How good a plane was the P-40, really? (6 Viewers)

[Shortround6]

F-104

Lockheed F-104 Starfighter - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Top speed 1,528 mph, combat range 420 mi

Trouble is that Wiki doesn't really tell you anything.
Modern jets carry so much stuff on the outside that range and radius without notes are worthless.
I have one book (old 1962-63 Jane's) that gives the fuel capacity of a 104G at 896 US gallons (3392liters) internal, there was an option to cram another 122 gallons into tanks in the gun bays (gun, ammo and spent casing storage) and on the outside you could have a pair of 170 liter wing tip tanks AND a pair of 190 gallon underwing tanks.
Now on the 104G you could carry a sidewinder on each wing tip but there go the wing tip fuel tanks.
They claim you could carry a pair of sidewinders on pylons under the fuselage.
They say there are underwing positions for stores, including podded M-61 cannon (no mention of tactical nuke stores) or anything other than ground attack/tactical support missions.

Performance spec says 400 mile "typical tactical radius" but doesn't say using how much fuel, what speed at what altitudes (and jets get very weird about hi-hi-hi or hi-low-hi or low-low low or hi-low-low) and how much stuff is hanging out in the air or even what amount of fuel is used for that radius.

You can burn somewhere around 800 US gallons of fuel per hour at max cruise ratings crossing over between military specs and civilian specs but even that is tricky.
The Military engines and civilian engines often don't use the same terms. Like military used things like normal rating and then 90% normal and 75% normal while the civil engines will max continuous and max cruise. The Military specs give the rpms and the civil engines do not, so........................................

Military engines can use the same rpm for military power and normal even though there is a 300lb difference in thrust. the 90% rating is at just 160 less rpm and the 75% thrust rating is at 6950rpm instead of 7460 rpm.
There are no fuel consumption figures for the military engines.

Unless we can find more modern information it just becomes a giant can of worms.

Mirage III E carries 2600 liters of fuel internal, uses an engine that doesn't quite the same economy as the J-79 and had several external fuel tank options
Performance spec has the humorous listing of 365 mile range at 59,000ft at mach 1.8 (about 19 minutes) but no mention of how it got up that high or what fuel allowance is used to get back down
What I don't know it was the fuel burn is or the thrust at 59,000ft.
I do know that at full afterburn the full load of internal fuel won't last 10 minutes.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

I agree it's a complex issue, and worth it's own thread.

But I think this:

"I do know that at full afterburn the full load of internal fuel won't last 10 minutes."

... is the bottom line for most of them.

 

[MIflyer]

"I do know that at full afterburn the full load of internal fuel won't last 10 minutes."

One Indian pilot, when asked how fast the Mig-21 was, replied, "I don't know. The low fuel warning light comes on about the time I hit Mach 1."

Most of the combined total supersonic combat time by 1980 was accounted for by a flight of F-4's who went into burner chasing a Mig over NVN, ran out of fuel and had to punch out. And in Desert Storm a single F-15 chased some Migs into Iran, ran them out of gas and all 17 of the the Iraqis had to punch out.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

It's the thing about jet fighters!

 

[GrauGeist]

Thumpalumpacus - by the way, one last note on Jane's WW2F:
If you liked the music tracks (or Big Band in general), here's the entire .WAV file library!

Big Band Swing!

Ok guys, here's some Big Band music to get you "in the mood" while working on the next Group Build or reading a book about the air war over Europe. Or for that matter, it's just good stuff to listen to anytime! These are high-quality WAV files that were proprietary to a great combat sim that...

ww2aircraft.net

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Thumpalumpacus - by the way, one last note on Jane's WW2F:
If you liked the music tracks (or Big Band in general), here's the entire .WAV file library!

Big Band Swing!

Ok guys, here's some Big Band music to get you "in the mood" while working on the next Group Build or reading a book about the air war over Europe. Or for that matter, it's just good stuff to listen to anytime! These are high-quality WAV files that were proprietary to a great combat sim that...

ww2aircraft.net

Hell yeah!

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Speaking of Aussie Kittyhawks....


