this was actually an ex Russian Machine (I know many know that) however remember my previous about RAF aircraft in the FS serial block being sent to Russia? Well originally this was FS202
Buz
How good a plane was the P-40, really? (6 Viewers)
- Thread starter NTGray
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Buz
I promised some information on the AVG, engines and other data……. This is normally when I land myself in trouble with the AVG aficionados but meh who cares, they either accept the data for what it is or they don't – entirely up to them.
We have all heard the stories on the aircraft being poorly finished, made of parts etc, engines rubbish, and put together with failed parts…… maybe the lack of Annex A items gave the impression to the AVG members that they were being given substandard equipment? Certainly, the C-15A's were produced at the end of the C-15/-33 runs but would that make them substandard? - Overall based on the stories they must have been absolute miracle workers, having such naff equipment and pieced together engines.
So, we know the AVG received 100 aircraft taken from RAF orders, however they were missing a number of items due to the RAF providing "Annex A" items on arrival in RAF depots. However, every aircraft had an engine, guns and the bulk of their other equipment - so not bad equipment.
We can also assess that the engines fitted weren't poor engines as they are spread throughout the British ordered engines (same as the aircraft), and follow in C/N and A. numbers. It's highly unlikely Aliison would make substandard engines just for the AVG and good ones for the RAF (and run the risk of having them mixed up) - so just bog standard V-1710C-15 engines, along with bog standard Tomahawk IIb's, (the first three Tomahawks for the AVG actually have their British customer numbers crossed and and AVG 1-3 inserted.....so again not specifically being built for the AVG). - So substandard - not at all just your average 1941 mass produced aircraft and engines.
What about spare engines??? - It's unknown how many spare engines they shipped with the aircraft but I would suggest at least 10, using the standard British supply of 1 engine for every 10 air frames. We can assume they had at least 1 spare engine from P-8157as this aircraft was never assembled (although later the fuselage was used and renumbered P-8141).
They additionally received 50 V-1710C-15A engines which were probably built in late Oct/Nov 1941 - these engines coming at the end of the V-1710C-15/33 engine run, using the parts available.
Aha I hear you say, second hand and failed parts - the AVG were right - well sort of, yes - however talking to a couple of old piston engine engineers (none of that suck fart engines round here son......) and having read the info to Vee's for Victory they suggested that these engines would likely be better than the mass-produced ones as each engine would require the parts to be cleaned, measured, matched and machined.... likely to a higher standard than normal.
So based on the figures above - if they got the C-15A before they went into combat (no delivery date found so far - but before Feb 42), they would have had, at minimum one spare engine per two aircraft. When you take into account those training losses, this number jumps up even more (if the engine could be salvaged). In my research on P-40's I've never come across a Unit with such spares.
So, what issues did they have? well like all users of the V-1710C engines they had issues with the Thrust race bearings and restriction of the oil values, as well as oil lines burning out and coolant leaks from stones punching into radiators due to the poor strips. Basically no different to any other user......
The AVG reportedly used the over boost far much than recommended. The Pilots notes on the Tomahawk (and the P-40B/C) suggest take off at maximum manifold pressure of 41 in. Hg, Max Emergency is 37.2 in. Hg and Max Continuous being 33.7 in. Hg. – there is some diary entries and official docs that show the AVG using significantly more (in the 50-60 region) When you do that to engines, it's not a poorly built engine that's given way, it's just you've taken it beyond its tolerances and engine failures are not surprising
I don't blame the Pilot/crews in any way for this, they weren't so much flying them like they stole them, but more flying them in combat...... however, all the stories you hear, they were running on a shoe string and the aircraft and engines were useless and not lasting at all - so shall we actually test that theory?
The AVG's record easy to find, but at what cost? – As far as I can work out 12 aircraft lost in Air-Air combat, 10 aircraft in other accidents and the remainder lost on the ground (stated number is 54), the bulk of those lost on the ground were burnt to prevent capture, (29 in one hit at Lowing 3rd May 1942).
On the 10th Jul the AVG officially transferred their aircraft and holdings across to the USAAF.
This consisted of 94 pages worth of equipment, which included 136 .50 cals, 106 .30 cals, 98 vehicles, over 630,000 .30ca; rounds, almost ½ Million .50 Cal rounds and a whole bunch other equipment that makes a FG function. So what about the aircraft? well included in the documents were 28 P-40B (yes we know they were Tomahawks, but paperwork states B's) and 19 P-40E, These aircraft were reported to be complete with radios, engines and MG's.
