Another 10000 P-36/40 aircraft?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules


Agreed though perhaps you might get production up to the equivalent of some ratio. And they were building Boomerangs as late as 1945 (granted in quite small numbers).

This might be where the Hawk 75 actually becomes a viable option, or even an improved Aussie Hawk 75. Arguably it's a bit better than a Boomerang. If they could get Allison or Merlin engines of course, they could make some P-40s I'd think. They didn't need that many. What's more useful 700 Wirraways and 250 boomerangs or say, 200 P-40s?

Granted you do need some of those Wirraways for training probably.


True but they only used a few for that role. Meanwhile they were trying to fly P-51A fighter squadrons in China (to fairly dismal results) and A-36s in Italy, though maybe those were actually worth making.

Well it depends what you are trading for. I'd argue P-40s were more useful than most of those P-39s they made for US use, (including the P-400's the British gave back to us) and by say, mid 1942 it was clear that the Sun had set on the once mighty Hurricane, whereas P-40s probably still had a year left in them. Maybe enough time for some engine swaps at the very least, though I can't say. The whole thread is obviously just speculation from the OP.

But not all development and production decisions were done with optimal amounts of common sense, some course corrections could have been made which might have helped. Could you have gotten 10,000 more Hawks or P-40s in time to help? Maybe not, but 5,000 might be closer to the ballpark. Certainly 2000 or 3000. If you subtracted say 500 P-39s from the MTO and added an additional 200 P-40F/Ls that would have helped I think. The P-39s weren't doing much of anything.
 

I think that Packard made more 20-series variants than they did 60/100-series Merlins.

The bulk of Packard production went into British or Canadian built aircraft - mainly Lancaster, Hurricane and Mosquito.
 
I don't know what the breakdown was between engines for US and Canadian / British use, but apparently in the US the constraint on the P-40F and L was because not enough Merlin 20s were available and future production was going to Merlin 60's for the Mustang.

As for Canada, while the Mosquitos (wherever they ended up) were a good investment, and you could debate the Lancasters but they probably were too, most of those engines going into Hurricanes might have been better off going into P-40s. With the exception of maritime use, if any.
 

The original Packard licence agreement was for 9,000 engines, one third of which was to go to US aircraft. The P-40 was the only suitable airframe at the time the agreement was finalised.

The engines for the P-40F and L were from the 3,000 Merlins reserved for use by the USA.



Many of those engines went into Hurricanes when there were barely any P-40s available.

Early in the war the British wanted every last fighter they could get - and switching CCF from building steel tube and fabric Hurricanes to building stress skinned P-40s was not likely to meet that demand.
 
Of the major production models (P-38, P-39, P-40, P-47 and P-51) the P-40 was the slowest, had the worst rate of climb, lowest ceiling, shortest range and was the most difficult to take off and land. Yes, by all means, do everything possible to divert production from the other models to the P-40. And begin learning German and Japanese.

The original question should have been how many of the other models could have been made if P-40 production had been stopped as early as possible.
 
Last edited:
And yet the P-40 still had a vastly better combat record (and was much better liked by it's pilots) than the P-39. Reality can surprise you that way.

In the early to mid war, only the P-40 and P-39 were available, with small numbers of P-38s which I believe were being produced as fast as they could be. P-47 and P-51 came later, and when they were available, they switched to those. Building fewer P-39s would have helped the overall effort.

Even though some of the technical details you cited are incorrect, I'm not going to get drawn into a P-40 vs P-39 argument. The historical record is what it is.
 

I wonder why they never put any Merlin's in P-39s?

Yes thank you for reminding me about the engine arrangement, I had forgotten the precise ratio. I still think they could have used P-40's here instead of Hurricanes. The DAF (etc.) was using P-40s by preference in the MTO and Italy and probably would have done in Burma as well if they had enough of them, especially the Merlin engine type.

But as I pointed out, Curtiss was cranking out more airframes than they had engines for. There were 700 of them in 1942 waiting for those Merlin engines, and I daresay the ~500 P-40M which went to British / Commonwealth units could have been converted easily enough and would have been far more capable if they had been. Put those together, put metric instruments into them and call it Kittyhawk IIC (for Canadian) and give them to British and Commonwealth units. Then maybe Curtiss could make some more airframes and /or help the Canadians tool up. It's not 10,000 but it would have been an improvement.

The DAF only had two units flying Kittyhawk II (260 RAF and 3 RAAF) and they bitterly complained that they never got more, considering it was their engine and all. Both of these units were reverted back to fighter-bomber status when they switched back to Kittyhawk III (one, 260 RAF, managed to scrounge up parts to go back to Kittyhawk II for a while before giving up). With an extra 1200 fighters they could have equipped maybe 3 or 4 more squadrons which were using the less capable variants (or Hurricanes).

Or failing that, license build Spitfires in Canada and divert Bell and Curtiss into helping the Canadians get it up to speed. Maybe that would require another license agreement I don't know.
 
P-39 Expert said:
The original question should have been how many of the other models could have been made if P-40 production had been stopped as early as possible.
Click to expand...
And the original reply would be:
Replace it with what? The P-43?