View: https://youtu.be/CKMdsM3YD5Q?t=859

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

And as a bonus, some Bostons and Beaufighters in New Guinea


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxmVRxBnUZE

 

[MIflyer]

One of my favorite P-40 pictures. I had not realized we had Merlin models on the "canal.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

yes that was 18th FG. They got a fair number of them. That Australian clip I posted has some footage from which a famous photo is all over the web, of some very tough looking P-40s with rather beat up and mis-matched paint jobs, I think these are all P-40K, at least the second from the top is for sure (tail fin)..

 

[MIflyer]

I think these are all P-40K, at least the second from the top is for sure (tail fin)..

The first three from the camera back have the stretched tail, so they could be the later P-40K-10 through K-15 models or early N models.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

I've seen a lot of pilot comments like this one:

"you could over... you could abuse it with high revs, and it would get hot for a long time, but it still kept going."


View: https://youtu.be/biDuIzs8CYg?t=399

 

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

76 Squadron RAAF, code SV flew P-40E in New Guinea and Northern Territory, went to P-40M in May 1943 while in Western Australia, to Milne Bay in June 1943, to P-40N in February 1945.

The RAAF only received 40 P-40K made up of 35 K-10, 5 K-15, used by 77 Squadron, code AM, it also received 20 P-40M-1, 35 P-40M-5, 35 P-40M-10

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Yeah I think most of the RAAF P-40K used in the Pacific are here ADF Serials - Kittyhawk

though they also used a few in the Med, not sure if officially or what. Nicky Barr flew one for a while.

 

[EwenS]

Yeah I think most of the RAAF P-40K used in the Pacific are here ADF Serials - Kittyhawk

though they also used a few in the Med, not sure if officially or what. Nicky Barr flew one for a while.

All known Aussie Kittyhawks are listed on one or other of the ADF Serials Kittyhawk pages. The associated articles are also worth a read through.

ADF-Serials P-40 Series

Not sure how Nicky Barr could have flown a P-40K Kittyhawk III in the desert. He was shot down and captured by the Italians on 26 June 1942 and was a PoW until he arrived back in Allied hands in March 1944 after which he served in NWE before returning to Australia in Sept.

P-40K production only began in May 1942 and the Kittyhawk squadrons in the DAF didn't start to receive them until Sept/Oct 1942. That seems about right given delivery times from the USA. 450 began to receive them in Oct & 3 RAAF in April 1943.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

All known Aussie Kittyhawks are listed on one or other of the ADF Serials Kittyhawk pages. The associated articles are also worth a read through.

ADF-Serials P-40 Series

Not sure how Nicky Barr could have flown a P-40K Kittyhawk III in the desert. He was shot down and captured by the Italians on 26 June 1942 and was a PoW until he arrived back in Allied hands in March 1944 after which he served in NWE before returning to Australia in Sept.

Sorry typo, it was Bobby Gibbes

I had Nicky Barr on my mind because he apparently crashed a P-40K in 1945

from the website I linked:

A29-171

P-40K-10-CU

42-10185

1/43

USAAF Contract W535-AC-22714, USAAF accepted 23/10/42, RAAF Case 126 Indent 2012A RFDA-322A, Diversion 146-A, Aus 1 #34 Ex San Francisco SS ??? 241 W18/12/42. Rec 1AD ex USA 24/01/43. Rec Special Duties Flight (SDF) for RWT fitment/Trials ex 1AD 07/04/43. Rec 1AD ex SDF 13/07/43. Issued 13ARD ex 1AD 09/08/43. Rec 77 Sqn RAAF ex 13ARD RP 29/11/43. Rec 3AD ex 77Sqn RAAF 06/03/44. Rec 2OTU ex 3AD 09/06/44. Coded AB-Y. Accident 11/01/45 crashed on landing at Essendon Aerodrome when pilot over corRected landing swing. Pilot Sqn Ldr Andrew William "Nicki" Barr Serv#250774 was not injured. Repaired. Accident 15/03/43, on landing at Mildura . Pilot F/Sgt Edward Irwin Lorne Baker Serv#433765 was not injured. Rec 1CRD ex 2OTU 09/10/45. Authorised to Write-off 19/11/46. Passed to DAP 25/08/48. Completed 22/07/49.