In addition to this they transferred 51 engines of which 49 were V-1710-33 (23 V-1710C-15 and 26 V-1710C-15A) and 2 being V-1710-39's……. Even after 11 Months of flying, over 7 months of that Combat flying the numbers handed over are pretty impressive, helps when you have a large number of engines and a factory to rebuild them when you flog the hell out of them. If the engines and aircraft were so bad, how did they manage this feat?
My thoughts – seeing all I do is research the P-40.
Overall, the P-40 did what was asked of it, its limitations were large but could be mitigated against (as the AVG showed). It wasn't perfect, but it was a sound, solid design for its time (1939), and relatively forgiving (except ground loops). It carried a decent load for bombing (hence they got nick-named Kitty bombers as they could lift 2000lb loads for a short distance). Later aircraft outclassed it, there's no doubt, but wars have a habit of really expediting research, remember the bi-plane was still in service in 1942…….so it was actually quite a good aircraft, just never going to be a P-51, FW190 etc......
Buz
We have all heard the stories on the aircraft being poorly finished, made of parts etc, engines rubbish, and put together with failed parts…… maybe the lack of Annex A items gave the impression to the AVG members that they were being given substandard equipment? Certainly, the C-15A's were produced at the end of the C-15/-33 runs but would that make them substandard? - Overall based on the stories they must have been absolute miracle workers, having such naff equipment and pieced together engines.
So, we know the AVG received 100 aircraft taken from RAF orders, however they were missing a number of items due to the RAF providing "Annex A" items on arrival in RAF depots. However, every aircraft had an engine, guns and the bulk of their other equipment - so not bad equipment.
We can also assess that the engines fitted weren't poor engines as they are spread throughout the British ordered engines (same as the aircraft), and follow in C/N and A. numbers. It's highly unlikely Aliison would make substandard engines just for the AVG and good ones for the RAF (and run the risk of having them mixed up) - so just bog standard V-1710C-15 engines, along with bog standard Tomahawk IIb's, (the first three Tomahawks for the AVG actually have their British customer numbers crossed and and AVG 1-3 inserted.....so again not specifically being built for the AVG). - So substandard - not at all just your average 1941 mass produced aircraft and engines.
What about spare engines??? - It's unknown how many spare engines they shipped with the aircraft but I would suggest at least 10, using the standard British supply of 1 engine for every 10 air frames. We can assume they had at least 1 spare engine from P-8157as this aircraft was never assembled (although later the fuselage was used and renumbered P-8141).
They additionally received 50 V-1710C-15A engines which were probably built in late Oct/Nov 1941 - these engines coming at the end of the V-1710C-15/33 engine run, using the parts available.
Aha I hear you say, second hand and failed parts - the AVG were right - well sort of, yes - however talking to a couple of old piston engine engineers (none of that suck fart engines round here son......) and having read the info to Vee's for Victory they suggested that these engines would likely be better than the mass-produced ones as each engine would require the parts to be cleaned, measured, matched and machined.... likely to a higher standard than normal.
So based on the figures above - if they got the C-15A before they went into combat (no delivery date found so far - but before Feb 42), they would have had, at minimum one spare engine per two aircraft. When you take into account those training losses, this number jumps up even more (if the engine could be salvaged). In my research on P-40's I've never come across a Unit with such spares.
So, what issues did they have? well like all users of the V-1710C engines they had issues with the Thrust race bearings and restriction of the oil values, as well as oil lines burning out and coolant leaks from stones punching into radiators due to the poor strips. Basically no different to any other user......
The AVG reportedly used the over boost far much than recommended. The Pilots notes on the Tomahawk (and the P-40B/C) suggest take off at maximum manifold pressure of 41 in. Hg, Max Emergency is 37.2 in. Hg and Max Continuous being 33.7 in. Hg. – there is some diary entries and official docs that show the AVG using significantly more (in the 50-60 region) When you do that to engines, it's not a poorly built engine that's given way, it's just you've taken it beyond its tolerances and engine failures are not surprising
I don't blame the Pilot/crews in any way for this, they weren't so much flying them like they stole them, but more flying them in combat...... however, all the stories you hear, they were running on a shoe string and the aircraft and engines were useless and not lasting at all - so shall we actually test that theory?
