A fun WWII what if...

[HellToupee]

absolutely, and I think that the P-40 would have been remembered as a GREAT fighter, in-between the Spitfire and the Hurricane. It's sad that so many people think it's a dog.

Well i don't think it would have helped its reputation much, it was considered second rate vs the SpitV and 109F before the 2 stage merlins. Better than the hurricane but the hurricane was a ground pounder by that stage, p40 was like the hurricane in the bob a workhorse.

 

[HoHun]

Hi Clay,

>So, I just found out that the P-40F DIDN'T have a two stage supercharger, it had a single stage two speed supercharger, so its mediocre performance doesn't really answer my question.

Hm, I had already pointed that out to you in post #12 of this thread

Don't expect too much performance from a re-engined P-40 ... using the same Allison engine, the early P-51 was roughly 50 km/h faster than the P-40 at sea level, so it would always be faster regardless of the engine.

That should not come as a surprise as the P-51 had been sold and designed (in that order) as a superior P-40 substitute. The aerodynamic quality of the P-40 (or lack thereof) was so obvious that not was North American Aviation sure that they could do better, but also that the British had no problems placing an order for that better plane that was yet to be designed.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

[MikeGazdik]

Undoubtedly, a Merlin engined P-40 would not outperform the P-51. I just wonder what the speed would have been at altitude for a P-40 with the 2 stage / 2 speed Merlin. Maybe 400 mph at 25 thousand feet?

I'm editing this after reading my post. The P-40 would have had to have a belly scoop / rear radiator as in the prototype P-40 and all the P-51 series. With that big chin radiator on the later Warhawks, I don't think it would have been able to break 400mph.

 

[Clay_Allison]

Undoubtedly, a Merlin engined P-40 would not outperform the P-51. I just wonder what the speed would have been at altitude for a P-40 with the 2 stage / 2 speed Merlin. Maybe 400 mph at 25 thousand feet?

I'd never suggest that a P-40 could outperform a P-51 on its' best day. But could it fight a 109-E on equal terms, that's my question.

 

[MikeGazdik]

I'd never suggest that a P-40 could outperform a P-51 on its' best day. But could it fight a 109-E on equal terms, that's my question.

I was one of the few to think so on a Bf 109 vs P-40 discussion not long ago. My argument was the P-40 would have to stay down low, 10 thousand or less, to stay competative. IF the re-engined P-40 could have flown high, I think it would have helped it even more with I think a greater dive speed.

 

[Colin1]

Lets see if this works. I didn't work tonight, so I played on the computer. I think we would have liked to see this:

We did see this
it was the P51, you've morphed it halfway there already; the difference being that it wouldn't have been as good as the P51 owing to aerodynamic deficiencies (the undercart arrangement springs to mind).
I don't think you can turn the P40 into a P51-beater without turning it into a P51 in all but name.

I take some issue with your view that people viewed the P40 as a dog. The P40 was there when it was needed but the war kicked off and requirements ran away from the P40 design, something else was needed; it doesn't make the P40 a dog any more than the same near-obsolescence made the Hurricane a dog at the end of the Battle of Britain.

There was a viable P40 competitor for the P51 (which I shall put in my next post) but it was too little, too late - the P51 'had already got the job'.

 

[Colin1]

Below: The 420mph XP40-Q offerred too little too late [USAF]

 

[MikeGazdik]

I take some issue with your view that people viewed the P40 as a dog. The P40 was there when it was needed but the war kicked off and requirements ran away from the P40 design, something else was needed; it doesn't make the P40 a dog any more than the same near-obsolescence made the Hurricane a dog at the end of the Battle of Britain.
.

Im a P-40 fan, overall favorite aircraft! I think down low it can take on a Bf 109.

 

[Colin1]

Im a P-40 fan, overall favorite aircraft

I think down low it can take on a Bf 109

I know (we know)
I don't have a issue as such, I just don't agree with you, I think most WWII aviation enthusiasts have a soft spot for the P40 or at least recognise that it was there when it was needed.

We all had that conversation a while back, didn't we?
Depends on what you mean by 'down low' - at typical low combat altitudes I think the Bf109 will beat the P40. If we're down in the long grass the ship's abilities have become alot more irrelevant, the pilot's abilities alot more important.

 

[HoHun]

Hi Colin,

>If we're down in the long grass the ship's abilities have become alot more irrelevant, the pilot's abilities alot more important.