P-40K production only began in May 1942 and the Kittyhawk squadrons in the DAF didn't start to receive them until Sept/Oct 1942. That seems about right given delivery times from the USA. 450 began to receive them in Oct & 3 RAAF in April 1943.

Gibbes talked about it at length in a couple of interviews, as he scored a particular victory in his "Kitty III" while leading a bunch of "Kitty II", and this is confirmed via other sources. 57th FG was flying some P-40K in one squadron for a while, due to shortages of the P-40F/L engines, and some RAF / commonwealth units also flew them. IIRC 3 RAAF switched to them when the Kittyhawk II engines ran out but then switched back. or that might have been 260 RAF I forget which one it was, I have the Signal book I can go look it up if needed.

 

[Buz101]

Most of the Tomahawks and many of the early (i.e. P-40D/E) Kittyhawks they got were ones that had already 'seen action' with the British, such as in North Africa, and this no doubt meant that the engine time was already substantially reduced. Some were noticeably 'clapped out' when they arrived.

Like to address this, as I believe you may be in error with this statement (think its a mix of information with the wrong conclusion).

Yes the Russians (like everyone else) had issues with the V-1710-C15's, mainly with the Thrust race and oil system (and the lubricants used there in along with their maintenance methods), but what they did not do (I believe) was wire the gate, so they flew with the ability to use full power including "War Boost" all the time, which they seemed to do. Along with their fairly unique set of weather conditions adding additional factors the engines went very quickly in these circumstances. The Russians got the RAF level of supplies to go with their Tomahawks, (i.e 1 spare engine for every 10 aircraft - see below), which led to them running out of spares quite quickly.

I'll address the AVG separately, because those gentleman had some interesting ways, and a significant number of spare engines to play with (in the realm of 1 spare for every two airframes).

The bulk of the Tomahawks the Russians received were new aircraft with just the standard factory testing on the airframe. I think there is only one case of a Tomahawk having any prior service with the RAF before it was transferred, and in fact the last batch of Tomahawks weren't even sent to the RAF, but were sent direct from Curtiss to Russia. There were some early P-40 airframes that had quite high number of hours on them (I believe around the 50-70 hours - I have exact number of hours on both airframes and engines somewhere), which were very likely thought as "Tomahawk"s, but these were the 10 P-40C's that had seen service with the USAAC in Panama before being transferred. The other Tomahawk/s (number is actually difficult to work out as none of the publications match) with a number of hours on them were the P-40G/s they received, again having had previous love from the USAAC. No Tomahawks came from North Africa - what did come from North Africa iirc was the 20 spare engines delivered to the Russians (which indeed may have had a number of hours on them, but I haven't been able to prove or disprove in any way).

The same came be said about the early P-40E and P-40E-1's, as far as I have been able to work out none came from North Africa pre loved, the E models and E-1's were brand new aircraft, the same goes for K, M and N models (as much as some publications say, there were no merlin engine models to Russia). Yes they received Kittyhawks that had around the mid 40 hours on the airframes, but these were P-40K-1 models, and the high number of hours on the airframe was due to them having been flown ASLIB into Russian service (and the Russians complained mightily about this). They also received a number of late E-1's and K models through the Persian Corridor Supply route which probably had a number of hours on them again being flown up (likely around the 10-20 hour mark - however as these were handed over before the flights up, they were "received" with only factory and air test hours on them)

They received some M models and some N models that had RAF serials (two batches one of late M and one of N-1 with FS block serials), but again these were new aircraft not pre-loved (possibly the cause of the belief Merlin models went to Russia as the RAF P-40L's (Kittyhawk IIa's) were FS block serials)..

I'll cover the AVG and their engines shortly in another post.

Buz

 

[Admiral Beez]

I do admire the breadth of nations that flew the P-40.

From Canada...

to Finland...

to the USSR...

To Brazil...

To China...

To the Dutch...

To the French....

This aircraft served everywhere. I wonder if five or six squadrons of RAF or RAAF P-40s at Malaya would have made any difference. Perhaps not, unless the core deficiencies in airfield placement, defence and other issues are dealt with.

Plus it could carry a credible bombload.

 

[marathag]

one more operator

 

[GrauGeist]

Just about all Commonwealth countries flew the P-40.