The AVG's record easy to find, but at what cost? – As far as I can work out 12 aircraft lost in Air-Air combat, 10 aircraft in other accidents and the remainder lost on the ground (stated number is 54), the bulk of those lost on the ground were burnt to prevent capture, (29 in one hit at Lowing 3rd May 1942).
On the 10th Jul the AVG officially transferred their aircraft and holdings across to the USAAF.
This consisted of 94 pages worth of equipment, which included 136 .50 cals, 106 .30 cals, 98 vehicles, over 630,000 .30ca; rounds, almost ½ Million .50 Cal rounds and a whole bunch other equipment that makes a FG function. So what about the aircraft? well included in the documents were 28 P-40B (yes we know they were Tomahawks, but paperwork states B's) and 19 P-40E, These aircraft were reported to be complete with radios, engines and MG's.
In addition to this they transferred 51 engines of which 49 were V-1710-33 (23 V-1710C-15 and 26 V-1710C-15A) and 2 being V-1710-39's……. Even after 11 Months of flying, over 7 months of that Combat flying the numbers handed over are pretty impressive, helps when you have a large number of engines and a factory to rebuild them when you flog the hell out of them. If the engines and aircraft were so bad, how did they manage this feat?
My thoughts – seeing all I do is research the P-40.
Overall, the P-40 did what was asked of it, its limitations were large but could be mitigated against (as the AVG showed). It wasn't perfect, but it was a sound, solid design for its time (1939), and relatively forgiving (except ground loops). It carried a decent load for bombing (hence they got nick-named Kitty bombers as they could lift 2000lb loads for a short distance). Later aircraft outclassed it, there's no doubt, but wars have a habit of really expediting research, remember the bi-plane was still in service in 1942…….so it was actually quite a good aircraft, just never going to be a P-51, FW190 etc......
Buz
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #243
Sorry, my roundel recognition skills leave something to be desired. Who is flying these planes?
According to Geust, it was the only P-40 (P-40M, No.43-5925) captured by the Finns after a Soviet pilot (from the 191st IAP of the 275th IAD of the 13th Air Army ) got lost while flying from airfield to airfield and landed on ice on the Finnish side of the front.
The airplane was used by the Finns exclusively for demonstration and training purposes; it did not make a single combat sortie.
- Thread starter
- #246
Huh.
I really didn't think it looked right for (half a) meatball. Shows what I know. Thanks.
Admiral Beez
Major
It's too bad the Commonwealth didn't license produce the P-40. Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) assembled kits of the Curtiss P-36, but that's about it.
Wild_Bill_Kelso
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,231
- Mar 18, 2022
You have to be careful here. The AVG didn't just fly Tomahawks. Boosting to 50-60" Hg became normal for the Kittyhawk types, in fact 56" or 57" Hg became the standard WEP rating for P-40E for 1942, N, and M, and 60" was allowed for P-40K for WEP
This was adjusted upwards after Allison aircraft company and the War Dept learned that units were already doing this since early 1942, both in North Africa and in the Pacific.
V-1710-39 (P-40E) was a bit stronger than the -33 in the Tomahawk, and the V-1710-73 (P-40K, and re-engined into many P-40E as well) was considerably strengthened (crank case, crank shaft, and bearings) for sustained use at higher boost.
P-51A / early Mustang variants used by the British were being boosted at 70" Hg for sustained periods. They had a bit better cooling, apparently.
No doubt flying at high boost was more likely to burn out engines, but you'll lose aircraft more quickly by their being hit by bullets. The Allison seemed to be able to endure sustained high boost.
I think that is selling the P-40 a bit short, based on the operational history. They were the highest scoring US type in the CBI, they were crucial in the Western Desert, with the 5 US fighter groups in particular (flying the P-40F / L Merlin types) having high ratios of victories to losses. And they performed well in the Pacific as well, in New Guinea and the Solomons. At least breaking even with the Japanese fighters, at the same type that units equipped with other types were losing aircraft at much higher ratios.
Bill
I agree the V-1710-33/-39 and later engines could and did take the higher boosts, just pointing out that at the time the AVG were using them they were not cleared for higher boosts (plus the length of time that boost was applied).
The AVG did have a number of aircraft that had a trip or three to the repair shops, but not often due engine failure (although they did have a number of engines quit on them). Having the ability to change out an engine because you have a issue would certainly assist here (due to numbers of spares) - in most other areas this was not an option, and a number of aircraft lost due to this.
