving the 422nd NFS and the European Theatre its first P-61 kill.

Throughout the summer of 1944, P-61s operating in the Pacific Theatre would see sporadic action against Japanese aircraft. Most missions ended with no enemy aircraft sighted, but when the enemy was detected they were often in groups, with the attack resulting in multiple kills for that pilot and radar operator, who would jointly receive credit for the kill. Since pilots and radar operators did not always fly as a team, the kills of the pilot and radar operator were often different. On some occasions a pilot with only one or two kills would fly with a radar operator who was already an "ace."

In early August 1944, the 422nd NFS transferred to Maupertus, France, and began meeting piloted German aircraft for the first time. A Bf 110 was shot down, and shortly afterwards, the squadron's commanding officer Lt. Colonel O. B. Johnson, his P-61 already damaged by flak, shot down a Fw 190. The 425th NFS scored its first kill shortly afterwards.

In October 1944, a P-61 of the 422nd NFS, now operating out of an abandoned Luftwaffe airfield in Florennes, Belgium, encountered a Me 163 attempting to land. The P-61 tried to intercept it but the rocket plane was traveling too fast. A week later, another P-61 spotted a Me 262, but was also unable to intercept the jet. On yet another occasion, a 422nd P-61 spotted a Me 410 Hornisse flying at tree top level but, as they dove on it, the "Hornet" sped away and the P-61 was unable to catch it. Contrary to popular stories, no P-61 ever engaged in combat with a German jet or any of the late war advanced Luftwaffe aircraft. Most Luftwaffe aircraft types encountered and destroyed were Ju 188s, Bf 110s, Fw 190s, Do 217s and He 111s, while P-61 losses were limited to numerous landing accidents, bad weather, friendly fire and flak. Apart from an attack on a Bf 110 that turned against them, there were no reports of a P-61 being damaged by a German aircraft, and apart from one accidentally shot down by a RAF Mosquito, none were confirmed to be destroyed in aerial combat.

The absence of turrets and gunners in most European theatre P-61s presented several unique challenges. The 422nd NFS kept its radar operator in the rear compartment. This meant the pilot had no visual contact with the R/O. As a result, several courageous pilots continued flying their critically damaged P-61s under the mistaken belief that their R/O was injured and unconscious, when in fact the R/O had already bailed out. The 425th NFS had a more novel solution. They moved the R/O to the former gunner's position behind the pilot. This gave the pilot an extra set of eyes up front, and moved the plane's center of gravity about 15 inches forward, changing the plane's flight characteristics from slightly nose up to slightly nose down. This improved the P-61's overall performance.

By December 1944, P-61s of the 422nd and 425th NFS were helping to repel the German offensive know as the "Battle of the Bulge," with two flying cover over the town of Bastogne. Pilots of the 422nd and 425th NFS switched their tactics from night fighting to daylight ground attack, strafing German supply lines and railroads. The P-61's four 20 mm cannons proved highly effective in destroying large numbers of German locomotives and trucks.

By spring 1945, German aircraft were rarely seen and most P-61 night kills were Ju 52s attempting to evacuate Nazi officers under the cover of darkness.

The 422nd NFS produced three ace pilots, while the 425th NFS claimed none. Lt. Cletus "Tommy" Ormsby of the 425th NFS was officially credited with three victories. Unfortunately Lt. Ormsby was killed by friendly fire moments after attacking a Ju 87 on the night of March 24, 1945. His radar operator escaped with serious injuries and was saved by German doctors.

In the Pacific Theater in 1945, P-61 squadrons struggled to find targets. One squadron succeeded in destroying a large number of Kawasaki Ki-48 Lily Japanese Army Air Force twin engined bombers, another shot down several G4M Bettys, while another pilot destroyed two Japanese Navy Nakajima J1N1 Irving twin engined fighters in one engagement, but most missions ended with no enemy planes sighted. Several Pacific Theater squadrons finished the war with no confirmed kills at all. The 550th could only claim a crippled B-29 Superfortress, shot down after the crew had bailed out, leaving the plane on autopilot.

It is widely believed that the last two enemy aircraft destroyed before the Japanese surrender were both downed by a P-61 of the 548th NFS. This aircraft, known as "Lady in the Dark" was piloted by Lt. Lee Kendall, gaining its victories over a Ki-43 on the night of August 14/15, 1945, and a Ki-44 on the next night. However, this is incorrect; these were the last aircraft detroyed by a USAAF fighter; the last Japanese aircraft destroyed in World War II were by a Convair B-32, "Hobo Queen Two," which destroyed two A6M Zeros on August 18, 1945.

On January 30, 1945 a lone P-61 performed a vital mission that was instrumental in the successful effort of the U.S. Rangers to free over 500, Japanese held, allied POW's at the Cabanatuan prison camp in the Philippines. As the Rangers crept up on the camp a P-61 swooped low and performed aerobatic maneuvers for several minutes. The distraction of the guards allowed the Rangers to position themselves, undetected, within striking range of the camp. The riveting story of the rescue and the role of the P-61 is told in the book Ghost Soldiers (by Hampton Sides) and in The Great Raid, a movie based upon the book.

In the Mediterranean Theatre, most night fighter squadrons transitioned from their aging Bristol Beaufighters into P-61s too late to achieve any kills in the "Black Widow."

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 19, 2007)

Had the P-61 appeared in theater several months earlier, the situation would have likely been different. Though the plane proved itself very capable against the majority of German aircraft it encountered, it was clearly outclassed by the new aircraft arriving in the last months of WWII. It also lacked external fuel tanks that would have extended its range, and saved many doomed crews looking for a landing site in darkness and bad weather. External bomb loads would also have made the plane more adaptable to the ground attack role it soon took on in Europe. These problems were all addressed eventually, but too late to have the impact they might have had earlier in the war. The plane proved very capable against all Japanese aircraft it encountered, but saw too few of them to make a significant difference in the Pacific war effort.






She managed to shoot down 127 enemy aircraft alltogether.

"Betty": 26
"Frances": 1
"Irving": 2
"Frank": 2
"Dinah": 5
"Rufe": 3
"Tony": 5
"Floatplane?": 1
"Jake": 2
"Val": 1
"Tess": 6
"Sally": 2
"Nick": 1
"Zero": 5
"Helen": 1
"Lilly": 4
"Hamp": 1
"Tojo": 1
"Me-410": 2
"Ju-88": 14
"Ju-87": 5
"Ju-52": 9
"Ju-188": 10
"Bf-110": 7
"He-111": 4
"Fw-190": 3
"Do-217": 4
=========
127

Rumours also states that she shot a few V-1's down as well. Any thruth in that?


----------



## amrit (Apr 19, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> And then I'll put it into a poll.



Thank you. I originally didn't start a poll because (a) I've never figured out how to do one  and (b) wasn't sure which aircraft people would choose



FLYBOYJ said:


> How about the Halifax...



Has the Halifax had a raw deal, historically. I know that it often gets relegated to second place after the Lancaster. But I thought it had been treated quite well by writers, and crews. 

Could you explain more?


Just a summary so far:
I've noticed some interesting choices here. Like everything else, we all like the "new and shiny", and when a newer and better aircraft appeared on the scene, the excellent service provided by the preceding one is often forgotten and/or denegrated. And it seems that some aircraft weren't necessarily bad, but the way that they were originally used wasn't always competent. The same aircraft in different air forces and/or theatres of operations show just how versatile aircraft could be right through the war (even after their "sell by date").

Cheers guys.


----------



## Hop (Apr 19, 2007)

> The situation deteriorated in May 1944 when the squadrons learned that several USAAF Generals believed the P-61 was too slow to effectively engage in combat with German fighters and medium bombers. The RAF shared this view, based on a single P-61 they had received in early May. The RAF championed switching to their De Havilland Mosquito Mk XVI. Several pilots in the 422nd NFS threatened to turn in their wings if they weren't permitted to fly the "Black Widow." At the end of May, the USAAF insisted on a competition between the Mosquito and the P-61 for operation in the European Theatre. RAF crews flew the Mosquito Mk XVI while crews from the 422nd NFS flew the P-61. In the end the USAAF determined that the P-61 had a slightly better rate of climb, and could turn tighter than the Mosquito. The RAF disputed these claims and continued to push for the use of the Mosquito but the P-61 was considered the victor. In later tests conducted by the manufacturers, the two aircraft were actually found to be very similar in performance with no clear advantage for either aircraft.



That's from Wikipedia, isn't it? 

The truth is Mosquito production was low, and the RAF was desperate for all the Mossies it could get. It most certainly did not want the USAAF using them as night fighters as well. The RAF were "pushing" the USAAF to use the P-61, not to compete with them for scarce Mosquito deliveries.

From Mosquito by Bowyer:


> By July 1944 supply problems to squadrons overseas were again acute. Indeed there was a distinct possibility that both Mosquito and Beaufighier squadrons might have to disband because production was insufficient to equate their needs. On 4 July 1944 the British Government informed the Americans that they still could not supply Mosquitoes to their Mediterranean based U.S. night fighter squadrons.
> General Spaatz responded by requesting help with re-equipping just two British-based P-61 night fighter squadrons. It was pointed out to him that if Mosquito production permitted it his Mediterranean squadrons would already have received Mosquitoes to relieve pressure on Beaufighter availability because those aircraft were needed by British and Allied squadrons.
> Not until the closing weeks of 1944 did the position ease sufficiently for an agreement to be made concerning the issue of forty Mosquito night fighters to the U.S.A.A.F. in Italy. No. 416 Squadron. Pisa based, during December received twelve Mosquito NF. XIXs and four Mk. 30s—MM746. MM765. MM769 and MM478. Another three of the latter MM821. MT462and MT464—joined the squadron during December. A monthly allocation was then set at twelve Mosquito NF. XIXs to come from M.A.A.F. slocks, and also four NF. 30s from home sources, although it quickly became apparent that all of the latter were needed to equip home-based RAF. squadrons.


----------



## plan_D (Apr 19, 2007)

_"Buffalo
P-36 Mohawk
A-20 Havoc/Boston
P-40
P-47
P-61 BlackWidow
Hurricane
Wellington
Me 109
Me 109G
Me163
Me110C
Do17
Do217
JU87
He111H
He177
Ba349
"Other late Italian fighters"
Lagg 5
Lagg 7
Vultee Vengeance"_

The P-36 isn't just under-rated, it's forgotten. I gave a good account of the "Mohawk" some time ago. The A-20 Havoc squadrons in the Ninth Air Force had the best bombing rates of the whole IX Bomber Command; which is never mentioned. The P-40 was a great performer in Africa and Asia; which is rarely mentioned in the general public. 

I don't mean to offend here but;

The P-47 is recognised but almost everyone as being the brute of the USAAF. We all know that it's GA abilities were second to none; and that at high altitude it would mix it up with the Luftwaffe on near or equal terms. The fall down of the Thunderbolt was its short range, and that's not under-rating it but stating fact. 

The Hurricane is considered the saviour of Britain by most people; while the Spitfire is the best British fighter (which it was). I don't see it's under-rated; as after the BoB it was fast working its place into second-line duties in Europe. Just to say the Hurricane was the workhorse of the BoB - gives it the credit. 

The Bf 109, all marks, are given the credit of the being the great opposition and counter-part to the Spitfire. The Bf 109 is the mark of the Luftwaffe fighter force; if anything the Fw 190 doesn't get enough credit ... but I wouldn't even say that's the truth. 

The Me 163 didn't do anything, I'm quite confused as to what it's supposed to get credit for.

The Bf 110, I suppose, doesn't get credit for its night-fighting duties. But it's hardly under-rated because while, I guess, versaitile it was crap at everything else. It even struggled to mix it up with Blenheim IVs !

The Ju 87 and He 111 are both the recognised bombers of the Luftwaffe. Everyone knows what they are, and what they did.

The "Laggs" are actually La-5 and La-7, Lavochkin developed these aircraft on its own. The LaGG term was for the LaGG-1 and LaGG-3 which was developed by Lavochkin-Gorbunov-Goudkov.

Sorry, but I think some explanation is required as to why they're under-rated. 

The one aircraft I believe to be under-rated is the C-46 "Commando". It was a superior aircraft to the C-47 "Skytrain" in almost every aspect. It did lifting duties in all the same theatres as the C-47; over the Hump, Rhine and Channel ... but no one remembers it.


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 19, 2007)

How about the Henschel Hs 129? Ask people to think about a Luftwaffe tankbuster and 9/10 they'll think about the Ju-87... I know that it was produced in smaller number (879) than the Stuka....
But, what was its effectiveness compared to the Stuka?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 19, 2007)

The Hs 129 I think was a marvelous design but it was extremely underpowered with its 2 Gnome-Rhône 14M radials rated at 700hp. That was the biggest mistake and I dont undestand what they were thinking. If they powered her with DB 601s or BMW 801s she would have been the ultimate anti tank aircraft.


----------



## Parmigiano (Apr 19, 2007)

I think that the Russian designs in general are underrated, maybe because in our group there are very few 'experts' (including myself as non expert) of Russian aircrafts, or maybe because USSR is not at the top of the preferences for most of the people here. 

La5, 5FN and 7 were very good fighters, YAK 9 and 3 are claimed to be even better, IL2 and IL10 was one of the best designs of attack aircraft, the Petlyakov Pe2 was an extremely good twin 

Their air-to-air and air-to-ground armament was at top, at least looking at Tony Williams tables. 

Also historically the Russian 'school' is remarkable, Russian was the first 'modern' fighter (Polikarpov I 16) 

So I would add to the list: 

Pe2
Yak 3
Yak 9
IL2/10


----------



## Civettone (Apr 19, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> The Hs 129 I think was a marvelous design but it was extremely underpowered with its 2 Gnome-Rhône 14M radials rated at 700hp.


That's a bit of an exaggeration. Its power-weight ratio was ok: 5000 kg for 1400 HP. Before it flew with the French engines it was powered by 2 Argus As 410 engines which provided 2 x 460 HP and this resulted in the Hs 129A being 8% underpowered. 
Another argument is this: the Hs 129B carried a small bombload or guns for a weight of 300 or so kilograms. Yet the Hs 129B-3 carried a 75mm gun which weight over a ton! Now surely those were underpowered but it also indicates that the Hs 129B-2 wasn't.

Now what is true is that the Hs 129B could have used some more power for letting it carry a bigger payload. Even the Hs 123 could carry its payload.




> That was the biggest mistake and I dont undestand what they were thinking. If they powered her with DB 601s or BMW 801s she would have been the ultimate anti tank aircraft.


I used to wonder about that too. I was especially thinking about the cheap BMW 132 (as the Hs 129 was only allowed to carry non-strategic engines) which would have provided 2 times 900 HP. But the guys down at luftwaffe-experten told me that this would not have worked as these engines were heavier. They would have required new wings changing the CoG which would have resulted in changes along the fuselage or tail thus building a new aircraft all together.
I went deeper into that a couple of months ago on this forum. I think it was about the best ground attack aircraft...

Kris


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 19, 2007)

Civettone said:


> That's a bit of an exaggeration. Its power-weight ratio was ok: 5000 kg for 1400 HP. Before it flew with the French engines it was powered by 2 Argus As 410 engines which provided 2 x 460 HP and this resulted in the Hs 129A being 8% underpowered.
> Another argument is this: the Hs 129B carried a small bombload or guns for a weight of 300 or so kilograms. Yet the Hs 129B-3 carried a 75mm gun which weight over a ton! Now surely those were underpowered but it also indicates that the Hs 129B-2 wasn't.



I agree that it was better than with the 410 engines but if it had more power it would certainly have been a better aircraft. The design and the capabilities were there. It was a great aircraft, I just think it needed better engines in my opinion.


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 19, 2007)

Which engines could it possibly take without too much stress to the airframe OR the war effort do you think Adler?


----------



## Glider (Apr 19, 2007)

Civettone said:


> Well, I wasn't aware that the Do 217 is considered a bad aircraft. It's a damn good bomber with good armament, speed and bomb load. It could also carry Hs 293s and Fritz-Xs.
> So I wouldn't consider it underrated. But perhaps it depends on what you've read about it.
> 
> I know that the Do 17 is considered a rather bad bomber although it performed very well until taken out of service.
> Kris



I guess its how you view the question. I was looking at an underated plane, as one that did a good job but didn't get the credit for it, not how good a plane is.

For that reason I went for the A20 and Do217, both excellent aircraft but not ones that most people think of.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 19, 2007)

Lucky13 said:


> Which engines could it possibly take without too much stress to the airframe OR the war effort do you think Adler?



Well naturally with all aircraft if you are going to install larger, heavier and more powerful engines some kinds of modifications and strengthening is going to be required. 

I think DB-601s would have been fine and there were plenty of them. The only problem they would have posed would be damage to the liquid cooling system from ground fire since it would be flying so low.


----------



## Civettone (Apr 19, 2007)

> I guess its how you view the question. I was looking at an underated plane, as one that did a good job but didn't get the credit for it, not how good a plane is.
> 
> For that reason I went for the A20 and Do217, both excellent aircraft but not ones that most people think of.


David, I completely agree. It seems more interpret the questions as how people look at the aircraft NOW, while others see the question as how contemporaries looked at the aircraft.

The Vengeance is definitely an aircraft which was underrated during WW2 though nowadays it has a better reputation. 
The Bf 109 was considered a worthy adversary from 39 to 45 though it has gotten a bad reputation after the war.




DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Well naturally with all aircraft if you are going to install larger, heavier and more powerful engines some kinds of modifications and strengthening is going to be required.


The Germans were indeed looking for other engines but couldn't find suitables engines. In 1944 they went for the Italian Isotta Frasschini although it didn't have a higher power output than the Gnome Rhones. 



> The only problem they would have posed would be damage to the liquid cooling system from ground fire since it would be flying so low.


As much overrated problem, especially for short-range aircraft. Just look at the succesful Il-2 Sturmovik and Typhoon which had inline engines.

Kris


----------



## renrich (Apr 20, 2007)

Seeing the other a/c on the list I would want to include the various models of the F4F on the underrated list. The F4F4 was not highly thought of at all when the Navy first received it. Even Thach disrespected it. Once the pilots learned to exploit it's strong points it gave pretty good service and the Martlets and FMs did good work in Europe. In fact it would be interesting to know about the results of all the ACM the Grummans engaged in Europe and N. Africa.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 20, 2007)

Civettone said:


> As much overrated problem, especially for short-range aircraft. Just look at the succesful Il-2 Sturmovik and Typhoon which had inline engines.
> 
> Kris



I agree that is why I said the DB 601 would have been a fine engine for the aircraft. The cooling system still could have been a problem but look at all the other inline engine aircraft, they still did fine.


----------



## Juha (Apr 21, 2007)

Hello Parmigiano
I must disagree with You. Il-2 was a good ground attack plane but most text I have read IMHO tended to overrate rather than underrate it. So I would not say that it was the most underrated a/c. On Yak-9, it seems that during summer 44 Finnish AF Bf 109G-2s/-6s got something like 10:1 kill ratio against them when Finnish Bf 109Gs kill ratio against La-5F/La-5FNs was c. 6:1. These kill rations are based on current research not on wartime claims. So it seems that at least against Finns the SU La-5 units were more effective than Yak-9 units.

Juha


----------



## glennasher (Jun 26, 2007)

The C-46 had several outstanding qualities, dual troop doors for parachute drops, heavier lift capacity than a C-47, etc, but it was easy to flame, too, and caught fire way too often. They were only used on one combat drop, over the Rhine, IIRC, where they got torn up pretty badly.
I think they were at their best flying the Hump.........


----------



## ToughOmbre (Jun 26, 2007)

Two American fighters that "held the line" until more advanced types became available...

The F4F Wildcat and the P-40 Warhawk...

Especially against the Japanese.


----------



## Cub Driver (Jun 27, 2007)

Here's another viewer who thinks the Curtiss P-40 was wildly underrated. Almost every account of the AVG Flying Tigers claims that their planes were "obsolete" or "worn-out" or generally inferior (most often to the Zero, which the AVG never met and their 14th Air Force successors rarely did).