Hm, I disagree with that. As long as the pilot can trade altitude for airspeed, he has more options and accordingly more opportunities to use skill.

If you're on the deck, you either have the raw power to fly a manoeuvre, or you don't - no way to drop a bit to borrow the energy.

Accordingly, near the ground aircraft performance becomes more important, not less.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

[Colin1]

Hm, I disagree with that. As long as the pilot can trade altitude for airspeed, he has more options and accordingly more opportunities to use skill.

If you're on the deck, you either have the raw power to fly a manoeuvre, or you don't - no way to drop a bit to borrow the energy.

Accordingly, near the ground aircraft performance becomes more important, not less

Weeeell OK
what you say is certainly correct
it was the proximity to the ground that fueled my argument that pilot ability played a bigger part in the outcome; what you say about having 'no way to drop a bit to borrow the energy' could just as well read 'drop a bit and you're toast' - there's only a slim margin for error down in the long grass and that could play on the mind of an inexperienced or less confident pilot in a better aircraft.

My argument was centred around the idealised notion that two combatants of comparable ability had worked their way down to zero altitude with plenty of energy still available.

 

[Marshall_Stack]

Below: The 420mph XP40-Q offerred too little too late [USAF]

Did the XP-40Q have the same external 2nd stage supercharger as the P-63? And is the same arrangement that the F-82 had (later models)?

 

[Colin1]

Did the XP-40Q have the same external 2nd stage supercharger as the P-63? And is the same arrangement that the F-82 had (later models)?

There weren't that many
but the second ZP-40Q was a P40-K, s/n 42-45722 that had a reduced chin cowl installed, four blade propeller, clipped wing tips (at a later date), with an Allison V-1710-121 fitted with a 2-stage supercharger and water injection that was capable of 1425hp and powering the aircraft up to 422 mph. The third XP40-Q was a P40-N, s/n 43-24571 and basically had the same modification as the second.

XP40-Q Specifications:

Span: 35 ft 3 in
Length: 35 ft 4 in
Height: 12 ft 4 in
Wing Area: n/a
Empty Weight: n/a
Loaded Weight: 9,000 lb
Max. Speed: 422 mph
Cruise Speed: n/a
Ceiling: 39,000 ft
Rate of Climb: 3,000 fpm
Range: 650 to 1,400 miles
Powerplant: Allison V-1710-121 of 1,425 hp

I don't know how that compares with the P63 or F82

 

[Clay_Allison]

There weren't that many
but the second ZP-40Q was a P40-K, s/n 42-45722 that had a reduced chin cowl installed, four blade propeller, clipped wing tips (at a later date), with an Allison V-1710-121 fitted with a 2-stage supercharger and water injection that was capable of 1425hp and powering the aircraft up to 422 mph. The third XP40-Q was a P40-N, s/n 43-24571 and basically had the same modification as the second.

XP40-Q Specifications:

Span: 35 ft 3 in
Length: 35 ft 4 in
Height: 12 ft 4 in
Wing Area: n/a
Empty Weight: n/a
Loaded Weight: 9,000 lb
Max. Speed: 422 mph
Cruise Speed: n/a
Ceiling: 39,000 ft
Rate of Climb: 3,000 fpm
Range: 650 to 1,400 miles
Powerplant: Allison V-1710-121 of 1,425 hp

I don't know how that compares with the P63 or F82

So basically, if Allison had developed a 2-stage supersharger sooner, the P-40Q could have been the definitive P-40 and would have been a good second-best inline dogfighter to the P-51.

Question answered!

 

[drgondog]

So basically, if Allison had developed a 2-stage supersharger sooner, the P-40Q could have been the definitive P-40 and would have been a good second-best inline dogfighter to the P-51.

Question answered!

Clay if your figures are correct on range the P-40Q would have been inadequate for primary USAAF doctrine for bomber escort (I'm pretty sure the 1400 mi range was with ferry tanks - but not sure about this) but pretty decent in continued TAC role. But would you want it in lieu of the P-38 or P-47 at same stage of development - leaving it to compete with P-51B going forward?

 

[drgondog]

There weren't that many
but the second ZP-40Q was a P40-K, s/n 42-45722 that had a reduced chin cowl installed, four blade propeller, clipped wing tips (at a later date), with an Allison V-1710-121 fitted with a 2-stage supercharger and water injection that was capable of 1425hp and powering the aircraft up to 422 mph. The third XP40-Q was a P40-N, s/n 43-24571 and basically had the same modification as the second.