I'm going to say that whilst I love the P-40 (she's the other woman in my life according to OIC Homefront), I also try to inject some reality into my research - I note her positives and her negatives, and could be like the aficionados spinning on how good she was - however I like to apply a critical eye to my assessment of her combat record and leave the fluff to others.
Yes concur the P-40 was the highest scorer in the CBI, but how many groups flew in the CBI with other aircraft and for how long? The P-40 was almost exclusively the only game in town for the best part of 2 years, and even when other types turned up she stayed in operation (and the number of combats reduced as well)........ Again I agree the P-40F/K/L USAAF equipped Squadrons and Groups did well in the ME - their claims vs losses were very high (all claimed in good faith) - the reality of their Kill/losses ratio is somewhat different. Similarly the other Units that flew the type in the Middle East and Italy, as well as the Solomons, NG and the Pacific - they all did well, yet nothing spectacular - again a solid showing.
Overall the Kill/loss ratio for the P-40 is certainly in the positive at a time when other types were having a hard time (Hurricanes/Buffalos etc), and as I said a P-51 she's not, but certainly a solid combat aircraft of her time. I know cliché but one of her biggest saving graces was she could take punishment and come home meaning the pilot living to fight another day......... just how solid? well I have a couple of aircraft in my records that took major damage on multiple occasions only to make it home/or be repaired after being shot down or force landed - some of the damage you just shake your head and wonder how...... we see incidents of mid airs collisions (deliberate or not), yet the P-40 makes it home, aircraft shot down multiple times, another case of a pilot bounced a P-40 into the ground at over 350mph, breaking the aircraft into 4 pieces - and walking away - I think the record is an aircraft shot down, force landed or damage in a significant way 6 times in its life time.
Overall Excellent fire power (still standard at the end of the war), good load capacity, long range (with tanks), and having attributes, that used well, could allow the Pilots to hold their own in engagements or break off combat relatively easily (if they had the height). She may not be able to turn with a zero, out dive a P-47, have the range of P-38, the overall abilities of a P-51 or the fire power of a Beaufighter - but she was there when the Allied Air Forces needed her..... the other more glamorous and capable types in most cases weren't even at prototype stages.......
Buz
I agree the V-1710-33/-39 and later engines could and did take the higher boosts, just pointing out that at the time the AVG were using them they were not cleared for higher boosts (plus the length of time that boost was applied).
The AVG did have a number of aircraft that had a trip or three to the repair shops, but not often due engine failure (although they did have a number of engines quit on them). Having the ability to change out an engine because you have a issue would certainly assist here (due to numbers of spares) - in most other areas this was not an option, and a number of aircraft lost due to this.
I'm going to say that whilst I love the P-40 (she's the other woman in my life according to OIC Homefront), I also try to inject some reality into my research - I note her positives and her negatives, and could be like the aficionados spinning on how good she was - however I like to apply a critical eye to my assessment of her combat record and leave the fluff to others.
Yes concur the P-40 was the highest scorer in the CBI, but how many groups flew in the CBI with other aircraft and for how long? The P-40 was almost exclusively the only game in town for the best part of 2 years, and even when other types turned up she stayed in operation (and the number of combats reduced as well)........ Again I agree the P-40F/K/L USAAF equipped Squadrons and Groups did well in the ME - their claims vs losses were very high (all claimed in good faith) - the reality of their Kill/losses ratio is somewhat different. Similarly the other Units that flew the type in the Middle East and Italy, as well as the Solomons, NG and the Pacific - they all did well, yet nothing spectacular - again a solid showing.
Overall the Kill/loss ratio for the P-40 is certainly in the positive at a time when other types were having a hard time (Hurricanes/Buffalos etc), and as I said a P-51 she's not, but certainly a solid combat aircraft of her time. I know cliché but one of her biggest saving graces was she could take punishment and come home meaning the pilot living to fight another day......... just how solid? well I have a couple of aircraft in my records that took major damage on multiple occasions only to make it home/or be repaired after being shot down or force landed - some of the damage you just shake your head and wonder how...... we see incidents of mid airs collisions (deliberate or not), yet the P-40 makes it home, aircraft shot down multiple times, another case of a pilot bounced a P-40 into the ground at over 350mph, breaking the aircraft into 4 pieces - and walking away - I think the record is an aircraft shot down, force landed or damage in a significant way 6 times in its life time.