Obsolescent they might have been, but they weren't worn-out when the AVG entered combat in December 1941, and they whupped the Nakajima Ki-27 and Ki-43 almost every time they met. This was true both of the original P-40B types and even more of the replacement P-40Es that came in the spring of 1942. 

Like the Buffalo, the P-40 got a bad rap because most of the Allied pilots who flew the plane in its early combats were outmatched by their opponents, who were generally better fliers and combat-experienced to boot. That the AVGs (in the case of the P-40) and the Finns (in the case of the Buffalo) were able to work wonders with these planes shows that they weren't as bad or outmoded as generally assumed.


----------



## mosquitoman (Jun 27, 2007)

I'd nominate the Bristol Beaufighter for this award- was a night fighter and strike aircraft par excellence. Unfortunatly it was overshadowed by the Mosquito in the ETO but came into it's ideal role in the CBI and MTO theatre as a free ranging attacker, blasting anything in it's path.


----------



## trackend (Jun 27, 2007)

Here here mossie and in the far east it didn't suffer the termite/ boring insect problems the Mosquito did


----------



## The Basket (Jun 27, 2007)

T-6 Texan
Fairey Swordfish
Ju-52/3
Catalina
Polikarpov I-16
Would also go for the Curtiss Helldiver SB2C but maybe going too far.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 28, 2007)

How was the Texan underated? I have never heard anything but praise for the aircraft.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Jun 28, 2007)

If you ever see a 'Top Ten' list of WW2 aircraft...when do you ever see the Texan in the poll?

IMHO the Catalina was the most underated.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 28, 2007)

Well that is because the Texan was a trainer. Great plane but fighters and bombers get the lime light.

I dont think the Catalina was ever considered underated. She was not even the best performing sea plane out there but she was allways considered great at what she did.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## trackend (Jun 28, 2007)

I just love the Texan


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 28, 2007)

I got to fly in one once at an airshow. I really enjoyed it. Got to work on a T-6 engine as well.


----------



## ToughOmbre (Jun 28, 2007)

trackend said:


> I just love the Texan



And it does a great impersonation for Hollywood as an A6M. But the shorter stance of the landing gear gives them away.


----------



## MP-Willow (Jul 3, 2007)

I agree, the Cat is always well talked about and kept the funds away from the better designs for the USN. Underrated, The Coronado, the big Concolidated Seaplane that was a life saving air ambulance. 2: Ju-52 it did everything you could ever think about and then some. BV-138: mines, shipping, S&R and could cary 10 men with all there gear without taking out any of the normal stuff. WElligton.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 5, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Hmm the 3 that I think are the most underated are the Bf 109, Buffalo and Hurricane.


 
Interesting, Chris. I know my father had great respect for the 109, more than the Fw190 from 15,000 feet and down...he always felt he could out turn it at speed and altitude but felt nearly equal in all others and superior in steep climbing turn to right - I know a lot of Mustang and Thunderbolt and LIghtning drivers that feel the same way.. I wonder who else feels that the 109 was underrated?

I might nominate the P-63 and the La7 and Yak9 because you a.) Don't hear about them and b.) they were excellent a/c The He 177 when it was performing after solving the engine fire issue was another one whose prior reputation hurt it.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 5, 2007)

The reason I believe the 109 is underated is because everyone automatically assumes it was completely outclassed by the allied aircraft. Granted these are mostly the very biased people toward allied aircraft.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 5, 2007)

Good point Chris...


----------



## drgondog (Jul 6, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> The reason I believe the 109 is underated is because everyone automatically assumes it was completely outclassed by the allied aircraft. Granted these are mostly the very biased people toward allied aircraft.



Being biased toward Allied aircraft doesn't automatically award the mantle of 'expert'. 

I have review virtually ALL the 355th FG encounter REports and Marcs. More were lost to 109s (FAR and away) than Fw190 or Fw190D's. I would say most 355 aces found the Fw190 to be easier prey above 15,000 feet - all relative because of pilot quality.

The only fighter that 'got away' from my father once he engaged was a 109 (although cut down by his wingman who cut inside the lufberry).

I tend to think the Italian Fighters were more 'underrated' - as well as late model JAF a/c like the Shiden


----------



## The Basket (Jul 7, 2007)

The German under rated the Hurricane very much and even called it names!

But who had the last laugh there though.

I think the Bf 109 was OK but was showing its age by the end. But the Emils and Fredrichs were top of the class. I have not read a British test pilot report who liked it. They loved the 190 though.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 7, 2007)

drgondog said:


> Being biased toward Allied aircraft doesn't automatically award the mantle of 'expert'.
> 
> I have review virtually ALL the 355th FG encounter REports and Marcs. More were lost to 109s (FAR and away) than Fw190 or Fw190D's. I would say most 355 aces found the Fw190 to be easier prey above 15,000 feet - all relative because of pilot quality.



You dont need to tell me this. Tell that to the people that I am talking about.


----------



## ToughOmbre (Jul 7, 2007)

Best argument for the 109...

Was the preferred mount of many of the Luftwaffe's best pilots (Hartmann, Galland, etc.)


----------



## MP-Willow (Jul 7, 2007)

The 109 may have been so loved because it was the ride most pilots knew the best. I agree that after the 109F the airframe was getting old and over taxed, the Ks tried to fix this and in my mind were nice.

The Fw190s seem more suited to the Eastern Frount with more space, and ground targets.

What about the B-26? After the trainning and flight quirks were understood she was the best for safty, if you get past the name

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Jul 7, 2007)

The Petlyakov Pe-2 was a total unknown to the RAF hurricane pilots who were training Soviet pilots to fly the hurricane.

They organised a escort mission with the Pe-2 and they were slower than the bomber they were trying to escort!

Soviet pilots would fly full throttle which must have done engine life no good.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 7, 2007)

The Basket said:


> Soviet pilots would fly full throttle which must have done engine life no good.


Actually flying full throttle with a proper mixture setting will enhance engine life.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 10, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Actually flying full throttle with a proper mixture setting will enhance engine life.



jes have yer EGT/CHT sensors handy.. grin


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 11, 2007)

drgondog said:


> jes have yer EGT/CHT sensors handy.. grin



Yep!8)


----------



## lastwarrior (Jul 11, 2007)

Nice one Amrit. I also agree regarding the Mohawk.


----------



## Watanbe (Jul 13, 2007)

I also think that the Beaufighter was a highly underated plane. A lot of pilots had great success with the P40. While I dont think it is a very good plane, it was a good stop gap fighter and in the hands of a good pilot good pack a punch. A lot of people seem to hate it which is probably unfair (even though I dont think much of it). 

Whoever said the IL-2 was underated should be shot (well maybe not quite). They made 45,00 odd of them and thats why they had great success its a pretty simple formula they had:

massive numbers
heavy armour (underneath)
heavy armourment

no wonder they raped tanks, surely the Yak9 is more underated as surely it stopped many Il2's from getting massacred. 

I think that the Hawker Tempest was also underated in the fighter role, many people seem to view in the same light as the Typhoon an effective ground attack plane.


----------



## MP-Willow (Jul 13, 2007)

Beaufighters! I can agree. Not much to look at, but they did provide a lot of work and could take a good amout of damage.8)


----------



## Negative Creep (Jul 13, 2007)

Initially I would've said the Hurricane, but whilst its role in the Battle of Britain is under valued, it is still regarded as a very good aircraft. So I'#d have to go for the Beaufighter as well. Planned and produced very quickly, worked almost from the word go, packed a fearsome punch, could carry radar without sacrifices, tough, dependable and multi skilled.

If they were sisters then whilst they were both smart and skilled, but whilst the Beau was a bit plain and go on with the job without complaints, the Mosquito would be the better looking one in designer gear who gets all the blokes


----------



## Watanbe (Jul 13, 2007)

I agree with negative creep, while the hurricane my have played second fiddle to the spitfire I dont think it is necessarily underated. Most people would know what the Hurricane is and the important role that it played. 

I think its underated compared to the spitfire but overall I dont really think so.


----------



## outremerknight (Jul 14, 2007)

I think the Westland Whirlwind never got a fair chance. With better engines it could have been a very good bomber interceptor/killer with its 4x 20mm cannon in the nose and whatever else that it may have been given as the war went on.


----------



## Marcel (Jul 14, 2007)

outremerknight said:


> I think the Westland Whirlwind never got a fair chance. With better engines it could have been a very good bomber interceptor/killer with its 4x 20mm cannon in the nose and whatever else that it may have been given as the war went on.



So would the Fokker G.I. A heavy twin engined fighter that could turn with the Fokker D.XXI, a very nimble fighter itself. Fokker wanted to equip it with RR merlin engines, which would probably have brought it on par with the mosquito(a later design), being as versatile and maybe as fast. We'll never know 'cause the dutch government choose low powered Mercury engines, ordered way to few planes and they were overrun by the germans in '40. That's how things go...


----------



## Watanbe (Jul 14, 2007)

outremerknight said:


> I think the Westland Whirlwind never got a fair chance. With better engines it could have been a very good bomber interceptor/killer with its 4x 20mm cannon in the nose and whatever else that it may have been given as the war went on.



the Whirlwind was by all accounts an exceptional aircraft except for its engines. I suppose that after these had diminished interest in the plane, the beaufighter and mossie were already fulfilling similar roles?


----------



## Heinz (Jul 15, 2007)

Well the Whirlwind was on the scene a little earlier and it first flew in 1938. It was pretty advanced for that period considering the Blenheims were seen as the main bomber in the RAF. I've always like the Whirlwind for its sleek lines and its nose full of cannons. 

It had a high landing speed and ceiling wasnt the best and of course the engines. Declared obsolete in 1944 it wasn't given much of a chance really. 

But it definitely set the ball rolling as far as other developmental ideas and designs which were shining through in designs like the Mossie and beau.


----------



## Watanbe (Jul 15, 2007)

Good points Heinz,

I think that if given the Merlins and new variants, upgrades had been released the Whirlwind could have been a very effective plane!

Plus they look porn


----------



## skydog308 (May 3, 2018)

Hellcat


----------



## ktank (May 13, 2018)

Hunter368 said:


> P-40 did a very nice job in the Pacific and China. Most people think or thought the P-40 was a piece of crap.
> 
> It was surprisingly a decent plane.....at the time. It was never a top performer but it did perform better then most people give it credit for.



IMHO the P40 was the USA's Hurricane - behind the times but adequate, good for ground attack, tough, mostly easy to fly ('though I believe it could flip if too slow on the approach) and available at the right time in quantity. Like the P39 its reputation is affected by poor high-altitude performance due to the Alison engine. At Fighterworld at the RAAF fighter base north of Newcastle one exhibit said the RAAF pilots reckoned at low altitudes it could out-turn a Spitfire Mk VIII!


----------



## redcoat (Jun 6, 2018)

Civettone said:


> I know that the Do 17 is considered a rather bad bomber although it performed very well until taken out of service.
> Kris


Of the Luftwaffe bombers involved in the Battle Of Britain the Do 17 was the one with the best reputation amongst the Luftwaffe bomber crews, it's weakest point was its small bomb load..


----------



## michael rauls (Jul 9, 2018)

Wow, i think these are all great picks but if pressed to pick one..........The p40s reputation really takes a beating but viewed in what i believe is the proper context it was quite effective. To start the p40 warhawk is the same plane as the p36 hawk, just a different engine. A warhawk is still a hawk with a new engine every bit as much as a mustang is still a mustang with the Merlin or the fw 190d is still a fw 190 even with a new engine. The point of this exercise? Just that it shows the p40 is 1934/35 design that was still fairly effective at what it was originally designed to do right up until the end of hostilities in 1945. Like all pre war amy designs( the p38 being an exception) it was designed to provide air cover for and direct support to ground forces. Such was the mission that was envisioned for army fighters at the time. Sort of low altitude air superiority and support.The thinking was the bomber would get through and there was no need for escorts. So I would submit in the p40 we have 1934/35 design that remained reasonably effective at the mission it was originally designed for right up until vj day. I believe viewed in this context the p40 is not just an also ran or stop gap but truly a remarkable and successful aircraft.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jul 10, 2018)

michael rauls said:


> Like all pre war amy designs( the p38 being an exception) it was designed to provide air cover for and direct support to ground forces. Such was the mission that was envisioned for army fighters at the time. Sort of low altitude air superiority and support.



I seriously doubt that the P-36 was designed for "air cover for and direct support to ground forces".

More that it was designed as a general purpose fighter whose main purpose was to shoot down enemy aircraft.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Jul 10, 2018)

wuzak said:


> I seriously doubt that the P-36 was designed for "air cover for and direct support to ground forces".
> 
> More that it was designed as a general purpose fighter whose main purpose was to shoot down enemy aircraft.


Well I don't pretend to be an expert but thats what i have read from multiple times and from many what seem to be knowledgeable commenters hereas well that that was how the army envisioned fighter missions before the war. The whole the heavely armed bomber will get through so no need for escorts and all that. Such was, so I have read, the pre war thinking.


----------



## fubar57 (Jul 10, 2018)

The only reason the P-40 went into production was because of a compromise by the Army. The P-38, -47 and -51 were at least two years away from mass production and the P-40 could get large scale production in half the time: it was quantity over quality

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Jul 10, 2018)

fubar57 said:


> The only reason the P-40 went into production was because of a compromise by the Army. The P-38, -47 and -51 were at least two years away from mass production and the P-40 could get large scale production in half the time: it was quantity over quality


I'll buy that but it doesn't change the fact that the p40 was basically a 1934 design that remained at least reasonably effective at what it was intended to do(and even some things it wasn't) right till the end. That ,in my mind at least ,is truly impressive.


----------



## fubar57 (Jul 10, 2018)

The Army said it didn't have the speed or altitude performance it wanted but this was the best it could get at the time.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 10, 2018)

The P-36 was born in an age when "Pursuit" aircraft were to intercept enemy fighters and/or Bombers.

Aircraft like the Northrop A-17 were "Attack" aircraft, who's purpose was to scout, attack ground targets and when necessary, attack bombers.

Different roles, different aircraft.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Jul 10, 2018)

fubar57 said:


> The Army said it didn't have the speed or altitude performance it wanted but this was the best it could get at the time.


In 1934 when the hawk was.comming off the drawing board they said that? Because thats what I'm talking about. A 1934 design that was at least.reasonably effective until vj day. What someone in the army though of it in say 1939 or 1940 wouldn't.change that.equation.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 10, 2018)

fubar57 said:


> The only reason the P-40 went into production was because of a compromise by the Army. The P-38, -47 and -51 were at least two years away from mass production and the P-40 could get large scale production in half the time: it was quantity over quality



Since the P-51 was designed as an alternative to licence production of the P-40, I don't think the USAAC were hanging out for it before the P-40 arrived.

The ones that it may have been a stop-gap for were the P-38 and P-39.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 10, 2018)

michael rauls said:


> Well I don't pretend to be an expert but thats what i have read from multiple times and from many what seem to be knowledgeable commenters hereas well that that was how the army envisioned fighter missions before the war. The whole the heavely armed bomber will get through so no need for escorts and all that. Such was, so I have read, the pre war thinking.



Whoever suggested the P-36 was even considered for escort?



GrauGeist said:


> The P-36 was born in an age when "Pursuit" aircraft were to intercept enemy fighters and/or Bombers.



Exactly.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Jul 10, 2018)

wuzak said:


> Whoever suggested the P-36 was even considered for escort?
> I don't think i said the hawk was designed as an escort. What i said is that i have read, many times that the main mission the army envisioned for pre war fighters was air suppirriority and support and that the" the bomber would get through" thinking was part of that thinking. Even if this is not the case, and wow would that suprise me considering the number of times I have read it in steamingly knowledgeable articles and commentary this it still wouldn't change my basic premis that the p40 is basically a 1934/35 design that remained at least reasonably effective till the end of the war and that is pretty darn good.
> 
> 
> Exactly.


I don't


----------



## michael rauls (Jul 10, 2018)

wuzak said:


> Whoever suggested the P-36 was even considered for escort?
> I don't think I suggested it was. What i said is that air superiority and support was what the army envisioned as the role for fighter planes pre war and that the bomber will get through attitude was part of that, so I have read. Many times. Even if this is not the case it doesn't change my main point that in the p40 we have a1934\35 design that was at least reasonably effective till the end of the war and that is nothing but remarkable.
> 
> 
> Exactly.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 10, 2018)

michael rauls said:


> ...Like all pre war amy designs( the p38 being an exception) it was designed to provide air cover for and direct support to ground forces. Such was the mission that was envisioned for army fighters at the time...


Like I said in my previous post, USAAC Pursuit aircraft (designated with a "P" prefix) were for combat patrol and interception, USAAC Attack aircraft (designated with an "A" prefix) were for scouting, ground attack and aggressive interception.

In the 1930's, there was only one military that focused on long-range bomber escort, and that was the Imperial Japanese Navy.


----------



## michael rauls (Jul 10, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> Like I said in my previous post, USAAC Pursuit aircraft (designated with a "P" prefix) were for combat patrol and interception, USAAC Attack aircraft (designated with an "A" prefix) were for scouting, ground attack and aggressive interception.
> 
> In the 1930's, there was only one military that focused on long-range bomber escort, and that was the Imperial Japanese Navy.


What I said or at least meant to say was that, at least what I have read, is that tha bomber would get through doctrine was PART of the thinking that lead the army to focus on air superiority and support as the main focus for pre war fighter types. Even if this is not the case, which would suprise considering the amount of ink thats been expended on it, it stil wouldn't negate my basic premise that in the p40 we have a 1934/35 design that remained at least fairly effective till the end of the war and in my book thats quite impressive.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 10, 2018)

michael rauls said:


> What I said or at least meant to say was that, at least what I have read, is that tha bomber would get through doctrine was PART of the thinking that lead the army to focus on air superiority and support as the main focus for pre war fighter types. Even if this is not the case, which would suprise considering the amount of ink thats been expended on it, it stil wouldn't negate my basic premise that in the p40 we have a 1934/35 design that remained at least fairly effective till the end of the war and in my book thats quite impressive.


You seem to be forgetting that the P-47, developed from the P-43, was based on the Seversky P-35 - which beat the P-36 in the initial USAAC contract of 1935.
Because the USAAC felt that Seversky couldn't meet their obligations, the P-36 was ordered as a back up - the rest is history.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 10, 2018)

michael rauls said:


> What I said or at least meant to say was that, at least what I have read, is that tha bomber would get through doctrine was PART of the thinking that lead the army to focus on air superiority and support as the main focus for pre war fighter types. Even if this is not the case, which would suprise considering the amount of ink thats been expended on it, it stil wouldn't negate my basic premise that in the p40 we have a 1934/35 design that remained at least fairly effective till the end of the war and in my book thats quite impressive.



You made it sound like close air support and escort were the only possible roles for a pursuit type aircraft in the mid 1930s,

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jul 10, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> You seem to be forgetting that the P-47, developed from the P-43, was based on the Seversky P-35 - which beat the P-36 in the initial USAAC contract of 1935.
> Because the USAAC felt that Seversky couldn't meet their obligations, the P-36 was ordered as a back up - the rest is history.



While the P-47B shared its concept with the P-43, it is a stretch to say it was developed from the P-43.

I suppose you could say the P-51 was developed from the P-40 - after all, its original design was to be a better (or better than a) P-40.


----------



## michael rauls (Jul 10, 2018)

wuzak said:


> You made it sound like close air support and escort were the only possible roles for a pursuit type aircraft in the mid 1930s,


Well sorry i didn't mean to. Only that, at least from what i have read, were the rolls that the p40 were envisioned for and what, again what i have read( i am certainly not an expert) was the thinking behind that but that wasn't my main point anyway long service life of the basic design and therefore underratedness was.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 10, 2018)

wuzak said:


> While the P-47B shared its concept with the P-43, it is a stretch to say it was developed from the P-43.
> 
> I suppose you could say the P-51 was developed from the P-40 - after all, its original design was to be a better (or better than a) P-40.


