# P-40 Tiger Shark in RAF...



## Maestro (Mar 8, 2005)

Greetings ladies and gentlemen.

I heard somewhere that the RAF used some P-40s during WW II. Is it true ? If yes, in wich teather and in wich role were they used ?


----------



## evangilder (Mar 8, 2005)

The Brits did indeed have P-40s, but they were called the Tomahawk. They flew with the No. 112 squadron in the Desert Air Force in North Africa. It was the British that first used the sharks mouth on the P-40 also. Later versions in RAF service were called the Kittyhawk. I am not sure of the operational usage of the Kittyhawks, but doubt that they were used in the European Theater.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Mar 8, 2005)

The RCAF flew some Kittyhawks too, but mostly for home defence duties in Canada.


----------



## evangilder (Mar 8, 2005)

Yes, they also received some instructional airframes.


----------



## Maestro (Mar 8, 2005)

Good. Thank you for your help.


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 8, 2005)

Try looking up Billy Drake of 112 Squadron RAF, that should give you quite a few shark mouths on P-40s


----------



## BlackWolf3945 (Mar 8, 2005)

The Tomahawk saw limited use by the RAF in low-level reconnaissance sorties over occupied Europe until 1943. 

However, most of the Tomahawks and Kittyhawks operated by the RAF were used in the MTO, along with some Australian and South African units.

The following are Commonwealth squadrons which used the P-40 in the MTO:

94 Sqn RAF
112 Sqn RAF
250 Sqn RAF
260 Sqn RAF

3 Sqn RAAF
450 Sqn RAAF

2 Sqn SAAF
4 Sqn SAAF
5 Sqn SAAF


The P-40 was used by the Australians and New Zealanders in their own back yard:

75 Sqn RAAF
76 Sqn RAAF
77 Sqn RAAF
78 Sqn RAAF
80 Sqn RAAF
82 Sqn RAAF
84 Sqn RAAF
86 Sqn RAAF

14 Sqn RNZAF
15 Sqn RNZAF
16 Sqn RNZAF
17 Sqn RNZAF
18 Sqn RNZAF
19 Sqn RNZAF
20 Sqn RNZAF


An incomplete list of other non-US users...

*Brazil*

*China:*

American Volunteer Group

*Canada:*

12 Sqn RCAF
111 Sqn RCAF
118 Sqn RCAF
132 Sqn RCAF
133 Sqn RCAF
135 Sqn RCAF

*France*

*Holland:*

120 Sqn NEIAF (Netherlands East Indies Air Force)

*Turkey*

*USSR:*

126th IAP
154th IAP
159th IAP
964th IAP

For a good bit of info on P-40s in the Soviet VVS and PVO, look HERE.

The P-40 was captured in varying numbers by all of the the axis powers and one example, a Soviet P-40M, was also captured by Finland.


Fade to Black...


----------



## Maestro (Mar 9, 2005)

Thanks for those informations, Black Wolf.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Mar 9, 2005)

For a brief history of the RCAF squadrons listed visit http://www.rcaf.com/squadrons/index.php

These squadrons were used as home defense fighter squadrons(west coast). When they went overseas their designation changed.


----------



## helmitsmit (Mar 9, 2005)

I think that the p40 was quite good and doesn't get enough credit. It was quite manuerable and with a speed of 363mph.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 9, 2005)

you're right about her not getting enough credit but she was outclassed by many planes..........


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 9, 2005)

Definitley, after she was outclassed as a fighter she was an excellent fighter-bomber


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 9, 2005)

The P-40 was outclassed, but vital in the early years of the Pacific.


----------



## wmaxt (Mar 9, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> The P-40 was outclassed, but vital in the early years of the Pacific.



The P-40 wasn't a bad plane below about 15,000ft. It could mix it up with the German and italian fighters until about '43 when the airframe ran out of modifiability - even the Merlin wasn't quite enough to boost it's performance. Again a lack of a good supercharger hurt it when it was needed most.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 9, 2005)

I like to think of it as the USAAF's equivalent of the Hurricane.