When the war started for the US (and before), Curtiss was manufacturing the P-36 and P-40, both for domestic and foreign requests.
It was rugged and capable and took on anything the Axis could throw at it.

History clearly shows that the P-40, operating in the same theater with the P-39, against common enemy elements, had a higher success/survival rate. Even early on the Eastern front, the P-40 was a solid performer until the Soviets learned how to use the P-39 to their advantage.

So eliminating the P-40 early war would leave a tremendous vacuum across all theaters until late '43, early '44, when the P-47 and P-51 came into their own, and literally makes no sense.
 
The range issue is one of the major elements here for the P-40, it had almost double the effective range / endurance of most of the other Allied fighter types, and also most of the German and Italian fighters. This later became one of the most important advantages of the P-38 which had double the range of the P-40 (particularly important in the Pacific) and could also fight at high altitude.

I suspect the issues with the P-39 were a combination of training (needed better pilots to handle the spin issues), field mods (we know the Soviets did remove some stuff like wing guns and made other changes) and maybe climate - I think maybe the P-39 was one of those types that didn't do so well in the heat and maybe 'liked' colder air.

I don't actually think the P-39 was a bad design, but many of the Anglo-American pilots going into combat in 1942-43 were barely trained. The Australians heading to Milne Bay lost literally half of their P-40s in landing and other accidents just trying to fly them across Australia and to New Guinea. They were in a steep learning curve from Stearmans or whatever they had learned to fly in, couldn't even remember to lower their landing gear half the time, and certainly weren't trained enough for tricky, demanding planes. Maintenance crews were also in a steep learning curve and P-39s had a lot of unusual features like the position of the engine, the big gun, and the landing gear and so on.

Early success with the P-40 was partly down to being easier to fly, or where they had some time to work it up before fighting started, like with the AVG. The Soviets as we know did a long pre-combat workup with the P-39 before they threw it into the breach, and it paid off.

I'm really curious, why didn't they ever put a Merlin 20 in a P-39? Seems like that could have been a good fit.
 
But no armor or self sealing tanks. The AVG had a couple of them and they liked it, basically for recon and like you said, intercepting recon planes. Once it was fully sorted out it essentially became the P-47.




 
Last edited:
The P-43A-1 did have pilot and fuel tank protection, though not as extensive as an F4F-4 or P-40D.
 
From what I remember reading in the AVG / 23rd FG experiences with it, the P-43s they had didn't have any protection, so were deemed too dangerous to use against Ki-43 etc., but they liked them and wanted more.

Eventually of course P-47s arrived, though it took a while.
 
The irony of the P-47 was that it was such a fantastic high altitude fighter, but ended up being used so much as a low-alt fighter bomber which was not the ideal use in many respects. Range, once again, was the real deciding factor though they did eventually get the range up pretty high, Mustang got the nod for the air superiority role.
 
You keep leaving out the prime user of the P-39. The Soviets defeated the LW at the height of their power at all altitudes and all conditions. From mid 1942 until the end of the war. The Soviets produced over 67000 fighter planes but half of their top ten aces flew the P-39 with less than 5000 units supplied to them. The historical record is what it is.
 
Yes, I agree- and no I didn't leave them out. In fact I speculated as to why they did so well with it upthread a bit. Unlike some other people, I'm not an anti-P-39 guy, as I said, but you are so monomaniacal on this issue you apparently can't perceive nuance and are actively filtering what you read. This isn't good for your 'cause' in case you haven't noticed.

The Soviets figured out how to use it, clearly, and (I suspect) part of the reason it did well in their hands was that their Theater was probably ideal for that aircraft (at least compared to say, Libya, Sicily, Alaska, Guadalcanal, or New Guinea). The same cannot be said for it's use by the Western Allies.

As I stated repeatedly, every P-39 (and P-63) sent to the Soviets was money well spent. But before you would want to make any more P-39s for Anglo-American (etc.) use, you'd have to figure out how to make it work in the context in which they were using it, which is really a subject for another thread.

I gather it has already been the subject of 10 or 15 other threads and people are worn out on the subject.
 
P-39 Expert said:
The AAF could have easily lightened them just like the Soviets.
Click to expand...
But did they?
No, they did not.

The USAAF desperately needed something to wrest air dominance from Japan and didn't have the luxury of time to eff with experimental combinations that might find the magic combination in order for it to work.

At least the USAAF used it until they got the P-38 in operational number, the RAF dumped it on the Soviets as fast as they could.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Fast bombers alternatives for 1939-40
13 14 15
Replies
294
Views
15K
GrauGeist
A 'proper' tank-buster A/C for 1939-40?
3 4 5
Replies
91
Views
7K
SaparotRob
Curtiss P-36 with the Wright R-2600 Twin Cyclone (hypothetically)
2
Replies
21
Views
5K
Shortround6
S
A
Earlier Lockheed (or Martin) carrier aircraft?
Replies
7
Views
418
Shortround6
S
Cold war European combat aircraft alternatives?
2
Replies
25
Views
1K
bf109xxl
Menu
Log in
Register