The P-43 was developed from the P-35 - (AP-4/YP-43).
The P-47 was developed from the P-43 - (AP-10/XP-47).

Direct lineage.


----------



## Schweik (Jul 10, 2018)

The P-36 and P-40 both had a serious flaw, that being the lack of high altitude performance of the engines. They never did figure this out. The airframe was too heavy until two stage supercharged RR Merlin engines were available, and these were put on the (faster and longer-ranged) P-51 by the British, and later in an official capacity by NAA as we all know. Because of the relatively low altitude performance ceiling of the engines, both speed and range of the P-36 and P-40 series were limited (since the highest speed and the best cruise efficiency were reached at relatively high altitude, generally speaking) and it limited their effectiveness as an interceptor against Operational or Strategic bombers - that is to say specifically, against high-flying multi-engined level-bombers.

This made Generals, military planners and strategists deeply dislike the Curtiss Hawk family of fighters. The P-36 was not suitable for the defense of England during the BoB, because it wouldn't have been good fighting at 20,000 feet or more where the German medium bombers and their Bf 109 escorts were flying. The P-40 also had problems early on against Japanese long range medium bombers (G3M, G4M, Ki-21 etc.) in the Pacific though they were able to get around the performance ceiling issues by using clever tactics. It wouldn't be good for escorting bombers on those kinds of raids either, and had very limited Strategic value.

However, in Tactical combat, the P-36 and P-40 both rose to the occasion far better than expected (or that they should have a right to do on paper, so to speak) and continued to be effective throughout the War.

The P-36 was the most effective Allied fighter in the Battle of France - and this includes the Hurricane and Spitfire.

The P-40 was the most effective Allied fighter in the early period (roughly the first year) of the Western Desert in Commonwealth use. It was the best hands down in the CBI, and along with the Wildcat, was the best Allied fighter in the Pacific in the initial crucial stages. It was also one of the most effective fighters available to the Soviets in the pivotal and desperate year of 1942, though the Soviets had a lot of maintenance problems with them.

By 1942, the Hurricane, with which the P-40 is so often compared, had clearly slipped a notch. The British and Commonwealth had downgraded it beneath the P-40, the latter often providing escort for the former after 4 RAF, 2 RAAF and 4 SAAF Fighter Squadrons were converted over to the Tomahawk. The Soviets hated the Hurricane and phased it out of use in 1942, whereas they were still using P-40s in the front line for another year, and in the Baltic and PVO (air defense) squadrons until the end of the War.

The P-40 was continuously improved through 1943, including the use of License-built Merlin XX engines and various weight reducing programs, but even the Merlins were not high altitude engines and even with significantly boosted horsepower from the Merlis or much more powerful Allisons (V-1710-73 for example), the P-40 never made the magic cutoff line of 400 mph, and never became the Strategic Escort or high altitude interceptor that the Generals wanted. Curtiss Aircraft company arguably never made another successful major combat aircraft after the P-40 and had a series of ever more egregious and embarrassing scandals which made the War Dept dislike them even more.

However, the improvements, even though they appeared marginal on paper, continued to enhance the capabilities of the P-40 sufficiently to keep it in the game, and not just as a fighter bomber as is so often claimed in various summaries. The extremely maneuverable fighter had a very high dive speed and good high speed handling, enabling pilots to escape or disengage from combat when they needed to, a critical ingredient for a successful fighter which the Hurricane, for example, never managed, and which the Wildcat didn't really manage when facing German or Italian fighters. It was also able to outmaneuver enemy fighters in the MTO that attempted to dogfight, and catch enemy planes that tried to dive away.

The P-39, the ostensibly much more modern stablemate of the P-40, never worked out in US or Commonwealth use. Newer American types like the P-38 and P-47 were late to the game and had extended teething problems (the P-47 having to go from P-35, to P-43, through a series of early P-47 models before reaching maturity). Gnashing their teeth, the US Generals were forced to equip 5 Fighter Groups with P-40F/L for use in North Africa and Italy (57th, 33rd, 79th, 324th, and 325th Fighter Groups) plus the 99th FS of the Tuskegee airmen. During and right after the War they were often portrayed as doing poorly, but their records were actually very good, better than most MTO P-38 squadrons and competitive with the Spitfire V squadrons in terms of victories vs. losses.

The P-40 itself was able to remain competitive, in the sense that they could still fly 'armed recon', fighter sweeps, escort Tactical bombers (frequently A-20s and B-25s) and strafing runs on enemy fighter bases with a reasonable probability of survival all over the world, well into 1944. In the CBI this continued into 1945. The reason was the maneuverability and the means of disengaging, as well as the oft mentioned ruggedness and firepower of the type. Those qualities tend to be overemphasized though since with the increasing firepower of late-war fighters meant that no amount of armor or sturdy construction could be counted on to save you in a fight, at best they increased the chances of survival incrementally. The real reason P-40 pilots so often survived combat was the maneuverability and high dive speed.

Even in 1943 and 1944 you get experienced pilots flying P-40s shooting down Bf 109s, MC 205s, Fw 190s and Ki43s and A6Ms in large numbers, at favorable rates.

Details I have seen posted in other threads on this very forum show that P-40 pilots were actually holding their own very well even against late war types like the Ki-84 and Ki 61, and planes (like Zeros) flown by the most experienced crews.

The P-40 may not have been the most underrated but it's still very negative reputation is at odds with it's admittedly uneven but often very good combat record.

S

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Jul 10, 2018)

Schweik said:


> The P-36 and P-40 both had a serious flaw, that being the lack of high altitude performance of the engines. They never did figure this out. The airframe was too heavy until two stage supercharged RR Merlin engines were available, and these were put on the (faster and longer-ranged) P-51 by the British, and later in an official capacity by NAA as we all know. Because of the relatively low altitude performance ceiling of the engines, both speed and range of the P-36 and P-40 series were limited (since the highest speed and the best cruise efficiency were reached at relatively high altitude, generally speaking) and it limited their effectiveness as an interceptor against Operational or Strategic bombers - that is to say specifically, against high-flying multi-engined level-bombers.
> 
> This made Generals, military planners and strategists deeply dislike the Curtiss Hawk family of fighters. The P-36 was not suitable for the defense of England during the BoB, because it wouldn't have been good fighting at 20,000 feet or more where the German medium bombers and their Bf 109 escorts were flying. The P-40 also had problems early on against Japanese long range medium bombers (G3M, G4M, Ki-21 etc.) in the Pacific though they were able to get around the performance ceiling issues by using clever tactics. It wouldn't be good for escorting bombers on those kinds of raids either, and had very limited Strategic value.
> 
> ...


Verry informative post. Just one question or comment if you will, I have read about( they have a website) the 450th RAAF using p40s till ve day. At ve day they were bassaed out of an airfield on the northern most tip of Italy. About 350 miles from Berlin. This would seem to indicate p40 uasage in that theater until rhe end although I can't find any info on missions or kills even on there site. If anyone knows anything more about this i would surely appreciate it.


----------



## Schweik (Jul 10, 2018)

michael rauls said:


> Verry informative post. Just one question or comment if you will, I have read about( they have a website) the 450th RAAF using p40s till ve day. At ve day they were bassaed out of an airfield on the northern most tip of Italy. About 350 miles from Berlin. This would seem to indicate p40 uasage in that theater until rhe end although I can't find any info on missions or kills even on there site. If anyone knows anything more about this i would surely appreciate it.



Yes they definitely did and they were not the only Commonwealth Squadron to do so. 450 RAAF used P-40s until August 1945 though they also got Mustang IIIs in May 1945

No. 450 Squadron RAAF - Wikipedia

There is a bit more about the operational History of 450 RAF here:

No. 450 Squadron RAAF | Wikiwand

250 Sqn RAF also used P-40s until August of 1945 (when they converted to Mustangs) - some of the South African squadrons also stuck with P-40s to the end of the War.

Most Commonwealth squadrons used P-40s until mid 1944 or a bit later (for example 3 RAAF Squadron switched to Mustangs in November 1944)

You won't find a lot of victories after around fall 1944 because the Luftwaffe was in decline in Italy and the Balkans where they were fighting and because they were mostly flying fighter-bomber sorties by then.

They always did fly a lot of fighter-bomber sorties but up until the Battles of Anzio and Monte Cassino they were also doing a fair amount of fighter sweeps, bomber escort and CAP missions. After that it was basically exclusively ground attack. For 450 RAAF in particular they were almost exclusively doing ground attack from around mid-1943.

It's the same incidentally for most of the P-47 squadrons stationed in the Med after 1944.

This is why I didn't mention P-40s in the Med after 1944 because by then they were no longer being used as fighters there so much, though in part this was due to lack of enemy air activity.

S


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 10, 2018)

michael rauls said:


> Just that it shows the p40 is 1934/35 design that was still fairly effective at what it was originally designed to do right up until the end of hostilities in 1945. Like all pre war amy designs( the p38 being an exception)* it was designed to provide air cover for and direct support to ground forces. Such was the mission that was envisioned for army fighters at the time. Sort of low altitude air superiority and support.*The thinking was the bomber would get through and there was no need for escorts. So I would submit in the p40 we have 1934/35 design that remained reasonably effective at the mission it was originally designed for right up until vj day.



IN regards to the bolded part. This assertion has been made in a lot of books/articles but NEVER with any supporting documentation (to my knowledge).
Like an official Army mission statement or quote from the initial or later requirements or a section of an Army tactics/doctrine manual. 

The P-40, in it's initial form, was actually a pretty lousy airplane for providing support for ground forces. Two slow firing .50 cal machine guns with only 200rpg and *little or no *bombload (even though the P-36 could carry some small bombs and export Hawks could carry around 800lbs).
The wing .30 cal guns and the increased ammo for the cowl guns came later.
The single engine attack planes were carrying four .30 cal guns with 500-600rpg and around 600lbs of small bombs. 

The older biplanes, the P-26 and even the P-35 all carried bombs, somewhat in proportion to the size of their engines. the P-26 could carry five 30lb bombs or two 100/116lb bombs so the complete lack of mention of bombs for the P-40, P-40A and P-40B is a bit puzzling if it was designed for ground support. The P-40C could carry a bomb instead of the drop tank. There were under wing racks but these get very little mention in US accounts which confuses things.

Please note the P-40 used the highest altitude rated engine available (or on offer) at the time (spring 1939). Allison had engines with lower supercharger gears for the P-38 would would give more power at low altitudes without the turbo.

Problem with 1934-35 fighters is that they didn't even have two speed superchargers so the gear chosen was always a compromise. Even in 1938-39 this was true, one P-36 being tested with a higher gear ratio driving the supercharger, it did give better performance at altitudes over 10,000ft or so but cost 100hp at take-off and at low altitudes. 

Please note the A-20 was the result of a competition for an attack plane that had four prototypes show up. The Army was interested in planes that could support the ground troops. Single engine fighters with liquid cooled engines were NOT what they wanted. 

I would also note that the P-36 was pretty much designed for a MUCH smaller useful load than the P-40, especially the later ones. I don't know what the first Hawk 75 was designed for (using the first three engines it went through) but by the the time you get to the P-36A the "normal" load was 105 gallons of fuel. 
The 57-58 gallon tank behind the pilot was an overload tank and flight maneuvers were restricted when it had fuel in it. From the P-36 to the later P-40s teh wing gained about 200lbs in weight. Going from a 6000lb airplane to 8000lb airplane requires beefing up the structure if you want to keep the same safety margins as far as "G" loads go.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 10, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Newer American types like the P-38 and P-47 were late to the game and had extended teething problems (the P-47 having to go from P-35, to P-43, through a series of early P-47 models before reaching maturity).



The P-47 had a superficial resemblance to the P-35 and P-43 but that was about it. Good luck trying to turn a P-43 airframe into a P-47. It is going to take a whole lot more than a spare R-2800 engine. 
Yes teh P-47 had lot of teething troubles, in part because it was whole new airplane with a new engine and operating in areas of flight that had seen little practical experience.


----------



## michael rauls (Jul 10, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Yes they definitely did and they were not the only Commonwealth Squadron to do so. 450 RAAF used P-40s until August 1945 though they also got Mustang IIIs in May 1945
> 
> No. 450 Squadron RAAF - Wikipedia
> 
> ...


Wow that is fascinating. It's amazing how many ww2 history books are wrong about this. All my life I have accepted that the p40 saw no more front line service after 1944 except one or two groups in the cbi. After all thats what the books say. At least the ones i have read then i stumbled across the 450th website about year ago but couldn't find any more info on it. Thanks you!


----------



## wuzak (Jul 10, 2018)

Schweik said:


> The P-36 was the most effective Allied fighter in the Battle of France - and this includes the Hurricane and Spitfire.



The Spitfire wasn't widely used in the Battle of France. In fact, they really only appeared over Dunkirk. 

And all Spitfire squadrons remained based in the UK throughout.




Schweik said:


> The P-40 was the most effective Allied fighter in the *early period (roughly the first year)* of the Western Desert in Commonwealth use.



So, basically, it was the best Allied fighter in North Africa until the Spitfire was deployed there?




Schweik said:


> It was the best hands down in the CBI, and along with the Wildcat, was the best Allied fighter in the Pacific in the initial crucial stages.



When it was the only thing around?

So, the P-40's greatest claim to fame is that it was there.


----------



## Schweik (Jul 11, 2018)

wuzak said:


> The Spitfire wasn't widely used in the Battle of France. In fact, they really only appeared over Dunkirk.
> 
> And all Spitfire squadrons remained based in the UK throughout.



I never said anything otherwise. But they were involved a bit more than just Dunkirk - 67 of them were lost during the Battle of France. There were also some Recon Spitfires based in France.



> So, basically, it was the best Allied fighter in North Africa until the Spitfire was deployed there?



Basically yes. But still needed due to the limited range of the Spitfire, and later, problems with the P-38.



> When it was the only thing around?
> 
> So, the P-40's greatest claim to fame is that it was there.



That it was there and able to shoot down enemy aircraft at a decent clip  As you are aware, the record for the P-40 in the Pacific is actually better than the Spit.

S


----------



## Milosh (Jul 11, 2018)

"During this period 67 Spitfires were lost over France, *most of them in the attempt to prevent the Luftwaffe from bombing the evacuation beaches at Dunkirk*."

Now what did Wuzak say?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jul 11, 2018)

Milosh said:


> "During this period 67 Spitfires were lost over France, *most of them in the attempt to prevent the Luftwaffe from bombing the evacuation beaches at Dunkirk*."
> 
> Now what did Wuzak say?



He said "only" that says "most" - a subtle but significant distinction. And more to the point, I never suggested the Spitfire was widely used in France.

However using this old Thread as a source, for context with the 67 Spitfires lost mostly over Dunkirk, the Germans only lost 235 Bf 109s in the whole Battle of France. Per that thread the RAF lost 944 planes in the field (to all causes), out of which 67 were Spitfires and 386 were Hurricanes. Hurricanes claimed 299 victories.

By comparison the French had 4 squadrons of P-36 with a total of 300 aircraft of various subtypes, which claimed 220 victories and ~70 probables, losing 33 pilots KiA.

I couldn't find numbers for the Spitfire claims or the Hawk 75 losses other than the number of pilots killed. I know they had enough Hawk 75s left to put a dent in the US Navy during Operation Torch.

S


----------



## Schweik (Jul 11, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> The older biplanes, the P-26 and even the P-35 all carried bombs, somewhat in proportion to the size of their engines. the P-26 could carry five 30lb bombs or two 100/116lb bombs so the complete lack of mention of bombs for the P-40, P-40A and P-40B is a bit puzzling if it was designed for ground support. The P-40C could carry a bomb instead of the drop tank. There were under wing racks but these get very little mention in US accounts which confuses things.



In actual combat, fitting P-40s with bombs - initially one 500 lbs and then later up to three 500 lbs bombs, proved to be very easy and was done in the field in China, Russia, the Pacific and North Africa. The Russians also armed them with rockets. 

In fact the P-40 series of fighters carried as heavy or larger larger bomb load than most of the dedicated bombers available at the beginning of the war - Fairey Battle (max 1500 lbs, realistic 1000), Bristol Blenheim (1,000 lbs), Ju-87 (990 lbs), Aichi D3A "Val" (550 lbs), TBD "Devastator" (1,000 lbs) etc. Gun armament of six .3 inch (Hawk 75) or two .5 in and 4 .3 inch (P-40 B / C) armament was similarly superior to all of the above bombers. Some were upgunned later but this was not the case in the early war let alone design phase. 

Similarly, incidentally, the Hurricane was also easily adaptable (including in the field) to carrying a fairly heavy bomb load.

S


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 11, 2018)

Nice try on the last post.
Battle and Blenheim could carry their admittedly small (1000lb) bomb loads 1000 miles and carried 3 man crews. They were misused as tactical support aircraft and had never been intended for that role.
The Val and the Devastator were carrier aircraft, something the P-40 was never going to be.
P-40s did not perform 90 degree dives or anything approaching 90 degrees no matter how many write ups you can find about them dive bombing. Some people consider anything over 30-45 degrees as dive bombing. 

Many aircraft were pressed into service as close support aircraft. Some with greater success than others. Some had little or no modifications and some had a number of modifications. 
No matter how successful some of these aircraft turned out to be that does not mean they were designed/intended for the close support role at the early stage of their careers.
Like the Hurricane, you might easily convert a MK II in the Field to a fighter bomber in 1941/42 but trying to convert a MK I in 1938 with it's fabric covered wing and Merlin III with fixed pitch prop wasn't going to go very far.
Likewise the P-40, any evidence the early long nose planes carried three 500lb bombs? Or what might have been left out of the planes that did carry 1500-2000lbs of bombs (like fuel or ammo for guns).


----------



## Schweik (Jul 11, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Nice try on the last post.



Lol right back at you.



> Battle and Blenheim could carry their admittedly small (1000lb) bomb loads 1000 miles and carried 3 man crews. They were misused as tactical support aircraft and had never been intended for that role. The Val and the Devastator were carrier aircraft, something the P-40 was never going to be.



You were comparing them to bombers. Those were all bombers. And all were, incidentally, also used for CAS. The fighters I mentioned were just better at CAS in the long run for a variety of reasons. Some like the Blenheim or the Battle, ultimately proved to be pretty useless by say, the end of 1941.



> P-40s did not perform 90 degree dives or anything approaching 90 degrees no matter how many write ups you can find about them dive bombing. Some people consider anything over 30-45 degrees as dive bombing.



I tend to agree with you that there is a difference between the 'true' close to 90 degree dive bomber like the D3A, SBD, Ju 87 and the 45 degree (etc.) like the Ju 88 and most fighters, but that didn't mean they were ineffective at CAS. Clearly they were - these fighters were the _most_ effective the DAF had in fact.



> Many aircraft were pressed into service as close support aircraft. Some with greater success than others. Some had little or no modifications and some had a number of modifications. No matter how successful some of these aircraft turned out to be that does not mean they were designed/intended for the close support role at the early stage of their careers.



I never spoke about the intention of the design - I'm saying the _success_ of the designs often hinged on flexibility and versatility. I've pointed out a few times before, pre-war planning (or even mid-war planning) rarely survived without the need to change once the actual machines reached the battlefield.



> Like the Hurricane, you might easily convert a MK II in the Field to a fighter bomber in 1941/42 but trying to convert a MK I in 1938 with it's fabric covered wing and Merlin III with fixed pitch prop wasn't going to go very far.



It would surprise me a little if they never did put bombs on Hurricane Mk 1s, since they still had a lot of them in the field in North Africa ~ 1942 and even into 1943, and were using them mainly for ground attack. But I'm not an expert on the Hurricane.



> Likewise the P-40, any evidence the early long nose planes carried three 500lb bombs? Or what might have been left out of the planes that did carry 1500-2000lbs of bombs (like fuel or ammo for guns).



I didn't say "early long-nose" P40s carried three bombs. In North Africa they didn't start using them as fighter-bombers until 1942 when they had the later model Kittyhawks. Same in China from what I understand. The Russians probably the same. In all three zones the need for the fighter was more urgent in the first few months.