XP40-Q Specifications:

Span: 35 ft 3 in
Length: 35 ft 4 in
Height: 12 ft 4 in
Wing Area: n/a
Empty Weight: n/a
Loaded Weight: 9,000 lb
Max. Speed: 422 mph
Cruise Speed: n/a
Ceiling: 39,000 ft
Rate of Climb: 3,000 fpm
Range: 650 to 1,400 miles
Powerplant: Allison V-1710-121 of 1,425 hp

I don't know how that compares with the P63 or F82

The P-82 set the long range record for a US fighter (no refuel) that has never been broken - in excess of 5,000 miles and an average speed of ~ 350mph IIRC - according to the story the pilot failed to eject his 310 gallon ferry tanks after they ran dry... which should have resulted in one helluva drag penalty on the last 3000 miles (would have burned external fuel first)

I think the Allison used in the P-82E was the -143 which was rated at 1930 hp w/water injection at 20K.

I haven't seen the climb figures but the airplane with Merlins was a very good performer and should easily have matched the P-38 with the better 1650-11 engines and same basic weight empty? in other words a lot better than the the P-40Q.

 

[Clay_Allison]

Clay if your figures are correct on range the P-40Q would have been inadequate for primary USAAF doctrine for bomber escort (I'm pretty sure the 1400 mi range was with ferry tanks - but not sure about this) but pretty decent in continued TAC role. But would you want it in lieu of the P-38 or P-47 at same stage of development - leaving it to compete with P-51B going forward?

I wouldn't anticipate its use as a bomber escort unless they also got large drop tanks and perhaps a reduction in armor and guns to save weight. (not a bad idea anyway).

On the other hand I believe that it would have been much more effective fighting A6Ms in the pacific and possibly (with folding wings) a replacement for the F4F.

 

[drgondog]

I wouldn't anticipate its use as a bomber escort unless they also got large drop tanks and perhaps a reduction in armor and guns to save weight. (not a bad idea anyway).

On the other hand I believe that it would have been much more effective fighting A6Ms in the pacific and possibly (with folding wings) a replacement for the F4F.

I agree.

The basic issue with the P-40 was that it was a draggy a/c relative to the 51 re: range and top speed.

USN didn't take an inline engine in WWII for anything important - but had they been presented with a P-40Q in 1940, it might have easily replaced the F4F.. and made the emrgence of the Mustang difficult.

by 1942 the F4U was coming off production and the F6f was in test so the P-40Q as a contemporary would not have been suitable given USN preference for radials

On the other hand, had Allison had the -100 and -123 available for the P-51A in 1940-41 - the Mustang would have overwhelmed the USAAF and likely been ready for 8th AF in 1942..

 

[MikeGazdik]

On the other hand, had Allison had the -100 and -123 available for the P-51A in 1940-41 - the Mustang would have overwhelmed the USAAF and likely been ready for 8th AF in 1942..

Ahh, but IF the P-40 would have been that good of a performer, would the Mustang even have existed? Or at least in way we know it now? Possibly the British would not have been interested in a better design by North American.

 

[Clay_Allison]

I agree.

The basic issue with the P-40 was that it was a draggy a/c relative to the 51 re: range and top speed.

USN didn't take an inline engine in WWII for anything important - but had they been presented with a P-40Q in 1940, it might have easily replaced the F4F.. and made the emrgence of the Mustang difficult.

by 1942 the F4U was coming off production and the F6f was in test so the P-40Q as a contemporary would not have been suitable given USN preference for radials

On the other hand, had Allison had the -100 and -123 available for the P-51A in 1940-41 - the Mustang would have overwhelmed the USAAF and likely been ready for 8th AF in 1942..

I doubt that the P-40Q could have made the Mustang's emergence difficult. If Curtiss had been able to produce more P-40s the British wouldn't have been interested in North American's alternate idea. For the same reason I don't think the P-51A with the two-stage Allison could have totally beaten the P-40 any more than the Spitfire really beat out the Hurricane. For production reasons those two great fighters served concurrently.

The best you could hope for is that the initial orders would be large enough that Bell would end up building P-51s under license (due to the other two fighters kicking the p-39's ass) and Grumman would build P-40 Seahawks (due to the inferiority of the F4F).

The one great plane that might never come about because of that kind of innovation is the P-38. Hard to imagine the Army still thinking they needed a plane 3 times as expensive as the other two that didn't really fill a unique role anymore.