Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Joe, you are WAAAAYYYY off base here. It GOT old about 6 months ago. By now, it's decomposing and fly-blown...but the poor animal continues to be flogged.
It was, you just don't understand.All this for the P-39 and we still haven't found the time to make the Buffalo a world beater.
Hi Schweik,
All U.S. WWII airplanes had to meet the specs ± a few percent. IIRC, the P-40 has to meet specs ±5%. That means a P-40E could be right on the 360 mph spec or could be as much as 18 mph faster or slower. You claim they were all slower. I say bunk. Some were, some weren't. Same went for the P-40F. In point of fact, I'd say most P-40E models were 350 - 360 mpg airplanes and most P-40Fs were 360 - 370 mph airplanes. A few were a small bit faster and a few were a small bit slower.
As for the P-40s I know of today, almost all I know of (5 of them personally) are faster than spec, no doubt due to having less weight (no armor or armament), having replica fake guns that are not quite as draggy as real installations, and are generally in better shape than wartime airplanes that sat outside in a dirt field all the time.
In 2017, at the Reno Races, there was a stock (take with a grain of salt) P-51D, "Little Horse," that flew the course at 267.192 mph in Bronze class. There was a P-40E, "Texas Warhawk," that flew the course at 267.527 mph in Bronze class and beat the P-51D. It surely didn't look slow, and was also not much modified, if at all. These guys were running 3,000 rpm and whatever MAP they wanted to run with stock engines, but they were not there to lose. They weren't at 25,000 feet, but instead were down low at Reno (5,050 feet MSL plus whatever density altitude was added due to temperature).
Sorry, but someone saying the "real" P-40s were slower than spec doesn't cut it. One test does not a production run of airplanes specify. According to real former AVG pilots, they used to fly them at 70" - 75" when in combat, and they weren't "slow" and bettered ALL specs at high power levels.
Always glad to help!See? It wasn't hard. Thanks GrauGeist.
Are we talking about the African P-39, or the European P-39?
Attached. Page 27.Produce the chart.
Nope - P-39 Faster (under 18K vs P-40F, then P-40F faster by 20mph), better acceleration (under 18K vs P-40F/K) and better climber (except vs P-40F/K from 18K ), much slower roll rate than P-40 (any model), less terminal dive speed, shorter range, less external load, less practical armament than P-40E and Subs, for most strafing and all air to air due to the issues with M-4 37mm cannon. Nobody in USAAF, RAF, Commonwealth, French and Italians were crying for more P-39s. Faster, better climb, same or better range. External load? P-39 regularly operated in combat with a 110gal drop tank (8400lbs), P-40 had a hard time with anything over 50gal (8900lbs, same engine). Nobody crying for more P-39s? Soviets (main user) begging for them.
Don't depend on your calculations -use USAAF Published Tables as reproduced on page 599 of AOHT, Table 100. Boundary conditions are 10 minutes of fuel for warm up, taxi, takeoff and landing. It allows for fuel used to climb to 10,000 feet, cruise and 10% of net ideal range for other factors - at more economical power speed. Below table values are for pure straight line range from take off to reserve point..
Pilot Handbook values were contractor developed and the USAAF tables were developed from flight testing - and averaged across multiple ships same type.
P-39D/F/K (VERY best P-39 range performance w/120 gal and TO weight of 7650) = 600 mi. The P-39N w/87gal TO wt of 7550 =350 mi; =550mi for 120gal.
The P-39N is probably the best comparison as it was most widely produced P-39D/F is the best comparison to the P-40E, same engine and concurrent production dates.
P-40E (149gal and TO weight of 8700) = 650mi So you found a chart in AHT that said the P-40 had a 50mi range advantage and the pilots manuals showed the P-39 had a 42mi range advantage. Congratulations. Like I said, they both had about the same range.
P-40F/K (157gal Merlin 1650-1, TO weight of 8800) = 700mi
all the engineers who worked on it, all the designers who designed it,
"Where did you get the coconuts?"Are we talking about the African P-39, or the European P-39?
"Where did you get the coconuts?"
Nobody was shooting at me either.
Couch was destroyed by fire as were curtains and molding. Wall phone on the other side of the room was melted. Scorch marks (light charing) about 3-4 feet down from the ceiling all around the room.
Regarding post #183 Schweik, I have the following:
View attachment 623139
Looks like the P-40F had about 10 mph on the P-40E, which isn't very much. Still, an advantage IS an advantage. The P-40F had about a 6% climb advantage. Again, not a game changer. The P-40F had about 5,400 feet ceiling advantage. That is more significant than the speed or climb, but in actual fighter performance, the P-40 E started dropping off at about 15,000 feet and the P-40F started dropping off at about 19,000 feet. So, it had a medium advantage, though the P-40E was in combat a full 5 months earlier than the P-40F.
Then we get to the P-40L and P-40N. They only entered combat two months apart, with the P-40L getting there first. The Allison-powered P-40N (interceptor version) was about 6 mph faster, climbed 880 fpm better than the P-40L, and had a 2,200 foot service ceiling advantage. The P-40N's climb was 33% better than the P-40L. The N had a very slight speed advantage, not enough to matter, and the N had about a 6% service ceiling advantage.
So, the P-40F had a slight advantage for about 2 years early in the war and the P-40N had about the same advantage for 2 years later in the war except for climb, where it had a much more significant advantage.
I'll stick with the Allison, myself, overall. In a perfect world where choice was an option, I'd have an Allison P-40 up until Dec 41, right about Pearl Harbor time. Then I'd fly a P-40F until Mar 43, at which time, I'd opt for a P-40N. I'd WISH for a P-40Q that would never show up.
The weights above are for normal combat loadout, not maximum takeoff weight.
I just do not see the P-40F as having a very significant advantage over the P-40E though it DID, in fact, have one. The P-40N DID have a pretty good climb advantage over the P-40L. All in all, they weren't all that much different from one another. Sort of "incremental improvements."
I'll stick with the Allison, myself, overall. In a perfect world where choice was an option, I'd have an Allison P-40 up until Dec 41, right about Pearl Harbor time. Then I'd fly a P-40F until Mar 43, at which time, I'd opt for a P-40N. I'd WISH for a P-40Q that would never show up.
I see, so you theoretically could have a P-40F right after Pearl Harbor. Disregard my previous post thenXP-40F flew on 25 Nov 1941. they built 1311 P-40F in 1942 and 700 P-40L with Merlin engines in 1943.
The P-40N-1-CU was the stripped model, with only 4 guns, no battery, and less fuel, and had top speed of 378 MPH. In contrast the P-40N-15 had a top speed of only 343 MPH at 15,000 ft. .