Here is a Kittyhawk carrying 6 x 250 lbs bombs, which is a 1,500 lb bomb load by my count.







Here is another with 3 bombs (don't know what size but one very large and two smaller)






And another with 3 bombs






and another






They did have Tomahawks in the field for a long time so I would be surprised if they didn't modify some of them to carry bombs as well, but I don't know. I was always more interested in the Air Superiority type missions personally so it's not something I paid much attention to.

But the larger point is (I think) there were no major changes between the Tomahawk and the Kittyhawk which would prevent you from putting bomb-shackles on the former. In many parts of the world they were probably phased out before the switchover to emphasis on fighter bombers. But it's not like the Tomahawk had a fabric wing or anything.

The P-40 design in general, like the Hurricane, P-39, F4F, LaGG-3, Yak-1, Bf 109, Fw 190 and many others, was capable of carrying bombs. Some carried more than others and some were more or less effective (Fw 190 was a much more effective bomber than a Bf 109) but they were all pressed into service that way anyway and were able to do the job because the design was good enough to allow such versatility.

S


----------



## Schweik (Jul 11, 2018)

According to "Americas Hundred Thousand" (page 241) the RAF started putting bombs on (Kittyhawk) P-40s in March of 1942, specifically this was done in the field by 112 Squadron. Clive Caldwell claimed this was his idea since he thought it was safer for the fighters to carry bombs than to escort Blenheims at 100 mph.

Same book (pp 235-236) also shows the 'useful load' for a P-40C (equivalent to Tomahawk IIb) as 2,246 lbs, P-40E (Kittyhawk Ib) as 2,221 lbs... i.e. essentially the same.


----------



## Brent Jones (Jul 12, 2018)

The OS2U Kingfisher. Underpowered and had serious design flaws, but an absolute workhorse in the Pacific. Saved many lives.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ole Bill (Jul 12, 2018)

Glider said:


> The A20 Havoc or Boston never gets the credit for what it achieved from the early days of the war until the end.
> When thinking of light bombers, the USA tend to think of the B25 or B26, the British the Mossie, the Russians the IL2 or Pe2, but all used the A20 to great effect.


 This is true. But as a child during the war (born in 41) most toy FIGHTER aircraft we had were P-40s (of course) and BOMBERS were A-20s. This simple fact of war history lead me many years into a long time friendship with and old A-20 Crew Chief!

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 12, 2018)

I think the contributions of many support aircraft are sorely undervalued: transports, maritime patrol aircraft, reconnaissance aircraft, observation, scout, and liaison aircraft, training aircraft, gliders, ......


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 12, 2018)

Brent Jones said:


> The OS2U Kingfisher. Underpowered and had serious design flaws, but an absolute workhorse in the Pacific. Saved many lives.


They (and the other seaplanes like the PBY, SOC, etc.) are truly overlooked.

Here's one such example of the Kingfisher in action at Truk Lagoon, 1 May 44. Launched from USS North Carolina (BB-55), they picked up downed aviators (nine aboard for this photo - two being inside) in the lagoon and not having enough interior room for the airmen in order to get airborn, "taxiied" instead with them riding on the outside, out of the lagoon to a waiting lifeguard sub, which in this case, was the USS Tang (SS-306).

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Venturi (Jul 13, 2018)

Don Berlin gets a lot of the credit. He designed the P-40 wing with five spars, to give it excellent torsional strength. The idea being that aileron deflection would remain effective even at high air speeds (the wing would not twist under the torque that the aileron would put on it). Although this was purely done for maneuverability’s sake, you can imagine then why the P-40 was able to be loaded down with bombs on the wing without compromise. It’s a little recognized fact that the P-40 achieved by a fair margin the best roll rates of any Allied fighter at speed.

Additionally, as a aside note, Berlin quit Curtiss in rage, when it was determined that up-engining the Tomahawk required a bigger radiator, and the brass decided that instead of moving the radiator to post wing ventral fuselage (ala Mustang, Hurricane, Tony) as Berlin desired, that it should just be enlarged at the chin. Berin believed this was the root cause of the Warhawk’s lateral directional instability which developed subsequently. Later experimental variants of the p-40, which utilized high altitude engines and laminar flow wings achieved equal or greater aerodynamic performance with the P-51. These simply were developed too late by Curtiss to be of any use in the actual war. They were too busy making profits cranking out P-40Fs and Ms to attempt to take Berlin’s masterpiece to its deserved next level.

Yes I’m biased, no I don’t care.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## P-39 Expert (Jul 13, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> They (and the other seaplanes like the PBY, SOC, etc.) are truly overlooked.
> 
> Here's one such example of the Kingfisher in action at Truk Lagoon, 1 May 44. Launched from USS North Carolina (BB-55), they picked up downed aviators (nine aboard for this photo - two being inside) in the lagoon and not having enough interior room for the airmen in order to get airborn, "taxiied" instead with them riding on the outside, out of the lagoon to a waiting lifeguard sub, which in this case, was the USS Tang (SS-306).
> 
> View attachment 501590


Fantastic photo, is the horizontal tail actually in the water as it appears?


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 13, 2018)

Venturi said:


> Additionally, as a aside note, Berlin quit Curtiss in rage, when it was determined that up-engining the Tomahawk required a bigger radiator, and the brass decided that instead of moving the radiator to post wing ventral fuselage (ala Mustang, Hurricane, Tony) as Berlin desired, that it should just be enlarged at the chin. Berin believed this was the root cause of the Warhawk’s lateral directional instability which developed subsequently. Later experimental variants of the p-40, which utilized high altitude engines and laminar flow wings achieved equal or greater aerodynamic performance with the P-51. These simply were developed too late by Curtiss to be of any use in the actual war. They were too busy making profits cranking out P-40Fs and Ms to attempt to take Berlin’s masterpiece to its deserved next level.



Berlin left in Dec of 1941, which is after the P-40E was in production and after the P-40F prototype had flown. He may very well have been angry but the XP-40 prototype had flown with a radiator under the center of the fuselage or slightly aft and was slower than when using the radiator in the forward position. 
I would note that the prominent "chin" on the P-40E and later was due, in large part, to the propshaft being moved up 6in compared to the Tomahawk with the engine and radiators/oil cooler staying in the same place. 
The Curtiss XP-46 with rear radiator showed no increase in speed over the P-40E using the same engine despite being a smaller airplane (once fully equipped) 
Curtiss did try several changes in the radiators of the P-40 but results of the experiments are lacking. 




Original XP-40 configuration. 

The XP-60 that used a Merlin engine was interesting in that it was faster than a P-40F using the same engine despite using a larger wing. 275 sq ft instead of 236 sq ft. 

The P-40Qs did NOT use a laminar flow wing despite many articles and books saying they did. They were slower than the P-51 using the same amount of power.


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jul 13, 2018)

P-39 Expert said:


> Fantastic photo, is the horizontal tail actually in the water as it appears?



As I recall, yes, the horizontal stabilizers are indeed awash, the photo was taken from the USS Tang, the Kingfisher pilot had rescued all those flyers but then could only taxi. The sub took all the flyers, Kingfisher pilot included and then sank the OS2U with cannon fire as it was damaged beyond what they could repair in the middle of the ocean if I recall correctly.

*EDIT*
As to the topic of the thread, "Most Underrated Aircraft of WWII"...
The Mustang of course, cripes it doesn't get nearly the credit/press it deserves for being the best long range escort fighter, best interceptor, best fighter bomber, best bomber, best transport, best torpedo bomber and for dropping the A-bomb to boot. /sarc.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 13, 2018)

P-39 Expert said:


> Fantastic photo, is the horizontal tail actually in the water as it appears?


Yes, it was!


----------



## P-39 Expert (Jul 13, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> Yes, it was!


Wow, yeoman's work done by that pilot and NINE very grateful passengers who just got their young asses snatched from the jaws of defeat. GREAT photo.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 13, 2018)

P-39 Expert said:


> Wow, yeoman's work done by that pilot and NINE very grateful passengers who just got their young asses snatched from the jaws of defeat. GREAT photo.


Lt. Burns and his Kingfisher actualy did more that day, including rescuing the pilot and crew of the other USS North Carolina Kingfisher when it overturned while landing to rescue downed aircrew.

From an article about the restoration of an OS2U for the USS North Carolina museum ship:
(See the full article here: Restoring History: The Kingfisher Seaplane on the USS North Carolina - Port City Signs)


> *The Rescue of 10 Men Off Truk, Micronesia*
> On April 30, 1944, the USS North Carolina was protecting aircraft carriers whose planes were assaulting Japanese encampments on Truk, a Micronesian island. Her Kingfishers were assigned rescue duty. That Sunday morning, Lt. J.J. Dowdle landed in Truk Lagoon to attempt a rescue. In the process, rough seas tipped over his plane.
> 
> Lt. John A. Burns, in his Kingfisher, made a safe water landing and rescued the two USS North Carolina airmen and the stranded pilot. He taxied to a submarine in the area, the USS Tang, to drop them off.
> ...



There's several other occasions where seaplanes were so overloaded, that they had to taxi to their destination, but this one is a great example of the contributions of seaplanes (from all nations) did during the war.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## P-39 Expert (Jul 13, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> Lt. Burns and his Kingfisher actualy did more that day, including rescuing the pilot and crew of the other USS North Carolina Kingfisher when it overturned while landing to rescue downed aircrew.
> 
> From an article about the restoration of an OS2U for the USS North Carolina museum ship:
> (See the full article here: Restoring History: The Kingfisher Seaplane on the USS North Carolina - Port City Signs)
> ...


Hope Lt. Burns was decorated for his heroism.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Venturi (Jul 13, 2018)

I did not state that the P40 was faster with the radiator moved back. I did state that Berlin felt it was the reason for the instability that the P40D/E displayed, which the P40B/C did not. 

Additionally while the P40Q may have been marginally slower (I believe it was >400mph at military power, 20,000’), the P40 always had a roll rate advantage over the P-51, and was lighter to boot. Not all aircraft performance characteristics come down to pure speed. More to the point, it did not have the range required of an escort fighter, and it came too late.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 13, 2018)

P-39 Expert said:


> Hope Lt. Burns was decorated for his heroism.


He was. He recieved the Navy Cross for his actions that day.

Surprised no one caught on to the sub's name that was performing Lifeguard duty that day. The Tang was one of the legends (and terrors of the IJN) of the Pacific, commanded by Lt. Cmdr. O'Kane - he ended up rescuing or taking aboard, 22 aircrew that day.


----------



## P-39 Expert (Jul 13, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> He was. He recieved the Navy Cross for his actions that day.
> 
> Surprised no one caught on to the sub's name that was performing Lifeguard duty that day. The Tang was one of the legends (and terrors of the IJN) of the Pacific, commanded by Lt. Cmdr. O'Kane - he ended up rescuing or taking aboard, 22 aircrew that day.


I toured a WWII sub once and it was claustrophobic as hell. Can't imagine where they put 22 new guys. Not doubting your story at all.


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jul 13, 2018)

P-39 Expert said:


> *SNIP*
> Can't imagine where they put 22 new guys.
> *SNIP*



On the veranda.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 13, 2018)

P-39 Expert said:


> I toured a WWII sub once and it was claustrophobic as hell. Can't imagine where they put 22 new guys. Not doubting your story at all.


My Uncle served aboard a few subs in the PTO, and the last sub he served aboard was the USS Cavalla (SS-244).
They performed Lifeguard duties off the coast of Japan latewar, picking up B-29 aircrew and even some downed Japanese aircrew.

There's enough room if you use all available space, but it was a real bitch if they had to go to General Quarters!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Jul 15, 2018)

Venturi said:


> I did not state that the P40 was faster with the radiator moved back. I did state that Berlin felt it was the reason for the instability that the P40D/E displayed, which the P40B/C did not.
> Additionally while the P40Q may have been marginally slower (I believe it was >400mph at military power, 20,000’), the P40 always had a roll rate advantage over the P-51, and was lighter to boot. Not all aircraft performance characteristics come down to pure speed. More to the point, it did not have the range required of an escort fighter, and it came too late.


 Ive always felt i t is a shame Curtis didn't get the p40q moving along earlier and from what I've read it seams they could have. Not for use as a long range escort. As you point out it still didn't have that kind range as i understand but it does sound like it retained the p40s better qualities while aliviating most of its less desirable ones.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 15, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> My Uncle served aboard a few subs in the PTO, and the last sub he served aboard was the USS Cavalla (SS-244).
> They performed Lifeguard duties off the coast of Japan latewar, picking up B-29 aircrew and even some downed Japanese aircrew.
> 
> There's enough room if you use all available space, but it was a real bitch if they had to go to General Quarters!




USN subs can still be cramped; the LA boats used hot-bunking as there were fewer bunks than crew.

A developer I worked with at CSC, who had worked for Sonalysts and rode USN and RN boats said the accommodations on the latter were better.


----------



## Supermarine-SpitfireMkXIV (Jul 18, 2018)

What about the Gloster Gladiator? They were very agile and could fight quite well despite their small armament.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 18, 2018)

Supermarine-SpitfireMkXIV said:


> What about the Gloster Gladiator? They were very agile and could fight quite well despite their small armament.


The Hs123 shouldn't be overlooked, either.


----------



## Supermarine-SpitfireMkXIV (Jul 19, 2018)

True they were good dive bombers.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 19, 2018)

michael rauls said:


> Ive always felt i t is a shame Curtis didn't get the p40q moving along earlier and from what I've read it seams they could have. Not for use as a long range escort. As you point out it still didn't have that kind range as i understand but it does sound like it retained the p40s better qualities while aliviating most of its less desirable ones.



The hold up with the Q was the engine.


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 19, 2018)

It seems quite a few of the “underrated” were thought to be obsolescent in 1940 or ‘41, but served well for years after: like the P-40, Hs123, and Curtiss SOC.


----------



## P-39 Expert (Jul 19, 2018)

wuzak said:


> The hold up with the Q was the engine.


Not really, the V-1710-93 two stage Allison was in production from April '43 for the P-63. The P-40Q engine was slightly more advanced (and came a little later) with the 12 counterweight crank (3200rpm) and the carb on the engine instead of the auxiliary stage, but performance would have been substantially the same. Curtiss could have been working on the modification and had it ready for production as the -93 was coming online in April '43. Would have made the old Warhawk a high altitude plane.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Jul 19, 2018)

P-39 Expert said:


> Not really, the V-1710-93 two stage Allison was in production from April '43 for the P-63. The P-40Q engine was slightly more advanced (and came a little later) with the 12 counterweight crank (3200rpm) and the carb on the engine instead of the auxiliary stage, but performance would have been substantially the same. Curtiss could have been working on the modification and had it ready for production as the -93 was coming online in April '43. Would have made the old Warhawk a high altitude plane.


 Sounds like they could have been delivering the q by early 44? That was kinda the general impression I had but know all the particulars you listed. It's a shame in my opinion. The p40 while certainly not perfect had several good qualities like ruggedness and good general maneuverability etc and coupling that with better high altitude performance could have only made it one more useful asset. Kind one of those missed opportunities. At least as I see it.


----------



## BiffF15 (Jul 19, 2018)

michael rauls said:


> Sounds like they could have been delivering the q by early 44? That was kinda the general impression I had but know all the particulars you listed. It's a shame in my opinion. The p40 while certainly not perfect had several good qualities like ruggedness and good general maneuverability etc and coupling that with better high altitude performance could have only made it one more useful asset. Kind one of those missed opportunities. At least as I see it.



Michael,

Not sure if it was a missed opportunities or not. First the Merlin’s Mustang was coming online, and second the P40Q didn’t have the legs. What would you envision using a higher altitude Q for that the Mustang could not do better? I’m a big fan of the P40 line, and would liked to have seen the Q go into production, but looking at things from a wartime perspective I think I can see why it didn’t happen. The P38K sort of falls into this category as well except it was still operating on the front lines in the Pacific.

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## michael rauls (Jul 19, 2018)

That sould have been" I didn't know all the particulars" in the 2nd sentence of that last post. Oops.


----------



## michael rauls (Jul 19, 2018)

BiffF15 said:


> Michael,
> 
> Not sure if it was a missed opportunities or not. First the Merlin’s Mustang was coming online, and second the P40Q didn’t have the legs. What would you envision using a higher altitude Q for that the Mustang could not do better? I’m a big fan of the P40 line, and would liked to have seen the Q go into production, but looking at things from a wartime perspective I think I can see why it didn’t happen. The P38K sort of falls into this category as well except it was still operating on the front lines in the Pacific.
> 
> ...


 Good point that there was no role for the q that couldn't be filled by other aircraft but just that it would have been an additional useful asset not so much a nescesary one. In addition if they were going to continue to manufacture the p40s anyway( until dec44 i think?) And I'm thinking that meant delivery into early 45 well i think all those guys would have been better off with the q than the m or n. As for a specific role maybe similar to the p47 sort of multipurpose ie escort when longer range wasn't needed and ground support .


----------



## Venturi (Jul 19, 2018)

The major issue is that Curtiss was too busy building existing variants for a decent price, than in investing in r&d, and sacrificing production line space for changeover. They were above all a business and were more than a bit hidebound. Unfortunately the P40 never received the updates which would have kept it competitive, however it should not be overlooked that it could easily have been so, given the same foresight and effort which kept other airframes of similar vintage in the front running throughout the war - like the 109 or Spitfire.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 19, 2018)

There's alot of factors to consider when looking back on a certain type and wonder "well, why didn't they do (insert suggestion here)?"
During peacetime, development falls into place at a certain rate, during wartime, it's a mad dash - however, this mad dash is being spread out all across the board WHILE at the same time, providing assets to the front. Development needs to be a priority, but the higher priority is to ensure production does not get interrupted.

There armloads of instances where an upgrade or improvement on a test airframe gets adopted on the next variant, but the current batch of aircraft needs to be completed and shipped to the front(s) ASAP- sometimes being retrofitted with the new improvement, sometimes not - depending how it will impact the production line.

It's a common pitfall for folks 75 years later, making observations like "why not put a bigger engine in the P-36" or "why didn't they work harder on the HeS8 and produce the He280" and so on...but before making these observations, one needs to step back and look at the much bigger picture as to why development took the course it did.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 19, 2018)

Venturi said:


> The major issue is that Curtiss was too busy building existing variants for a decent price, than in investing in r&d, and sacrificing production line space for changeover. They were above all a business and were more than a bit hidebound. Unfortunately the P40 never received the updates which would have kept it competitive, however it should not be overlooked that it could easily have been so, given the same foresight and effort which kept other airframes of similar vintage in the front running throughout the war - like the 109 or Spitfire.


Actually, Curtiss spent a great deal of money on R&D to improve the P-40 (which itself, was an improvement on the P-36) which can be seen with the XP-46, XP-53, P-60(A/B/C/D/E).
Meanwhile, they were developing the XP-62, XBTC/XBT2C, XF14C and XF15C.

This was all going on while they were not only manufacturing the P-40, but also the Helldiver, Commando, Seahawk, Owl, Seamew and so on.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Jul 19, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> There's alot of factors to consider when looking back on a certain type and wonder "well, why didn't they do (insert suggestion here)?"
> During peacetime, development falls into place at a certain rate, during wartime, it's a mad dash - however, this mad dash is being spread out all across the board WHILE at the same time, providing assets to the front. Development needs to be a priority, but the higher priority is to ensure production does not get interrupted.
> 
> There armloads of instances where an upgrade or improvement on a test airframe gets adopted on the next variant, but the current batch of aircraft needs to be completed and shipped to the front(s) ASAP- sometimes being retrofitted with the new improvement, sometimes not - depending how it will impact the production line.
> ...


 Good point about the conflict between upgrading the existing design and keeping production going. I imagine this was the case with the to Q or not to Q decision. Just seems like if Curtis could have had it ready to ship by fall 43(as venturi said) with the same foresight and effort that kept aircraft of similar vintage competitive like the 109 and the spitfire and Curtis chose not to put in the effort earlier until they saw there big meal ticket being threatened by more modern types because of profit motive then at least to me this was a shame and short sighted. More importantly seems like it short changed alot of guys that flew the p40 from spring 44 on.