----------



## helmitsmit (Mar 16, 2005)

Shame they didn't put a Merlin 61 in like the Mustang, it might have had the same effect! I agree with the Hurricane statement. 

Have you heard of the P40Q looks nothing like the original but had a max speed of 423mph!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 16, 2005)

No I havent, sounds good though! 8)


----------



## KraziKanuK (Mar 16, 2005)

helmitsmit said:


> Have you heard of the P40Q looks nothing like the original but had a max speed of 423mph!



Guess what engine it used?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 16, 2005)

R-2800? Im guessing it was a radial.


----------



## evangilder (Mar 16, 2005)

Actually, it was the Allison V-1710-121 with two stage supercharger.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 16, 2005)

Oh, right


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 17, 2005)

most radials, especailly the R-2800, were too big for the P-40..........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 17, 2005)

Modify the nose a bit and it should have been fine...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 17, 2005)

but think of the prop that thing'd need..........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 17, 2005)

But think of the performace in that small, light airframe...! Jack the Undercarriage up a bit and it will be fine


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 18, 2005)

yes but as a bigger engine was fitted, you'd need more fuel, possibly a larger wingspan, and the airframe would need considderable "beefing up" to take the stress..........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 18, 2005)

Not if I would designing it it wouldnt


----------



## helmitsmit (Apr 11, 2005)

Not as good as the Merlin with two stage super-charger. Why was this why it to do with capacity? [/quote]


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 13, 2005)

helmitsmit said:


> Not as good as the Merlin with two stage super-charger. Why was this why it to do with capacity?



Why would it not have been as good as a Merlin?

The only thing the Merlin really had going for it over the Allison was that RR had designed a supercharger stage to fit between the valve bays. This meant that only one stage had to be fitted externally, so it lead to a more compact design. It was harder to maintain though because of this compactness.

The Allison was smoother running and developmed just as much power for weight for a given level of boost as the Merlin.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 13, 2005)

The Allison was also a bit more robust than the Merlin, was able to be over boosted and over reved.


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 13, 2005)

Why wasn't the Allison as good as the Merlin at high altitudes?
I've always heard this but I don't know why


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 13, 2005)

I think it was because of the Merlins two-stage supercharger.


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 13, 2005)

mosquitoman said:


> Why wasn't the Allison as good as the Merlin at high altitudes?
> I've always heard this but I don't know why



It was, as long as it had a two stage supercharger or a turbo-supercharger. The problem with most Allison engined planes earlier on in the War (P-39, P-40, P-51A) was that they had only a single stage supercharger. The P-38 is the exception, and it had good high-altitude performance from even the earlier models (though the pilot would freeze his butt off), because it included both a single stage supercharger plus a turbocharger acting as the second stage.

The P-39 was originally designed to have two stage supercharging or turbo-supercharging (I cannot recall which), but the idiots at the US ordinance commitee (Congress) thought they were also skilled at aircraft design and felt the scoops would hurt the aerodynamic lines of the plane and dictated they should be removed. This was rectified in the later P-63, which had good high alt performance.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 13, 2005)

Thanks for that, I always wondered why they changed to a Merlin in the Mustang


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 13, 2005)

mosquitoman said:


> Thanks for that, I always wondered why they changed to a Merlin in the Mustang



Because when the British specified the P-51 it was to be in the same class as the P-40, which meant only a single-stage supercharger (as also found on early Spitfires). Thus it was much easier to adapt the Merlin 65 engine, with it's internal supercharger stage, into the P-51 to have two stages of supercharging. If this had been done using the Allison, the plane would have had to have been more significantly modified to incorporate a 2nd external supercharger stage.

On the otherhand, the P-51 probably would have gotten a turbo-supercharger if it had not gone to the Merlin. it would probably have had to be located behind the engine, and the fuselage lengthened accordingly.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## GT (Apr 14, 2005)

Update.


----------



## Bushranger (May 18, 2005)

In North Africa, 1941, flying Tomahawk Mk2's or P-40C's. 

P-40 is my favourite but most underrated plane in WW2 IMHO. It did it's just bloody well with bugger all training


----------