----------



## michael rauls (Jul 19, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> Actually, Curtiss spent a great deal of money on R&D to improve the P-40 (which itself, was an improvement on the P-36) which can be seen with the XP-46, XP-53, P-60(A/B/C/D/E).
> Meanwhile, they were developing the XP-62, XBTC/XBT2C, XF14C and XF15C.
> 
> This was all going on while they were not only manufacturing the P-40, but also the Helldiver, Commando, Seahawk, Owl, Seamew and so on.


 Of much of that I was unaware(obviously I am aware of the Helldiver but much of the rest I wasn't). So maybe this is more of a case of misalocation of effort and resources that is easy to see in hindsight but maybe not so much at the time instead of a profit over all motive or willful incompetence.


----------



## michael rauls (Jul 19, 2018)

Still a shame though,at least in my mind especially for the guys that flew the p40 in 44/45.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 19, 2018)

michael rauls said:


> Good point about the conflict between upgrading the existing design and keeping production going. I imagine this was the case with the to Q or not to Q decision. Just seems like if Curtis could have had it ready to ship by fall 43(as venturi said) with the same foresight and effort that kept aircraft of similar vintage competitive like the 109 and the spitfire and Curtis chose not to put in the effort earlier until they saw there big meal ticket being threatened by more modern types because of profit motive then at least to me this was a shame and short sighted. More importantly seems like it short changed alot of guys that flew the p40 from spring 44 on.


Remember that the Army and foreign Air Forces kept buying them - as long as the contracts kept coming in, Curtiss was going to build them.

I know the "profit" angle sounds appealing, but like I said earlier, step back and look at the larger picture - the P-40 in it's different versions was proving to be useful, much like the aging F4F in it's different forms was produced nearly to war's end alongside much newer types, too. And I haven't heard a word about Grumman being driven by profit...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Jul 19, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> Remember that the Army and foreign Air Forces kept buying them - as long as the contracts kept coming in, Curtiss was going to build them.
> 
> I know the "profit" angle sounds appealing, but like I said earlier, step back and look at the larger picture - the P-40 in it's different versions was proving to be useful, much like the aging F4F in it's different forms was produced nearly to war's end alongside much newer types, too. And I haven't heard a word about Grumman being driven by profit...


 As usual good points all.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Jul 19, 2018)

michael rauls said:


> As usual good points all.


 Still seems, in hindsight at least, its a shame Curtis didn't put all that effort into the Q instead of alot of things that didn't work out like the xp46 and 53 but then again I guess hindsight is the key word here.


----------



## Venturi (Jul 19, 2018)

The fact remains that after the P40E, Curtiss never built a front line, top tier fighter for the USAF again. Also after the war the congressional hearings into the substandard pace of development (older tech) of the P-40 program. And while they kept churning out older, while cheap and effective, variants of the P-40, and built a few one-off types, they were too busy as you say, providing front line fighters in 1941-1942 and didn’t have what they needed by 1943 to stay in the top-tier game. It is highly likely that the Curtiss brass’s interference in design, and Berlin’s quitting has a lot to do with this. It certainly is indicative of the attitudes prevailing.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## P-39 Expert (Jul 19, 2018)

This whole two stage Allison was a real mystery to me. Would have provided high altitude performance for not only the P-40, but also the P-39 and P-51. In production for the P-63 since April '43 but the first P-63 airframes weren't ready to start dribbling out of the factory until October or so. Curtiss, Bell and NAA all knew the two-stage Allison was coming on line, so plenty of time to make the changes needed to fit it to their aircraft. 

Also, this was not a "new" engine. Just a new second stage supercharger add-on to the existing Allison engine. All contemporary Allisons were exactly the same, differing only in internal supercharger gear ratio (8.1 for the two stage engines, 9.6 for the single stage engines) and reduction gear (remote for the P-39/63, conventional for the P-40 and P-51). Same power section for all of them, as an improvement was made it was applied to all contemporary models. 

The first production Merlin P-51B rolled out in June '43 and would not see combat until December. With a little foresight the two stage Allison planes could have done the same or sooner.

The AAF sure spent a lot of money and time on the P-38. Could have had more capable planes sooner at a fraction of the cost.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Venturi (Jul 19, 2018)

Ideology / Doctrine can sometimes be a real issue. And the pre war Army Air Force was just hell bent on the idea of having turbo-supercharged fighter aircraft to escort the only thing the army Air Force really cared about - and that was its bombers.


----------



## Venturi (Jul 19, 2018)

Something to consider is that two stage super chargers really didn’t arrive on the scene for liquid cooled engines until 1943 or so in any case. (But the USN demanded, and got, two stage setups even as early as the F4F3, a first at that time).


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 19, 2018)

Venturi said:


> The major issue is that Curtiss was too busy building existing variants for a decent price, than in investing in r&d, and sacrificing production line space for changeover. They were above all a business and were more than a bit hidebound. Unfortunately the P40 never received the updates which would have kept it competitive, however it should not be overlooked that it could easily have been so, given the same foresight and effort which kept other airframes of similar vintage in the front running throughout the war - like the 109 or Spitfire.




This point of view is repeated over and over and over. But does anybody really have any company memos or letters that say this?
Curtiss-Wright had more projects/prototypes than any other manufacturer and perhaps more than any other two combined. SOmething like 12-14 different aircraft made it to at least flying prototype stage. 
Granted a lot of them were late and some of them weren't very good (in fact some were terrible) but it doesn't seem that Curtiss didn't at least try. 
One of Curtiss's hidebound attempts.





or 






as far as the 109 and Spitfire go. Both got much better engines than the 1939/40 versions. The 109 gained several hundred HP at altitude (not sea level WEP) by 1942/43 and some of the late 1944 and 45 aircraft got engines of 1500-1600hp at around 20,000ft. How well they worked or how long they lasted I don't know. 
Spitfire got the 2 stage Merlin and then the Griffon. 

Allison was not able to pull any rabbits out of the hat and get comparable engines until too late. The US had no other V-12 engine except the Packard Merlins. 
(less said about the Army/Continental V-1430 the better) 

I would also note that while fast and having good climb the Q _might _have had a few problems/deficiencies in service. As tested in March of 1944 it went 9000lbs which is only about 250-300lbs lighter than a P-51B/C (maybe even closer) however this is with 160 gallons of fuel instead of 180 gallons in the Mustang and 235 rounds per gun instead of the 250 rounds for the inner guns and 350 round for the outer in the Mustang ( 4 gun Mustang is carrying 27% more ammo).
The tests available make mention of production versions going to 6 .50 cal guns (another 280lbs or so depending on ammo) or four 20mm guns

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Jul 19, 2018)

michael rauls said:


> As usual good points all.





Shortround6 said:


> This point of view is repeated over and over and over. But does anybody really have any company memos or letters that say this?
> Curtiss-Wright had more projects/prototypes than any other manufacturer and perhaps more than any other two combined. SOmething like 12-14 different aircraft made it to at least flying prototype stage.
> Granted a lot of them were late and some of them weren't very good (in fact some were terrible) but it doesn't seem that Curtiss didn't at least try.
> One of Curtiss's hidebound attempts.
> ...


 Alot of good information but don't you think as p39 expert said if they had the 2 stage Allison in production by April 43 and they new that it was commimg it doesn't seem like to much of a jump to think they could have had the q delivered by spring pf 44.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Jul 19, 2018)

I should have added if they didn't spend alot of time and resources on other things that didn't work out.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 19, 2018)

michael rauls said:


> Alot of good information but don't you think as p39 expert said if they had the 2 stage Allison in production by April 43 and they new that it was commimg it doesn't seem like to much of a jump to think they could have had the q delivered by spring pf 44.


But the USAAC had specified that the V-1710 be a single-stage.

Once the design is put into production, one simply cannot wave a magic wand and make changes.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 19, 2018)

michael rauls said:


> Alot of good information but don't you think as p39 expert said if they had the 2 stage Allison in production by April 43 and they new that it was commimg it doesn't seem like to much of a jump to think they could have had the q delivered by spring pf 44.


Please define "in production" and when.
The engine used in the March 1944 tests of the P-40Q was not built until early 1944. And even then only 4 were built. 
There were several different 2 stage Allisons being test during 1943 but actual production doesn't seem to have started until the late summer or fall of 1943. 
This is the V-1710-93 used in the P-63A. While a number of P-63s were built and were flying with this engine in the fall of 43 (Oct sees first deliveries) the engine doesn't finally pass it's model test until Nov 27th 1943 and doesn't pass it's WER test until Dec 1943. It took a long time to develop the water injection and improve the pistons and piston rings to withstand the WER. 

The V-1710-121 engine used in the March 1944 tests developed hundreds more hp in the low 20,000ft area than the -93 engine did. Using water injection (and 3200rpm courtesy of a 12 counterweight crank) the -121 could pull 75in of MAP at over 20,000ft. The -93 engine was good for for 51.5in at 22,400ft. 

So lets see how well our production P-40Q of the summer of 1943 does with about 500hp less at 22,000ft than the test airplane in March of 1944.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 19, 2018)

michael rauls said:


> Alot of good information but don't you think as p39 expert said if they had the 2 stage Allison in production by April 43 and they new that it was commimg it doesn't seem like to much of a jump to think they could have had the q delivered by spring pf 44.



What 2 stage V-1710 production there was in 1943 was allocated to the P-63.

Just read on Wiki that it was intended that one P-63 prototype was to have a Merlin V-1650-3, but the P-51B had priority.

By the Spring of 1944 you had plenty of P-51Bs and P-51Ds were beginning to arrive.

You also had the P-38J/L arriving, the P-47D was impproving and the British were fielding Spitfire IXs, VIIIs (not in Europe) and the XIV.

The role for the Q would have been extremely limited.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 19, 2018)

Venturi said:


> Something to consider is that two stage super chargers really didn’t arrive on the scene for liquid cooled engines until 1943 or so in any case. (But the USN demanded, and got, two stage setups even as early as the F4F3, a first at that time).



The Spitfire IX was in production in 1942, and saw service by mid year (debuted in combat over Dieppe in August).

It must be also noted that the 2 stage R-1830 had a critical altitude not much better than a single stage Merlin of the same period.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 19, 2018)

wuzak said:


> The Spitfire IX was in production in 1942, and saw service by mid year (debuted in combat over Dieppe in August).
> 
> It must be also noted that the 2 stage R-1830 had a critical altitude not much better than a single stage Merlin of the same period.



How much of the R-1830 two stage superchargers performance (or lack thereof) is attributable to poor US superchargers in general, poor design of the P&W unit in particular or poor cooling of the R-1830 (or a limit on the supercharger drive?) is certainly subject to question. 
I would note that many engine lists show the engine in the wildcat limited to 2550 rpm in high gear vs 2700rpm in neutral or low gear. I have no real facts on why. just noting that the limit exists.


----------



## michael rauls (Jul 19, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Please define "in production" and when.
> The engine used in the March 1944 tests of the P-40Q was not built until early 1944. And even then only 4 were built.
> There were several different 2 stage Allisons being test during 1943 but actual production doesn't seem to have started until the late summer or fall of 1943.
> This is the V-1710-93 used in the P-63A. While a number of P-63s were built and were flying with this engine in the fall of 43 (Oct sees first deliveries) the engine doesn't finally pass it's model test until Nov 27th 1943 and doesn't pass it's WER test until Dec 1943. It took a long time to develop the water injection and improve the pistons and piston rings to withstand the WER.
> ...


 Ok fair enough. I had just read a post by Venturi, who seemed to be knowledgeable in the area ( he certainly knows alot more than I do thats for sure) that they had a 2 stage Alison in production in April 43 and that they had it in planes by late 43. I have read this other places(actually I've read they had a 2 stage supercharger for the Alison I think in 40 although it was troubesom from what I read. Don't know if this is true or not) to which has alwas made me wonder why they didn't slap that thing in the p40/ p39 as soon as possible. The 1943 incarnation that is. Ultimately I'm gonna just say both of you certainly know alot more than I do about it so im just gonna read what you both have to say and I'm quite sure I'll learn something. Heck I already have. Quite a few things in fact. Cheers.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 19, 2018)

Allison did have a two stage test rig in 1940. However Allison was trying to go from a shop that made 14 engines in 1938 and 46 engines in 1939 to one that made 1178 engines in 1940 and about 6400 in 1941. And not one model of engine but P-40 engines, P-39 engines and turbo P-38 engines and few other oddballs.


You also have the sad fact that US superchargers weren't the best to begin with (General electric had dominated the supercharge market until the late 30s) , RR was the Best in 1938/39 and then took a quantum leap forward when they hired Stanley Hooker, an aerodynamicist. RR and Hooker also got a leg up on two stage superchargers because they had a few parts from the large Vulture engine hanging around they could grab and use as a test rig. Allison had to start working on the first stage from scratch. 
Allison did an amazing job with what they had to work with in the beginning, but expecting them to equal RR superchargers is a bit much. Supercharger design at the time was almost as much art as it was science. When Hooker left RR and went to work for Bristol on their jet engine (which was having trouble) He said he thought the Britisol team didn't understand airflow.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Jul 20, 2018)

wuzak said:


> What 2 stage V-1710 production there was in 1943 was allocated to the P-63.
> 
> Just read on Wiki that it was intended that one P-63 prototype was to have a Merlin V-1650-3, but the P-51B had priority.
> 
> ...


 Sounds like thats the why of the why didn't get the q going earlier or just a 2 stage for the N. Just so many ro go around at that point and they were allocated elsewhere. If it were up to me I think I'd have funneled those twards the p40 considering where the respective types were ultimately headed but I would venture to guess I'm about to find out the reasons that may have not been practical.


GrauGeist said:


> But the USAAC had specified that the V-1710 be a single-stage.
> 
> Once the design is put into production, one simply cannot wave a magic wand and make changes.


 Ok I'm honestly confused. Yes I've read that they specified the Alison early on be single stage but also that there was a two stage supercharger that, if I understand correctly could be used on the same engine with little or no modification by spring 43 and I have seen both views expressed here by people that obviously know alot more than me about this. The two views, unless I'm missing something here( always possible) would seem not to conflict unless Alison presented the army with the 2 stage and they said no thanks but this doesn't seem to be the case as they were used in the p63. My thoughts would be either way, if the 2 sage were ready by early 43 an the army said no thanks or if it were ready by then but Curtis chose not to instal the 2 stage it would seem to be a posibly less than optimal desision either way. Again, maybe(probably) I'm missing something here but thats the way it looks to me. Would verry much like your additional thoughts on this.


----------



## MiTasol (Jul 20, 2018)

Venturi said:


> *The major issue is that Curtiss was too busy building existing variants* for a decent price, than in investing in r&d, and sacrificing production line space for changeover. *They were above all *a business and were *more than a bit hidebound*. Unfortunately the P40 never received the updates which would have kept it competitive, however it should not be overlooked that it could easily have been so, given the same foresight and effort which kept other airframes of similar vintage in the front running throughout the war - like the 109 or Spitfire.



Yep, and spending a lot of time and effort developing aircraft that had no future which is why they died so soon after the war

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 20, 2018)

MiTasol said:


> Yep, and spending a lot of time and effort developing aircraft that had no future which is why they died so soon after the war


Sorry to disappoint, but Curtiss-Wright is still in business and has diversified into several venues while still being grounded in the Aerospace industry.


----------



## MiTasol (Jul 20, 2018)

michael rauls said:


> Ok I'm honestly confused. Yes I've read that they specified the Alison early on be single stage but also that *there was a two stage supercharger that, if I understand correctly could be used on the same engine with little or no modification *by spring 43 and I have seen both views expressed here by people that obviously know alot more than me about this. The two views, unless I'm missing something here( always possible) would seem not to conflict unless Alison presented the army with the 2 stage and they said no thanks but this doesn't seem to be the case as they were used in the p63. My thoughts would be either way, if the 2 sage were ready by early 43 an the army said no thanks or if it were ready by then but Curtis chose not to instal the 2 stage it would seem to be a possibly less than optimal derision either way. Again, maybe(probably) I'm missing something here but that's the way it looks to me. Would very much like your additional thoughts on this.



One major issue is that the two stage engine is significantly longer than the single stage engine.

That means typically that the firewall has to be moved aft which means the oil tank & probably other parts have to be relocated to keep the Centre of Gravity where it needs to be *OR* the rear fuselage has to be extended and equipment that is forward moved aft for the same reason. 

The firewall and forward fuselage mount are attached to the front wing spar so moving the firewall aft means significant changes to the wing as well. 

Moving equipment aft is restricted by available space and the rear fuselage is already full of the largest fuel tank (62.5 gals with 51 + 32 gals in the wing) of total internal fuel of 145 gals, radio, hydraulic pump and tank, etc.

Extending the fuselage aft not only involves significant redesign but reduces manoeuvrability unless other changes are made which further effects the ability for units to use existing spares and training.

Therefore all options involve major redesign, not minor fiddling, which is why the P-63 is a whole new aircraft and so much longer etc than the P-39.


----------



## MiTasol (Jul 20, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> Sorry to disappoint, but Curtiss-Wright is still in business and has diversified into several venues while still being grounded in the Aerospace industry.



I guess I mispoke. 

As far as I am aware the Curtiss Aeroplane division of Curtiss-Wright have not built any new designs under the Curtiss name since about 1946/47 and I am not aware of any other aircraft where they were a major component manufacturer either since then. As far as I know one of the last projects started by Curtiss Aeroplane was the failed Curtiss-Bleecker helicopter.

C-W was formed about 1930 and Curtiss Aeroplane and Motor was one of the half dozen or so Curtiss and Wright companies incorporated into C-W. To the best of my knowledge the division called Curtiss Aeroplane has ceased to exist but I am most willing to be corrected.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 20, 2018)

MiTasol said:


> One major issue is that the two stage engine is significantly longer than the single stage engine.
> 
> That means typically that the firewall has to be moved aft which means the oil tank & probably other parts have to be relocated to keep the Centre of Gravity where it needs to be *OR* the rear fuselage has to be extended and equipment that is forward moved aft for the same reason.
> 
> ...



It is unlikely that the firewall would change position.

The P-40Q was lengthened forwards, so the weight had to balanced by relocating equipment, or by adding mass balances.

It is a good point you make about the length of the engine. The extra length of the 2 stage V-1710 compared to the standard V-1710, or even the 2 stage Merlin was not insignificant.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Jul 20, 2018)

MiTasol said:


> One major issue is that the two stage engine is significantly longer than the single stage engine.
> 
> That means typically that the firewall has to be moved aft which means the oil tank & probably other parts have to be relocated to keep the Centre of Gravity where it needs to be *OR* the rear fuselage has to be extended and equipment that is forward moved aft for the same reason.
> 
> ...


 Ok the whole thing makes some sense now. That they chose to keep the existing production lines going instead of doing the re-design to accommodate the supercharger. I'm no expert but certainly seems to me that while it's at least understandable it was not, in my opinion, the best decision as I think it was venturi said with the same foresight and effort that kept other types of similar vintage competitive Curtis could have had the airframes ready to go in spring 43 when the 2 stage became available.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 20, 2018)

michael rauls said:


> Ok the whole thing makes some sense now. That they chose to keep the existing production lines going instead of doing the re-design to accommodate the supercharger. I'm no expert but certainly seems to me that while it's at least understandable it was not, in my opinion, the best decision as I think it was venturi said with the same foresight and effort that kept other types of similar vintage competitive Curtis could have had the airframes ready to go in spring 43 when the 2 stage became available.



The 2 stage was barely available for the P-63 in the Spring of 1943.

Not going to be many available for P-40Q.

And I'm not real sure where the P-40s being pumped out of the production lines were going. Some no doubt to refit existing P-40 squadrons, some to replace losses and probably many for training squadrons. 

Not sure what the point of the P-40Q would have been.

Reactions: Useful Useful:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## P-39 Expert (Jul 20, 2018)

michael rauls said:


> Ok fair enough. I had just read a post by Venturi, who seemed to be knowledgeable in the area ( he certainly knows alot more than I do thats for sure) that they had a 2 stage Alison in production in April 43 and that they had it in planes by late 43. I have read this other places(actually I've read they had a 2 stage supercharger for the Alison I think in 40 although it was troubesom from what I read. Don't know if this is true or not) to which has alwas made me wonder why they didn't slap that thing in the p40/ p39 as soon as possible. The 1943 incarnation that is. Ultimately I'm gonna just say both of you certainly know alot more than I do about it so im just gonna read what you both have to say and I'm quite sure I'll learn something. Heck I already have. Quite a few things in fact. Cheers.


Exactly. The engine (actually just the second stage, as the actual power section of the engine was exactly the same as other comtemporary Allisons) was in series production in April '43, the P-39 and P-40 were in series production since '41, so why was this engine not used?


----------



## P-39 Expert (Jul 20, 2018)

wuzak said:


> The 2 stage was barely available for the P-63 in the Spring of 1943.
> 
> Not going to be many available for P-40Q.
> 
> ...


Actually the two stage Allison was available in spring of '43, but the P-63 airframe was not.

Availability was there, the ENGINES were rolling off the line, the separate second stage had just started production.

P-40 production was going to our allies and to training squadrons.

The point of the P-40Q was to make it a high altitude plane that could operate above 25000' instead of a low altitude plane that could barely get to 20000'.


----------



## michael rauls (Jul 20, 2018)

wuzak said:


> The 2 stage was barely available for the P-63 in the Spring of 1943.
> 
> Not going to be many available for P-40Q.
> 
> ...


 The way I'm looking at it anyway the point of the Q would have been that if the p40 was qoing to continue to be delivered then alot of guys got short changed flying m or n instead of a q(not that the m and n weren't good planes). However,. not to be overly dramatic but it's reasonable to think some probably lost there lives due to the lesser performance, at least to me. I gues ot comes down to for me, if you are going to shut down p40 production all together and have Curtis build say p51s( wouldn't that be ironic) then fine there is no point in a p40Q but if we are going continue to equip literally thousands of guys with p40s then they deserve the best p40 that money and effort can buy. I understand there were hurdles to doing this as there is in all aircraft development but to me they were worth jumping to give thpse guys the best we could. Thats how I see it anyway.


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 20, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> Sorry to disappoint, but Curtiss-Wright is still in business and has diversified into several venues while still being grounded in the Aerospace industry.



It is, however, nowhere near as significant as it was before WWII or in the 1950s.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 20, 2018)

Ok, trying to get a few of us on the same page. Good pictures hard to find on the internet so bear with me. 





Allison chose to use the fluid coupling and drive shaft to drive the auxiliary stage independently from the engine stage. 




This is a post war turbo compound, delete the exhaust piping and the "stuff" to the right of the inlet elbow in the middle of mass on the right. 
Allison added a lot of length to the engine when they added the 2nd stage. 

If somebody has any real production numbers for the two stage Allisons over the spring and summer of 1943 it would be nice to post it as some of the stuff being posted here sure conflicts with what is said in "Vees for Victory". 

I would also note that in a P-40 pilots manual from 1943 they tell the pilots being issued the manual that P-40s will no longer be issued to new squadrons. 

The engine that went into the P-63s did not pass it's model test (variation of type test) until Nov 27th 1943 and any P-63s built and flying up until then did so with restrictions placed on the engines. Hardly what you want for planes being issued to combat units. This is certainly not only time that this happened but it is not common. 
I would also note that while this two stage engine in the early P-63 was a fearsome beast at low altitude with water injection it was hardly the powerhouse above 20,000ft that some people are making it out to be. 
1150hp at 22,500ft is hardly great performance in 1943, let alone at the end of 1943. A Merlin 46 with a single stage supercharger could make 1100hp at 22,000ft at some point in 1942.
Please note the engine in the P-40F and L could make 1120hp at 18,500ft. It weighed 1510lbs dry. The two stage Allison weighed about the same dry. 
But if you want to use the extra power you need bigger radiators and oil coolers. You may want a bigger prop. 

Not all Allison two stage engines were created equal. It seems that people want to take the power ratings from 1944 (or later) and somehow back date them to the experimental engines of early 1943 and declare them production ready. 

Here is a test from May of 1943 on the XP-63A
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-63/XP-63A_42-78015_FS-M-19-1592-A.pdf

Please note that at this time the engine was rated for about 60in at WEP and could not hold that much above 15,000ft. and was down to 1165hp at 22,500ft including RAM. 
Would a P-40 with a similar engine have been an improvement over the P-40N? Yes, but then how many P-40Ns are you willing to give up production wise as you change the production lines over in the summer of 1943? What restrictions would be placed on the engines during the summer and fall of 1943 as they sort out piston and piston ring problems? 

And again, please note that the P-40Q as tested used about the same armament as the stripper P-40s, some of which got back the extra guns and/or ammo in the field.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Jul 20, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Ok, trying to get a few of us on the same page. Good pictures hard to find on the internet so bear with me.
> View attachment 502452
> 
> Allison chose to use the fluid coupling and drive shaft to drive the auxiliary stage independently from the engine stage.
> ...


 Wow, such a wealth of information in your post! It's starting to look, to me at least, like alot of those decisions that may look questionable in hindsight years later at first glance were a little more understandable when you start to drill down into it. I think I personally would have been willing to lose some production to change the production lines over in 43 even for a moderate benefit as I think most upgrades on most planes required this to one degreee or another and I think the pilots deserved the best p40 we could give them if we were going to continue to produce p40s at all( just the way I see it). However, I can certainly see the logic behind the decisions that were made even if they werent the ones I would have made. And ya were did all those p40 ns go anyway? I've read that as you said the p40 would no longer be issued to new squadrons after about mid 43( not sure of the exact data here) but a huge part of p40 production occurred after this. Maybe about half as if memory serves, the N accounted for about half total production ?and was produced from about this time on. And there were front line units using it right up until the end, U.S. in the cbi and alied,Raaf and South African in Europe but it doesn't seem like enough to soak up all that production. Maybe training units and replacement? Doesn't seem like you would need those kind of production numbers for that though.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 20, 2018)

P-40Ns were used for lead lease to a host of countries, they were issued to training squadrons in the US (the manual assured new pilots that if they could handle the P-40 in training they could handle whatever fighter the combat squadron they were posted to had) and as a sad commentary, of the last few hundred built, they went directly to storage/scrap. When you are building over 200 a month it is a little hard to turn off the flow over night. 
P-40s flew in


----------



## michael rauls (Jul 20, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> P-40Ns were used for lead lease to a host of countries, they were issued to training squadrons in the US (the manual assured new pilots that if they could handle the P-40 in training they could handle whatever fighter the combat squadron they were posted to had) and as a sad commentary, of the last few hundred built, they went directly to storage/scrap. When you are building over 200 a month it is a little hard to turn off the flow over night.
> P-40s flew in


 Thats what I was kinda thinking. That they must have, aside from training, been largely for export but while there were still many units using them in 44 and a few in 45 it just doesn't seem like enough to utilize that kind of production but maybe with training and replacement taken into account it was.


----------



## michael rauls (Jul 20, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> P-40Ns were used for lead lease to a host of countries, they were issued to training squadrons in the US (the manual assured new pilots that if they could handle the P-40 in training they could handle whatever fighter the combat squadron they were posted to had) and as a sad commentary, of the last few hundred built, they went directly to storage/scrap. When you are building over 200 a month it is a little hard to turn off the flow over night.
> P-40s flew in


 The line you wrote about the last few hundred p40s going directly to storage / scrap made me think what a crying shame it is that almost nobody recognized how valuable these war bird would become( and I don't mean in a monetary way) and didn't think to preserve more than a dozen or two of most types if even that. Some even less or none at all. This may be one of those hindsight things but to me it really looks obvious. Out of respect for the guys that flew them if nothing else.


----------



## Conslaw (Jul 20, 2018)

IIRC, the Tang had to (or it was decided to) sink this Kingfisher on the grounds that the weight of the rescued flyers compromised the flying surfaces. Even so, it was marvelous performance by the plane and pilot. (There is a well-preserved Kingfisher on the Battleship North Carolina Memorial in Wilmington, North Carolina.) 



GrauGeist said:


> They (and the other seaplanes like the PBY, SOC, etc.) are truly overlooked.
> 
> Here's one such example of the Kingfisher in action at Truk Lagoon, 1 May 44. Launched from USS North Carolina (BB-55), they picked up downed aviators (nine aboard for this photo - two being inside) in the lagoon and not having enough interior room for the airmen in order to get airborn, "taxiied" instead with them riding on the outside, out of the lagoon to a waiting lifeguard sub, which in this case, was the USS Tang (SS-306).
> 
> View attachment 501590


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 21, 2018)

Conslaw said:


> IIRC, the Tang had to (or it was decided to) sink this Kingfisher on the grounds that the weight of the rescued flyers compromised the flying surfaces. Even so, it was marvelous performance by the plane and pilot. (There is a well-preserved Kingfisher on the Battleship North Carolina Memorial in Wilmington, North Carolina.)


The Kingfisher's floats had sprung a leak and was settling in the water from the rough-water landings and additional weight through rough seas during the extended taxiing. There was no way it could get airborne after offloading the rescued crewmen.

And agreed, it was a magnificent feat of determination by the Kingfisher's crew.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Jul 21, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> The Kingfisher's floats had sprung a leak and was settling in the water from the rough-water landings and additional weight through rough seas during the extended taxiing. There was no way it could get airborne after offloading the rescued crewmen.
> 
> And agreed, it was a magnificent feat of determination by the Kingfisher's crew.


 This may be a little off the topic but just ran across something I think you might enjoy. It's an interview, told 2nd hand, with Franz Stigler who commanded Luftwaffe forces at the Palm Sunday massacre( I'm guessing you already know who he is). If you have not read this already it is definitely a must read and it is riveting! It's at aviation store.net.


----------



## davparlr (Jul 21, 2018)

All the aircraft that held the line in the PTO in the first year of the war.
F4Fs
P-40s
P-39s

On a backburner battlefield strangled by lack of support, these aircraft and the men that flew them faced some of the most formidable and experienced fighter pilots in the world with airplanes that were uniformly far more maneuverable. Once techniques and experience matured, IIRC at the outbreak of the war, 100 AAF pilots,* fresh out* of pilot training, were diverted from the Philippines and sent to the south pacific, these aircraft blunted the onslaught of an overpowering enemy. By the time more advance aircraft became operational in the theater, the F4U in February, 43, the F6F in August of 43, P-38s arrived in August, 42, but in limited amounts, the Japanese had sustained a significant amount of loses of the irreplaceable cream of their aircrews and the tide had swung against them. A job well done and underappreciated.

Here are a few of the battles fought in the south pacific in 1942 and first part of 1943.

Coral Sea
Midway (not in the south pacific)
Eastern Solomon
Guadalcanal
Cape Esperance
New Guinea (a theater all its own with ferocious land, sea, and air battles for the full year)

There were many others where aircraft played little or no role.

Other underappreciated aircraft


· While quite a few accurately identified the very capable A-20, the Lockheed Hudson seems to have gotten its nose stuck in a lot of interesting situations early in the war while it is basically ignored.

· Short wing B-26. If the AAF had emphasized high speed, high wing loading piloting, which it had to do anyway in a few years, the short wing with its 35 mph top speed and its almost 50 mph cruise speed advantage, would have been even more formidable than the successful later model B-26s. Instead its reputation was very negative due mainly to poor training.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 21, 2018)

I agree with a lot of that but the B-26 is a mixed bag. 
The short wing B-26 was usually being operated thousands of pounds lighter than the later big/tilted wing planes. This would usually mean less bomb load or range or both had they kept building the short wing planes. 

See; http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/B-26/B-26_Operation_and_Flight_Instructions.pdf

The B-26 went from an under 30,000lb aircraft to a max 37,000lb aircraft. Maybe 1500lb can be attributed to the bigger wing, tail, armor and increased armament?


----------



## Venturi (Jul 21, 2018)

davparlr said:


> All the aircraft that held the line in the PTO in the first year of the war.
> F4Fs
> P-40s
> P-39s
> ...



As said earlier, the reasons above are part of why the P-40 always remained a 1940/41 era aircraft. It was too profitable for Curtiss and too needed by the US, to be delayed at all in 1942 production. Even as dated as it was by 1942 European standards. By the time 1943 came around, there was no two-stage Allison to put in them and here comes the P38 and P47 with the turbo-supercharger... and in 1944 the Packard Merlin Mustang with the RR 2 stage setup.

My point was very simple, though - and it got expanded and dragged along alot further than I meant it to. My point was that the P40 airframe was not the dog it came to be reputed as. The original Tomahawk series were lighter than the Warhawk series by a fair margin and nearly as fast. They were a TON, literally, lighter than the P-51. Weight means a great deal in fighter combat as evidenced by the Bf109 and Spitfire, Yaks, etc. You can see the differences in the design from Tomahawk to Warhawk, as the Curtiss brass weighed in on design. Increased weight, increased size, aerodynamic problems introduced. Yes, a lot of the changes had to do with the 1710-33 to 1710-39 transition and shortening the reduction gearing, etc. But for the most part these changes were not done with an eye to improving the design but rather minimizing changes / expenses in production and in meeting USAAF regs / export compatibility. You would NEVER have seen a complex structure like the Spitfire's wing on a Curtiss assembly line! The P-40 remained a very inexpensive fighter as compared to later ones the USAAF fielded, throughout the war.

Had the design process across the P-40s life been better, more foreward thinking at Curtiss, had they instituted a two-gear supercharger on the Allison 1710-39 or later, like the Merlin 66 had (no two-stage engine-lengthening there), you would have had a P-40E with a lighter airframe ala Tomahawk which would mean better acceleration and climb as well as energy retention in maneuvers, it would have kept its excellent roll rate and avoided longitudinal instability, and had benign handling characteristics (unlike the P-39) - and would have remained the premier all-around single seat fighter until at least the P-51 arrived in numbers which was at the end of 1943, as the historical P40E did - just a lot better at its job. 

That the moderately revised P-40Q with a engine similar in output to a 1944-45 Packard Merlin achieved results that were well above 400mph proves my point. And that's all I wanted to say.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Venturi (Jul 21, 2018)

Ultimately the fact is that the motivation to improve the P-40 just wasn't there, at the highest levels. The Air Force brass wanted turbo-superchargers, and that was coming in the P-38 and P-47. Curtiss wanted to keep making money. Production was needed of EVERYTHING at max capacity. P-26's were trying to fight Zeros as the Curtiss assembly line cranked away in 1942. The result was that the P-40B/C which was actually an excellent design, became inexorably outdated by world standards even by late 1941 and the P-40E variant. Fortunately, it was still a capable, maneuverable, and flexible aircraft, and it could and DID produce good results. Who can say now that we are right to wish it had been developed further at the expense of producing more much needed fighters, even if they were somewhat dated? But the point remains, it COULD have been...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 21, 2018)

Curtiss built what the government wanted them to build. 

I would really like to see some sort of proof as to how much money Curtiss was making and when. Contracts changed during the war. Grumman for example made a huge amount of money on the F6F. Gumman took until some time in the 1960s to make as much money in one year as they did in 1944, but this is misleading.
Grummans contracts where under constant review by government auditors and Grumman was not supposed to make more than 3% profit. However 3% profit on over 6000 F6Fs in one year is a lot of total profit, but is it excessive? Many other aircraft and defense contractors operated under similar contracts. If a company figured out to make a product cheaper, follow up contracts were amended to lower the price.
Perhaps Curtiss got around this and was profiteering? Or people are just looking at total revenue and not actual profit? 

There are reasons the Warhawk weighed more than the Tomahawk and they don't have a whole lot to do with Curtiss sabotaging the Warhawk or incompetence in design or some of the other stuff being implied. 
You want for or six .50 cal guns in the wings instead of four .30 cal guns you need beefed up wing structure. You want the ability to carry 500lb bombs under the wings you need beefed up structure. 
You want to add guns, armor, self sealing tanks and still have a 12 G safety factor you need to beef up the structure. 
You want to cool an 1150 hp engine instead of an 1040hp engine? maybe you need a bigger/heavier cooling system. 
The wing group on a Hawk 75 for export went around 840lbs, The wing group on the Tomahawk went about 1000lbs, the wing group on a Warhawk went just over 1100lbs. 

Curtiss, like Grumman, built airframes. The engines were bought and paid for by the Government under separate contracts and shipped to the aircraft factories. 
The propellers were also provided by the government as were some of the instruments, the radios and some other gear. 
Curtiss could _suggest _changes in the supplied equipment and if the government agreed and could get the contracts with the engine makers, propeller makers and instrument makers changed, and could supply the new/different parts to Curtiss _then and only then_ could Curtiss change the production aircraft. 
The government could make one or more airframes available to Curitiss to experiment on in regards to airframe details (change in tail or radiator location or even airfoil) and the government might even pay for such work if a decent proposal was put forth. 

Curtiss was trying hard to come up with a successor to the P-40, unfortunately it wasn't up to Curtiss to pick and choose either the desired engine or the desired armament or some of the other details. The Government would put out proposals for a new fighter and would say they wanted the "new" fighter to use engine XX and to fly at 400mph and carry eight .50 cal machine guns. All to often Engine XX turned out to be a turkey 
, from WIki
" The initial design contained in proposals to the United States Army Air Corps was for an aircraft based upon the P-40 design but featuring a low drag laminar flow wing, a Continental XIV-1430-3 inverted vee engine, and eight wing-mounted 0.5 in (12.7 mm) machine guns. This proposal was accepted and a contract for two prototypes was issued on 1 October 1940 with the aircraft designated the *XP-53*."

This was after the XP-46 and before the XP-55 Ascender. The XP-53 morphed into the P-60 series but it was caught in an ever shifting "what engine are they going to use" problem. The Army had made it pretty well known that they wanted to go to the Continental XIV-1430 engine and that the Allison was sort of a temporary fill in so designers of aircraft to replace the P-38, P-39 and P-40 should be thinking about using the Continental XIV-1430 and not just an improved Allison. Please note there were versions of the P-39 (the P-39E/P-76) the P-38 (turned into the P-49) 





That were intended to use the XIV-1430 engine.
Unfortunately the XIV-1430 was a total dud and may designs either fell to the wayside or made mad scrambles for substitute engines. 
The Continental XIV-1430 may be one reason the Army was not leaning on Allison very hard to to come up with either a two speed or a two stage supercharger. 
Turbo XIV-1430s were supposed to be the answer. 
Please note that the Army actually did a lot of the design work and Continental just served as an assembly/workshop. And the Army was as bad at paying Continental for work done in the 30s as they were at paying Allison.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 21, 2018)

Venturi said:


> Ultimately the fact is that the motivation to improve the P-40 just wasn't there, at the highest levels. The Air Force brass wanted turbo-superchargers, and that was coming in the P-38 and P-47.


As has been exhaustively stated already, Curtiss put a tremendous effort into trying to upgrade the P-40. Actually more than they should have BUT contracts kept coming in for the P-40 and as long as Governments were wanting it, Curtiss was going to build it.



Venturi said:


> Curtiss wanted to keep making money.


So did every other aircraft manufacturer.
Grumman's F4F was used through to the end of the war. GM even continued to manufacture it until 1945, two years after Grumman stopped manufacturing it.
And the Wildcat was older than the P-40.




Venturi said:


> Production was needed of EVERYTHING at max capacity. *P-26's were trying to fight Zeros *as the Curtiss assembly line cranked away in 1942...


Wait, What?
The few Army P-26s at Pearl Harbor were caught on the ground and destroyed, only the P-36 and P-40 were able to engage IJN elements.
The USAAC P-26s in the Philippines were also caught on the ground. Only some Philippine Army P-26 aircraft, flown by Philippine pilots engaged the Japanese.
The bulk of USAAC fighter groups were already equipped with the P-40 and were in the process of phasing out the P-36 when the U.S. entered the war in December 1941.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Jul 21, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Curtiss built what the government wanted them to build.
> 
> I would really like to see some sort of proof as to how much money Curtiss was making and when. Contracts changed during the war. Grumman for example made a huge amount of money on the F6F. Gumman took until some time in the 1960s to make as much money in one year as they did in 1944, but this is misleading.
> Grummans contracts where under constant review by government auditors and Grumman was not supposed to make more than 3% profit. However 3% profit on over 6000 F6Fs in one year is a lot of total profit, but is it excessive? Many other aircraft and defense contractors operated under similar contracts. If a company figured out to make a product cheaper, follow up contracts were amended to lower the price.
> ...


 Was this similar to the procurement process in other countries? I would be fascinated to know the procurement process in Germany, Japan, and Britain and how it affected the ultimate characteristics of the aircraft they got.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 21, 2018)

michael rauls said:


> Was this similar to the procurement process in other countries? I would be fascinated to know the procurement process in Germany, Japan, and Britain and how it affected the ultimate characteristics of the aircraft they got.



I don't know about other countries and even US procurement changed from before the war to during the war. 

But in general an air force (army or navy or independent) put out a requirement for a new type of aircraft. It could be an open competition with any company being able to make a submission (almost always on paper) or closed so only a few companies could submit or special circumstances only one company. 
A company or designer could make an unsolicited proposal if they thought they had something really good but in the 1930s no country had unlimited money to spend on prototypes. 
Contracts were a lot easier to manage in peacetime when quantities were in the hundreds (if not lower) than war time in the thousands. Wartime also got into government owned but privately managed plants with the government owning the land, buildings and machinery so how much _should_ it cost to produce that single engine fighter in that plant compared to the same fighter being built in private plant that needs to pay property taxes, bank loans/investors for building/machinery and other higher fixed costs. 

I would note that any air ministry worth the roof over their heads tried to take into account factory size, experience ( don't give contract for 4 engine bomber to company that had only built single engine aircraft?) and the demand for certain engines when evaluating proposals. For instance in Germany in 1937-38 just about every designer wanted to use DB 600-1 engines, there weren't enough to go around even with new production facilities being built so a design that used an alternative engine might be view with favor.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Jul 21, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> I don't know about other countries and even US procurement changed from before the war to during the war.
> 
> But in general an air force (army or navy or independent) put out a requirement for a new type of aircraft. It could be an open competition with any company being able to make a submission (almost always on paper) or closed so only a few companies could submit or special circumstances only one company.
> A company or designer could make an unsolicited proposal if they thought they had something really good but in the 1930s no country had unlimited money to spend on prototypes.
> ...


 Verry informative thanks. It just sounded like the processes you described with the p40 was rather cumbersome. Specifying a preferred engine that didn't work out for example rather than put the requirements out there and let the manufacturers come up with there best design/ modification and then accept the best proposals.


----------



## Venturi (Jul 21, 2018)

Probably the most innovative Curtiss aircraft, which was never contracted for in decent numbers, was the Demon




GrauGeist said:


> As has been exhaustively stated already, Curtiss put a tremendous effort into trying to upgrade the P-40. Actually more than they should have BUT contracts kept coming in for the P-40 and as long as Governments were wanting it, Curtiss was going to build it.
> 
> 
> So did every other aircraft manufacturer.
> ...




This is not the order of battle as “Bloody Shambles” by Shores relates it...


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 21, 2018)

michael rauls said:


> Verry informative thanks. It just sounded like the processes you described with the p40 was rather cumbersome. Specifying a preferred engine that didn't work out for example rather than put the requirements out there and let the manufacturers come up with there best design/ modification and then accept the best proposals.



To me the XP-53/XP-60 saga kind of shows where the P-40 improvement got derailed. Either the army (or Curtiss) wanted a plane to compete with the P-47 with it's eight .50 cal guns, so the XP-53/60 got stuck with a laminar flow wing (+) about 1/2 way (275 sq ft) between the P-40 and the P-47 (-). Bigger, heavier wing means bigger heavier airplane and you really need a bigger heavier engine to power it. One of the XP-60 prototypes got a Merlin engine of the type used in the P-40F and despite weighing hundreds of pounds more than a P-40F and having that extra 40 sq ft of wing area was actually a bit faster while the test notes claim the engine wasn't making full rated power ????

Hmmmm, instead of building a 80-90% new airplane (they did some parts from the P-40 fuselage) design a smaller wing that only holds six guns for the P-40 using the same airfoil???
You get something closer to the Mustang, you get it sooner, it just isn't quite as mean and nasty as the army was looking for (but then most of the mean and nasty planes the Army wanted never made it to production.)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 21, 2018)

Venturi said:


> This is not the order of battle as “Bloody Shambles” by Shores relates it...


Order of Battle for Pearl Harbor or the fall of the Philippines?

I'm still fascinated to know more about all these P-26s battling the A6M other than the few in China and the several out of 28 in the Philippines that survived the initial attacks.

Reactions: Optimistic Optimistic:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## davparlr (Jul 21, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> I agree with a lot of that but the B-26 is a mixed bag.
> The short wing B-26 was usually being operated thousands of pounds lighter than the later big/tilted wing planes. This would usually mean less bomb load or range or both had they kept building the short wing planes.
> 
> See; http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/B-26/B-26_Operation_and_Flight_Instructions.pdf
> ...


----------



## davparlr (Jul 21, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> I agree with a lot of that but the B-26 is a mixed bag.
> The short wing B-26 was usually being operated thousands of pounds lighter than the later big/tilted wing planes. This would usually mean less bomb load or range or both had they kept building the short wing planes.
> 
> The B-26 went from an under 30,000lb aircraft to a max 37,000lb aircraft. Maybe 1500lb can be attributed to the bigger wing, tail, armor and increased armament?




I’m not so sure. Velocity, which is a squared term, is a much more powerful lift variable than wing area, which is a linear function. If we hypothetically take a B-26Bs and calculate the amount of lift at 214 mph (the cruise speed of a long wing B-26C) and then calculate the lift of that very B-26 at 260 mph (cruise speed of the B-26B short wing) I think we will find that the high speed B-26 generates almost 50 percent more lift than the slower airspeed B-26. Now if we do the same for the increased wing area, I think we would find that the big wing B-26 would only generate about 10% more lift than the short wing B-26 at the same airspeed. Now the max gross weight of the B-26B long wing is about 4000 lbs more than the max gross weight of the short wing B-26B of which about 1500 lbs is the weight of the new wing, which the short wing doesn’t need. So, if we add 7 percent more weight to the short wing B-26, which from the previous example, should be easily accommodated, we will increase induced drag. But, because induced drag reduces with velocity, weight increases tend to have little effect on high speed flight therefore cruising speed may have to reduce only a small bit. So, in my opinion and rough calculations, if they are correct, I think the short wing B-26, which has less drag, could have been faster, flown farther, and carried more bombs than the long wing B-26. The drawback- the AAF would have to have longer airfields to accommodate a higher takeoff speed, which would certainly have been cheaper than putting longer wings on the B-26. It is interesting to note that the cruising speed of the short wing B-26 is only 22 mph slower than the top speed of the long wing B-26. That was a lot of performance to give up. It was the short wing B-26s that attacked the Japanese at Midway and of who commented that they were blazingly fast and difficult to bring down.

Most of this data comes from Ray Wagner’s American Combat Planes and Charles Mendenhall’s Deadly Duo. The rest from my possibly hair brained calculations.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 22, 2018)

Some other things were going on between the early short wings and the later aircraft. The early ones had spinners on the props, the air intakes were smaller (no sand filters) the oil cooler intake at the bottom of the cowl was smaller, the tail gun position _may _have had less drag (when closed) 





From the pilots manual the speeds of 326mph or 323mph were obtained at 26,734lbs. 
However the weight chart shows a normal gross weight of 28,706lbs.
This Normal gross is for 465 gallons of fuel and 2086lb of bombs. 
Armament is one .30 cal in the nose, one .30 cal in the tunnel, the two .50 cal in the top turret and a single .50 in the tail. Each .50 has 200 rounds. The .30s have 600 rounds each. There is only a 5 man crew. Turret gunner mans the tunnel gun? 

The speed figures are either for bombs gone or only about 130 gallons of fuel left in the tanks.

A short wing with the twin .50s in the tail, one or more .50s in the waist/bottom positions, and a .50 in the nose is going to pick a fair amount of weight (forget the cheek guns that come later) and that is part of the 1500lb increase, not just the weight of the bigger wing. 
Carrying more than four 500lb bombs is going to affect things. and it could easily carry more. 
filling (or trying to run) with fuel in the outer wing tanks is going to add weight.

The Big wing gets a lot of blame but the 323mph figure and the cruise speeds that go with it were obtained at a weight that was thousands of pounds below the way the plane wound up being operated. 
The early planes were a bit sensitive to weight distribution. With bombs and ammo gone and less than 250 gallons in the tanks ( it took off with only 465 gal) it was recommended in the manual for two of the crew members from the pilots and/or navigator stations to move to seats in the turret compartment to help get the CG in trim for ease of control when landing. maybe increasing the weight of the rear guns solved that?

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## davparlr (Jul 26, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Some other things were going on between the early short wings and the later aircraft. The early ones had spinners on the props, the air intakes were smaller (no sand filters) the oil cooler intake at the bottom of the cowl was smaller, the tail gun position _may _have had less drag (when closed)




For my comparison, I used the data (combined from the two books) for the B-26B-2 (short wing) and the B-26B-10/B-25C-5 (long wing). The B-26B-2 had already deleted the spinners. The difference between the two B-26s were an increase of empty weight from 22,380 lbs to 24,000 lbs, the majority of the weight has to be in the wing extensions. Various electronics, some winterizing, auto ejecting life raft, and extended nose wheel was included in growth number. (Empty weight seems to be a variable, however AHT, in its weight list for the P-61, does not use machine gun or cannon weight in the empty weight value only fixtures.) 50 cal machine guns went from six to ten. Other changes affecting performance was the addition of larger air scoops and two machine guns were packaged on the side of the aircraft. Top speed of the B-26B-2 was 317 mph and the cruising speed was 260 mph whereas the B-26B-10 had a top speed of 282 mph and a cruising speed of 214 mph (B-26C-5, same specification numbers as the B-26B-10).



> However the weight chart shows a normal gross weight of 28,706lbs.
> 
> This Normal gross is for 465 gallons of fuel and 2086lb of bombs.
> 
> Armament is one .30 cal in the nose, one .30 cal in the tunnel, the two .50 cal in the top turret and a single .50 in the tail. Each .50 has 200 rounds. The .30s have 600 rounds each. There is only a 5 man crew. Turret gunner mans the tunnel gun?



For the B-26B, the normal gross weight is 29,725 lbs. All the machine guns are 50 cal. I don’t have crew data but I would suspect that the B-26B-2 would have one less crew member than the B-26B-10 which had seven. The B-26B-10 did have two side gun stations which the -2 didn’t have, but no ventral position which the -2 did have.



> A short wing with the twin .50s in the tail, one or more .50s in the waist/bottom positions, and a .50 in the nose is going to pick a fair amount of weight (forget the cheek guns that come later) and that is part of the 1500lb increase, not just the weight of the bigger wing.
> 
> Carrying more than four 500lb bombs is going to affect things. and it could easily carry more.
> 
> filling (or trying to run) with fuel in the outer wing tanks is going to add weight



I would guess that the growth of empty weight, 1620 lbs, is pretty close to the weight of the wing extension change. The other equipment are bits and bobs. Even the machine gun installations were not sophisticated. Just thumb-nailing it I would estimate that if the B-26B-2 was loaded up to the level of the B-26-10/B-26C-5, the top speed of the B-26B-2 would be around 300 mph and the cruise speed would be around 240 mph. For a 300 mile penetration into France that would provide 20 minutes less time to be exposed to enemy defenses. I think, for that environment, 20 minutes is literally a lifetime. Speed is life.

As far as problems of weight distribution I would guess many aircraft had problems with weight distribution, even now. I working on the Tacit Blue aircraft in the early 80s and was responsible for most of the avionics. We were continually pressed to lower our weight on every component, which was usually a few pounds. After all that work, one ton of lead was added to meet cg requirements!


----------



## Conslaw (Aug 4, 2018)

Great info, Shortround. Only 465 gallons of fuel in an early B-26? WOW, the P47N carried more than that with a bit heavier bombload. Now, I realize that I’m comparing a 1945 fighter with a 1941 bomber, but still, that seems like a tiny amount of fuel for a plane that large and powerful. I was also in the camp that the B-26 should have stuck with the short wings, but now Im not so sure. An aggravating factor is that the Martin B-26 should have been phased out in favor of the Douglas A-26 starting in early 1944, but the Army’s indecision on design changes to the A-26 slowed its introduction. I think the A-26 is the largest underachiever among American planes in WW2, but only because the plane had so much potential.



Shortround6 said:


> Some other things were going on between the early short wings and the later aircraft. The early ones had spinners on the props, the air intakes were smaller (no sand filters) the oil cooler intake at the bottom of the cowl was smaller, the tail gun position _may _have had less drag (when closed)
> View attachment 502773
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 4, 2018)

Conslaw said:


> Great info, Shortround. Only 465 gallons of fuel in an early B-26? WOW, the P47N carried more than that with a bit heavier bombload. Now, I realize that I’m comparing a 1945 fighter with a 1941 bomber, but still, that seems like a tiny amount of fuel for a plane that large and powerful. I was also in the camp that the B-26 should have stuck with the short wings, but now Im not so sure. An aggravating factor is that the Martin B-26 should have been phased out in favor of the Douglas A-26 starting in early 1944, but the Army’s indecision on design changes to the A-26 slowed its introduction. I think the A-26 is the largest underachiever among American planes in WW2, but only because the plane had so much potential.




I am sorry if a gave a wrong impression. The early short wing _could _hold a lot more fuel 962 gallons in the standard wing tanks (934 usable) . It is just that the speed (and altitude ?) figures usually quoted are for a much lighter airplane. 

see: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/B-26/B-26_Operation_and_Flight_Instructions.pdf

If the service ceiling was 25,000ft at 26,734lbs what was the ceiling when the plane weighed 30,000lbs or more?
Max loaded was 33,326lbs. 

There is a lot written about how the big wing slowed the plane down but nowhere near as much is written about how the unrealistic performance figures give a false impression.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## davparlr (Aug 8, 2018)

After reviewing multiple flight test data for the B-26 in various configurations trying to normalize the variables, which is always difficult, the results is a bit conflicting. This seems to be the closest test set

Test at approx. 5k ft.

B-26B-2, AC 41-17756, airspeed 281 mph, 1400 hp/eng (mil ?), test weight 29,860 lbs

B-26B-10, AC 41-18199, airspeed 250 mph, 1400 hp/engine est. (test-247mph/1325hp), wt 30,780 lbs

Notes: Since the added wing span is most likely over 1,000 lbs, the two test weights should represent identical load carry capacity.

The B-26B-10 configuration contained the torpedo rack which would impact airspeed. The P-51 had two wing racks for bombs and these impacted the top speed by 10 mph at 400 mph at 5000ft. I would suspect the single torpedo rack impacting the B-26 at 250 mph as around 5 mph. From pictures, the torpedo rack seems to be a clean installation.

There is an unknown impact of cowl flaps and oil cooler on the B-26B-10.

I previously discussed the basic configuration differences between the B-2 and the B-10.

With this information, it appears that the short wing B-26B-2 compared to the extended wing B-26B-10, is around 20 mph faster at 5000ft, mil power (around 1400 hp/eng), and equivalent weight , which basically reflects a cleaner aircraft.

Flight test of the B-26F shows more of a compatibility to the B-26B-2 performance than it does the B-26B-10/C. It did have a 3.5 degree increase in wing incidence angle which gave it a more level cruising attitude, which I guess, made up the difference.


----------



## Venturi (Aug 8, 2018)

Ultimately, a fast bomber was only truly advantageous against enemies which were sub-400mph. And here I'm talking about pre 1942 European aircraft, or really before 1944 for the Japanese. When a fighter has a 100+mph advantage over the bomber, air supremacy or failing that, effective fighter escort are what protect the bombers - not speed. The fast bomber ideology only really became effective when you started talking about bombing from very high up (B-29) and fast, or when the bombers had near speed-parity with the fighters (aka 1942 low-level bombing, PTO). You'll see this reflected in the bomber design as the war went on: medium bombers were no longer "the bomber will always get through", regardless of their speed (if the fighters were sufficiently faster). Thus faster designs were less prioritized than those which carried more payload - or had longer ranges. Or they were simply modified to achieve those goals (as in the case of the short vs long wing B26). The experiences in the Med showed that plainly enough, where the Luftwaffe medium bomber fleet was decimated... A major exception was the Mosquito - and Arado - but again, we are talking now about bombers with near (or greater) speeds than the pursuing aircraft.


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 9, 2018)

michael rauls said:


> Alot of good information but don't you think as p39 expert said if they had the 2 stage Allison in production by April 43 and they new that it was commimg it doesn't seem like to much of a jump to think they could have had the q delivered by spring pf 44.


The only problem with all this is 'who's the customer'? The Aussies don't need them, they have the Spitfire VIII. The Kiwis don't need them, they have the Corsair. The Brits are using their Warhawks as fighter bombers so they don't need the high altitude capability. The USAAF has got better planes like the Mustang and Thunderbolt. The VVS prefers the Cobra because its faster. The only possible customer I see is Soviet Naval Aviation who preferred the Warhawk over the Cobra because of its greater range. So there you have it, only one potential customer for a plane that may not even be ready for service before the European War is over.


----------



## P-39 Expert (Aug 9, 2018)

Kevin J said:


> The only problem with all this is 'who's the customer'? The Aussies don't need them, they have the Spitfire VIII. The Kiwis don't need them, they have the Corsair. The Brits are using their Warhawks as fighter bombers so they don't need the high altitude capability. The USAAF has got better planes like the Mustang and Thunderbolt. The VVS prefers the Cobra because its faster. The only possible customer I see is Soviet Naval Aviation who preferred the Warhawk over the Cobra because of its greater range. So there you have it, only one potential customer for a plane that may not even be ready for service before the European War is over.


Lots of customers for a high altitude fighter, problem was, we didn't want the Russians to have them. Fine to give (lend lease) them single stage P-39s and P-40s but not something that could easily fight at B-17/B-24 altitudes. The Russians were our allies and we wanted to help them, just not too much.

Perfect outcome for the war (for us) would have been if the Germans and Russians had defeated each other before D-Day.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 9, 2018)

P-39 Expert said:


> Lots of customers for a high altitude fighter, problem was, *we didn't want the Russians to have them*. Fine to give (lend lease) them single stage P-39s and P-40s but not something that could easily fight at B-17/B-24 altitudes. The Russians were our allies and we wanted to help them, just not too much.




According to Wiki;
"A total of *2,397 *(*2,672*, according to other sources)[13] such aircraft were delivered to USSR, out of the overall *3,303* production aircraft (72.6%).[14]"

Deliveries of two stage "high altitude"P-63s to Russia. 


and we have the problem that the two stage Allison in the spring of 1943 really wasn't that good of a high altitude engine.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 9, 2018)

P-39 Expert said:


> Lots of customers for a high altitude fighter, problem was, we didn't want the Russians to have them. Fine to give (lend lease) them single stage P-39s and P-40s but not something that could easily fight at B-17/B-24 altitudes. The Russians were our allies and we wanted to help them, just not too much.
> 
> Perfect outcome for the war (for us) would have been if the Germans and Russians had defeated each other before D-Day.


The Russians were given small numbers of Thunderbolts which could attain a very high altitude, and over a thousand Spitfire LF IX's which also had a high altitude capability. I'm also thinking, so why would the Soviet Navy need a Warhawk with better altitude capability when the P-40N was perfectly adequate for the altitudes which they flew at.


----------



## P-39 Expert (Aug 9, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> According to Wiki;
> "A total of *2,397 *(*2,672*, according to other sources)[13] such aircraft were delivered to USSR, out of the overall *3,303* production aircraft (72.6%).[14]"
> 
> Deliveries of two stage "high altitude"P-63s to Russia.
> ...


The P-63 was delivered to the Russians well after the LW had been beaten and were not used in combat, unless the rumors that Pokryshkin had one (against regulations) are true.

Whether you say the V-1710 wasn't that good or not, they provided a 25% increase in HP at 25000' over a single stage model. Would have helped any P-39, P-40 and P-51A.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 9, 2018)

Doesn't matter when or why, you said the US didn't want the RUssians to have high altitude fighters and yet we shipped them around 3,000 (counting a few hundred P-47s) so, obviously , we did want them to have them. 
This also pretty much makes hash out of the idea that we didn't want them to have aircraft that would operate at the hights the B-17 and B-24 would operate at. 

The 25% increase in power came at the cost of several hundred pounds of engine weight (and even more weight for the complete powerplant) and would require some significant redesign of the aircraft in question, meaning a delay in getting them into production and delivering them to the "other customers".

The _93 Allison was not fully sorted out and passing it's type tests until the late fall of 1943, not the spring of 1943.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 9, 2018)

The Soviets were also provided various types of the P-51, either through lend-lease or abandoned.
These were the RAF Mk.I, P-51B, P-51C and P-51D, but the Soviets weren't interested in them and none of the Mustangs were used in any front line duties.

In regards to the P-47, the Soviets felt that it's attributes were already met by their IL-2 for ground attack and both the YaK-9 and La-5 for high-altitude combat, so the P-47s in their service were relegated to training or high-altitude CAP over interior cities.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## P-39 Expert (Aug 9, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Doesn't matter when or why, you said the US didn't want the RUssians to have high altitude fighters and yet we shipped them around 3,000 (counting a few hundred P-47s) so, obviously , we did want them to have them.
> This also pretty much makes hash out of the idea that we didn't want them to have aircraft that would operate at the hights the B-17 and B-24 would operate at.
> 
> The 25% increase in power came at the cost of several hundred pounds of engine weight (and even more weight for the complete powerplant) and would require some significant redesign of the aircraft in question, meaning a delay in getting them into production and delivering them to the "other customers".
> ...


The auxiliary stage itself weighed about 125# without carb. Any redesign should have been started to coincide with the anticipated production date of April '43. After all it had been in development since '40.

And the AAF was confident enough in it passing the tests that it put it into the P-63 prior to passing. It was a reliable engine. And it pushed a P-63 that was heavier than a P-39 with a larger wing to 420+mph at high altitude.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 9, 2018)

Ok the engine weighed 125lbs more,but the engine is positioned further forward in either the P-40 or P-51 airframes due to the longer length and that affects the center of gravity, even shifting the engine only a few inches forward and modifying the area behind the engine will call for some serious redesign. The two stage Allison was far from a drop in replacement for the single stage engine. Now I assume that with no more weight allowed for in your plans you are going to keep using the same propellers as the single stage allisons? The same radiators and oil coolers despite the much increased heat loads? No water injection system to act as crutch due to the lack of intercoolers? 

I like the "started to coincide with the anticipated production date of April '43. After all it had been in development since '40."

The Continental IV-1430 had been in development since about 1932-33 and the Army was still hoping it could be turned into a useable engine in 1943. 

Lets look at a few of the P-63 benchmarks to see how practical this scheme is.

The XP-63A makes it first flight April 26th 1943. 
The Army formally accepts the XP-63 in May of 1943.
Production deliveries of the P-63A start in *Oct of 1943.* 
May 16th 1944 has a report on operational suitability of the P-63A conclude that the aircraft in it's current form *cannot* be considered an operationally suitable front line fighter. 
Aug 1944 has the USAAF with 339 P-63As on hand, How many have already been sent to the Russians I don't know. 

The -93 engine was 100-200hp behind the two stage Merlin in the low 20,000ft altitude range in early/mid 1943.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 9, 2018)

If memory serves right, the Soviets sent a test pilot and an engineer to Bell early in '44 to evaluate the A type and uncovered a handfull of bugs, it was with their input that the '63 was greatly improved.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## davparlr (Aug 9, 2018)

Venturi said:


> Ultimately, a fast bomber was only truly advantageous against enemies which were sub-400mph. And here I'm talking about pre 1942 European aircraft, or really before 1944 for the Japanese. When a fighter has a 100+mph advantage over the bomber, air supremacy or failing that, effective fighter escort are what protect the bombers - not speed. The fast bomber ideology only really became effective when you started talking about bombing from very high up (B-29) and fast, or when the bombers had near speed-parity with the fighters (aka 1942 low-level bombing, PTO). You'll see this reflected in the bomber design as the war went on: medium bombers were no longer "the bomber will always get through", regardless of their speed (if the fighters were sufficiently faster). Thus faster designs were less prioritized than those which carried more payload - or had longer ranges. Or they were simply modified to achieve those goals (as in the case of the short vs long wing B26). The experiences in the Med showed that plainly enough, where the Luftwaffe medium bomber fleet was decimated... A major exception was the Mosquito - and Arado - but again, we are talking now about bombers with near (or greater) speeds than the pursuing aircraft.


Actually, there are other factors associated with surviving a military strike where where even small increases in speed are important. One of these is exposure time to enemy defenses, ten, fifteen, twenty minutes reduction in exposure to enemy defenses can significantly improve strike suvivability. Another is the reduction of enemy response time. Faster attackers complicate and reduce enemies response time to confront threat. AAA targeting is more complicated. It is more difficult to target faster aircraft than a slower one. Even small increases of fighter overtake time is important. Point interceptor fighters generally held a limited amount of fuel and every minute of max power gobbled up fuel. The Bf 109 only carried 105 gallons of fuel internally and 1500 hp max engine was a hungry beast. There is a good reason for the comment speed is life

I written about this before but the four short winged B-26s, with mounted torpedoes, were considered "blazing fast and difficult to bring down" by the Japanese. Three of the four reached weapon release point with one flying down the Akagi's flight deck machine gunning the ship. Two made it back, well shot up. Had those AAF pilots been better trained in torpedo attacks or had Navy torpedo bomber pilots, and, and this is a big and, had they carried Japanese aerial torpedoes, great damage could have been done to the Japanese invasion fleet.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 9, 2018)

I know the B-26 torpedo idea was noble, but they may have had a better chance for results with skip-bombing.

Of course, this is purely hind-sight.


----------



## wuzak (Aug 9, 2018)

P-39 Expert said:


> Lots of customers for a high altitude fighter, problem was, we didn't want the Russians to have them. Fine to give (lend lease) them single stage P-39s and P-40s but not something that could easily fight at B-17/B-24 altitudes. The Russians were our allies and we wanted to help them, just not too much.
> 
> Perfect outcome for the war (for us) would have been if the Germans and Russians had defeated each other before D-Day.



Did the Soviets want high altitude fighters?

The USSR had the MiG-3 in 1941/42, but these were gradually phased out of front line service, as they didn't see much high altitude fighting, and they were poor at low altitude.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 9, 2018)

wuzak said:


> Did the Soviets want high altitude fighters?
> 
> The USSR had the MiG-3 in 1941/42, but these were gradually phased out of front line service, as they didn't see much high altitude fighting, and they were poor at low altitude.


They also needed the engine production capacity for the AM-38 engine in the IL-2. 
Same basic engine, every Mig-3 built was an IL-2 without an engine.


----------



## DBII (Aug 9, 2018)

My vote is the B18. Long rang and large bomb bay. Perfect for low and slow anti sub patrol. Plenty of room for the crew.


----------



## wuzak (Aug 9, 2018)

DBII said:


> My vote is the B18. Long rang and large bomb bay. Perfect for low and slow anti sub patrol. Plenty of room for the crew.



This?
Douglas B-18 Bolo - Wikipedia


----------



## DBII (Aug 9, 2018)

wuzak said:


> This?
> Douglas B-18 Bolo - Wikipedia


That is the one. Saw one in Dayton, and started looking for information. Interesting history.


----------



## michael rauls (Aug 9, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Ok the engine weighed 125lbs more,but the engine is positioned further forward in either the P-40 or P-51 airframes due to the longer length and that affects the center of gravity, even shifting the engine only a few inches forward and modifying the area behind the engine will call for some serious redesign. The two stage Allison was far from a drop in replacement for the single stage engine. Now I assume that with no more weight allowed for in your plans you are going to keep using the same propellers as the single stage allisons? The same radiators and oil coolers despite the much increased heat loads? No water injection system to act as crutch due to the lack of intercoolers?
> 
> I like the "started to coincide with the anticipated production date of April '43. After all it had been in development since '40."
> 
> ...


Just a thought, maybe the reason the 2 stage Alison in the p40 was not persude ( just guessing here)was that by mid/ late 43 the powers that be were already looking forward and planning on winding down p40 production so by the time Curtis re tooled and got production going they might already be approaching the end of the production line with the p40.
I'm thinking this might be the case because in 43 nobody new ve day would be may 45. For all they new it could have been may 46 and if they were planning on keeping p40 production going and for all they knew at the time there could still be say almost 3 more years left to go it would only make sense to put the effort into the 2 stage for it but if there were planning on ending production soon it would not.
Not saying this was the right or wrong decision just what the thinking may have been.
Dont know if this is the case but it seems logical.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 9, 2018)

michael rauls said:


> Just a thought, maybe the reason the 2 stage Alison in the p40 was not perused ( just guessing here)was that by mid/ late 43 the powers that be were already looking forward and planning on winding down p40 production so by the time Curtis re tooled and got production going they might already be approaching the end of the production line with the p40.
> I'm thinking this might be the case because in 43 nobody new ve day would be may 45. For all they new it could have been may 46 and if they were planning on keeping p40 production going and for all they knew at the time there could still be say almost 3 more years left to go it would only make sense to put the effort into the 2 stage for it but if there were planning on ending production soon it would not.
> Not saying this was the right or wrong decision just what the thinking may have been.
> Dont know if this is the case but it seems logical.


There is a pilots manual dated 1943 that tells prospective P-40 pilots that no new US fighter units will be formed using P-40s. They will undergo training on P-40s but will transition to other aircraft when they join service squadrons. The manual says (as a morale builder?) that if they can handle the P-40 in training they will not have any trouble with the service fighters.

See;
https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/p-40-pilot-training-manual-pdf.68961/

So basically we have a US manual, stating in 1943, that the P-40 will only be used as an advanced trainer in US service. Granted it was used in combat, in decreasing numbers through 1944 and into 1945 in US service but was being phased out as quickly as P-51s and P-47s could be issued to the units equipped with P-40s as nay new units got the P-51 and P-47 to begin with. P-38s were being supplied but in much fewer numbers.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 9, 2018)

The B-18 was also the testbed for an airframe mounted 75mm cannon. Because it's frame couldn't handle the recoil, the tests were discontinued. However, the lessons learned were applied to the B-25.

The B-18 also made the first kill of any American aircraft against a German U-Boat, sinking the U-654 in August '42.


----------



## michael rauls (Aug 9, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> There is a pilots manual dated 1943 that tells prospective P-40 pilots that no new US fighter units will be formed using P-40s. They will undergo training on P-40s but will transition to other aircraft when they join service squadrons. The manual says (as a morale builder?) that if they can handle the P-40 in training they will not have any trouble with the service fighters.
> 
> See;
> https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/p-40-pilot-training-manual-pdf.68961/
> ...


Ok sounds like I may have actually been right about that then?( there's a first time for everything) At least in part.


----------



## davparlr (Aug 10, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> I know the B-26 torpedo idea was noble, but they may have had a better chance for results with skip-bombing.
> 
> Of course, this is purely hind-sight.


I agree that would have been effective, however, neither the torpedo nor the skip bombing had been sufficiently developed at that time.


----------



## Elvis (Aug 16, 2018)

Apologies if I've already posted in this thread. Seems like I did, but I couldn't find it (didn't go through entire thread, though).
Like some of the other early posters in this thread, I too say the Brewster Buffalo...however, only in the context of the original B-239 version.
The others added weight and made the plane pretty much a slug, but that first version, what the navy referred to as the F2A-1, was (apparently) quite a delight to fly.
The pilots who flew the plane during the Navy's tests back in '38 all remarked that it was more responsive and, overall, more of a joy to fly than the Grumman plane.
The Finns obviously found this trait to also be true and used it to great advantage during their conflict with Russia.
Interesting note about this plane, also...there was a test conducted by the Russians at some point during the war (probably after the Germans withdrew, but I'm not sure). It was quite simple....how fast could current fighters make it through a 180 degree turn at 2000 metres.
I remember the 109 and (I believe) the P-51 were in the neighborhood of about 20-25 seconds. The P-40 and the Spitfire, I believe did it in the high teens (I seem to remember reading numbers like 17 or 19 seconds), but after seeing most of the planes test fall somewhere between the lower 20's to lower teen's range, the B-239 was found to _BLAZE_ through the exercise in...….7 seconds....admittedly, a nice thing to have in your back pocket, when trying to get on your opponents six.
If I can ever find the place where I saw that, I will link it here, but so far, I have not been able to find it.
I did find out about it in a long thread at this site, but it was many years ago and I have been unable to locate that thread since returning here.


Elvis


----------



## James Duff (Aug 17, 2018)

amrit said:


> Following from the excellent question posed by Lucky13, I'd like to know what aircraft people think has received a raw deal.
> 
> A number of the polls here have argued over the worst aircraft, sometimes basing their views on dated information, or information passed down from those with prejudiced views during the war.
> 
> ...


I agree with The Buffalo & the Mohawk, and also the inclusion of the Hurricane.
The RAF didn't do particularly well in the Far East initially anyway, but that wasn't the fault of the aircraft or the pilots, it was largely down to poor leadership from high ranking officers in both the SEAC theatre and at home. The RAF were either almost always caught on the ground or shortly after take-off, in the few instances where the RAF were in an advantageous position the Japanese air formations suffered heavy losses at the hands of the Buffalo, Mohawk & Hurricane.
The RAF were very much at a severe disadvantage by having no early warning system, this was a similar outcome in France although the senior leadership was much better, but quite frankly, without radar during the Battle of Britain would have been similar result.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 17, 2018)

James Duff said:


> I agree with The Buffalo & the Mohawk, and also the inclusion of the Hurricane.
> The RAF didn't do particularly well in the Far East initially anyway, but that wasn't the fault of the aircraft or the pilots, it was largely down to poor leadership from high ranking officers in both the SEAC theatre and at home. The RAF were either almost always caught on the ground or shortly after take-off, in the few instances where the RAF were in an advantageous position the Japanese air formations suffered heavy losses at the hands of the Buffalo, Mohawk & Hurricane.
> The RAF were very much at a severe disadvantage by having no early warning system, this was a similar outcome in France although the senior leadership was much better, but quite frankly, without radar during the Battle of Britain would have been similar result.


I'd add the P-40 series.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## grampi (Aug 17, 2018)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Hmm the 3 that I think are the most underated are the Bf 109, Buffalo and Hurricane.


I don't know how you can say the BF-109 was under rated. It was regarded as one of the most lethal fighters of the war produced by any nation...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Blenheim (Aug 17, 2018)

I have to offer the Bristol Blenheim as a very much underrated aircraft. At the start of the Second World War the RAF had more Blenheims than any other type of aircraft; the Blenheim served in every operational command of the RAF and in every theatre in which the RAF fought. Although obsolescent by the outbreak of war, the Blenheim had to soldier on for almost three years, suffering great losses with the deaths of many crewmen before other, more advanced aircraft came along. The Victoria Cross, our highest award for gallantry in the face of the enemy, was awarded to thirty-two members of the Air Forces during the Second World War, three of these to Blenheim crewmen.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greg Boeser (Sep 1, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> I know the B-26 torpedo idea was noble, but they may have had a better chance for results with skip-bombing.
> 
> Of course, this is purely hind-sight.


US Pacific based squadrons attempted torpedo attacks only a few times. At Midway, at Dutch Harbor, and at Kiska. No hits were obtained. Skip bombing in the Aleutians sank a destroyer, and a 4000 ton cargo ship, and damaged a destroyer and several other cargo ships between 14 October 1942 and 19 Jan 1943. Two aircraft were lost to AA. Very few sorties were made due to the miserable weather. These were the early B-26 MA model. 
The RAF 14 Sqn actually sank a ship or two in the Aegean Sea in early '43 using Marauders as torpedo planes. This unit was then used for maritime recon.


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 1, 2018)

More enemy shipping was sunk by Allied medium and heavy bombers skip-bombing than by Torpedo bombing.

A prime exaple: the Japanese convoy HOMO-03, steaming from Hong Kong to Shanghai, was decimated by skip-bombing attacks.
First, by B-25s on 4 April 1945 and then again the following day by B-24s. The survivors of the convoy were caught again on the third day by more B-24s while they were making a dash for Amoy, resulting in the the last three destroyers being sunk.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greg Boeser (Sep 1, 2018)

Looking at the pictures in _Warpath Across the Pacific _is enough to convince me of the awesome terror of a low level shipping attack. Photos by the rear facing cameras of the hapless crews crouching in fear as the bombs go off is gut wrenching.


----------



## Greg Boeser (Sep 1, 2018)

Conslaw said:


> Great info, Shortround. Only 465 gallons of fuel in an early B-26? WOW, the P47N carried more than that with a bit heavier bombload. Now, I realize that I’m comparing a 1945 fighter with a 1941 bomber, but still, that seems like a tiny amount of fuel for a plane that large and powerful. I was also in the camp that the B-26 should have stuck with the short wings, but now Im not so sure. An aggravating factor is that the Martin B-26 should have been phased out in favor of the Douglas A-26 starting in early 1944, but the Army’s indecision on design changes to the A-26 slowed its introduction. I think the A-26 is the largest underachiever among American planes in WW2, but only because the plane had so much potential.


Early B-26s could carry up to 1212 us gallons if fitted with a bomb bay tank. B-26As and beyond could be fitted with 2 bay tanks for 1462 US gallons. In B-26B and beyond, two additional tanks could be fitted in the rear bay for a total of 1962 US gallons, but this was only done on ferry flights. 
In the Pacific, typical missions with the B-26 MA were flown with full wing tanks and 3000lbs of bombs, or for long range missions 2000 lbs and a 250 gallon bomb bay tank.
The short wing B-26B, with the R-2800-5 were usually flown with only 2000 lbs of bombs due to the heavier basic weight compared to the B-26 MA. Oxygen systems were removed because all the action was down low, except over New Guinea, where they had to hop over the Owen Stanleys, but then descended to 4000 to 8000 ft.
Top speed for the -5 equipped B-26B was considered to be 310 mph. Seven man crews. A 1943 pilot's manual restricts R-2800-5 equipped aircraft to a max take-off weight of 36,500 lbs. The chief complaint against the B-26 in the Pacific theater was its incredibly long take-off run, which limited it to fields capable of handling B-17s. Reducing take-off weight meant either lightening the bomb load or reducing combat radius.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Macchi (Sep 7, 2018)

The Macchi 205.


----------



## Madelman (Sep 8, 2018)

My list:

MiG-3, excellent performance but not at the altitude that the combats took place; a really sleek machine. With the il-2 engine (there were some prototypes) could have been a superb low altitude fighter 

Other, mainly from previous posts:

He 177
Do 217 nightfigther
Fairey Firefly
C-46 Commando
Wellington 
Me 410

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## againstthebar (Sep 29, 2018)

amrit said:


> Following from the excellent question posed by Lucky13, I'd like to know what aircraft people think has received a raw deal.
> 
> A number of the polls here have argued over the worst aircraft, sometimes basing their views on dated information, or information passed down from those with prejudiced views during the war.
> 
> ...



Martin Baltimore - Desert Air Force - North Africa and Italian campaigns

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Sep 29, 2018)

againstthebar said:


> Martin Baltimore - Desert Air Force - North Africa and Italian campaigns


I'd add the Martin Maryland to your post, excellent reconnaissance fighter bomber in the Med until the Beaufighter arrived. Shot down enemy planes.


----------