Overall Excellent fire power (still standard at the end of the war), good load capacity, long range (with tanks), and having attributes, that used well, could allow the Pilots to hold their own in engagements or break off combat relatively easily (if they had the height). She may not be able to turn with a zero, out dive a P-47, have the range of P-38, the overall abilities of a P-51 or the fire power of a Beaufighter - but she was there when the Allied Air Forces needed her..... the other more glamorous and capable types in most cases weren't even at prototype stages.......
Buz
Shortround6
Major General
There is no question they over boost the engines. But in regards to the AVG, while they got around 30 P-40Es they started showing up in March 1942. First 6 in late March?
50 aircraft had been Allocated in Jan 1942. The problem was delivery. Most were Shipped to Africa and then flown across Africa on through the mid-east and into India. I have no idea how many got "lost" on the way.
The first P-40K left the production line in May 1942, the first (42-45722) is retained at the Factory for testing. Chances of a P-40K making to China to serve in the AVG are about zero.
The US Army and Allison were doing a lot testing of higher boost levels in 1942. It seems to have taken until Dec 1942 for the WEP settings to become "official" (printed in manuals?) although it seems that planes were being tested at the soon to be published limits in Oct-Nov.
A problem with the AVG is what were they using for fuel? The -33/39 engines were rated for US 100 octane fuel, which was pretty much 100/100, it varied a bit on the 2nd number.
British 100 octane was around 100/115-120 in 1940. In 1941 they were using 100/130 but the question is where and when.
The US (or Allison) was using 100/125, at least for testing, in the spring of 1941. But 100/125 was never adopted by the British.
The 100/125 standard was soon superseded by the 100/130 standard (joint US/British) and there were at least 3 different standards for 100/130 by the beginning of 1943. All of the 100/130 was supposed to perform in engines the same with different amounts of components/compounds to make manufacture easier.
100/130 will allow a lot more boost to be used than 100/100 but that is just for detonation limits. Breaking con rods or crankshafts due to excess power is something else.
Unfortunately "100" became short hand for 100/130 in many reports. AVG was disbanded 3-5 months before WEP became a standard or "official".
Wild_Bill_Kelso
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,231
- Mar 18, 2022
I don't disagree with that, just pointing out that high boost turned out to be normal with V-1710. It may have been riskier with the -33 but I doubt it was sufficiently dangerous that they were blowing engines right and left, it doesn't seem to be the case in the various unit histories. And as you noted, they ended the AVG period with plenty of engines and quite a few airframes still functional.
I take that as an insult, though it's also amusing.
That really isn't accurate, especially if you include the RAF units (which did poorly as a rule). There were also a fairly large number of P-51A, P-38, and by 1944, P-47 operational in the Theater.
Lets keep this within the realm of reality. They were almost exclusively F and L. Only two squadron of 57th FG were actually on P-40K, and that was for a short period. The other 14 US squadrons (including the 99th FS / Tuskeegee) were all flying F and L.
I'd be fascinated to know what you base that on. I've been through Shores Mediterranean Air War with a fine toothed comb. All of the US P-40 units - 33rd, 57th, 325th, 324th, and 79th had good actual, real life records, every FG except the 324th had better than 2 real victories for every loss. 325th, 57th and 79th were closer to 3-1. Not all claims were fighters but for some units, like the 325th FG, the vast majority were (IIRC 96 fighters out of 130 claims)
Generally speaking, there is zero evidence that the USAAF P-40 units overclaimed at a higher rate than any other DAF unit (including USAAF P-38 and Spitfire groups). In fact it seems they overclaimed a bit less than the P-38 units. You can't always tell on each day which Axis losses were to which units, but sometimes you can (for example when Axis losses took place in areas where only one Allied unit was operating), and there are enough of these cases that you can verify many of the claims for most of these US FG.
The RAF P-40 units (Tomahawk and Kittyhawk) in the Middle East did about 1-1 overall. Which is better than the Hurricane. The US P-40 units in the Solomons and New Guinea, mainly 49th and 18th FG, definitely had considerably better than that, closer to 2-1.
For the Soviets, the Kittyhawk was a very important type for about a year. They had several Guards units flying the type and many double aces flew it, particularly P-40K
The Merlin engined P-51 (B/C/D etc.) was a better fighter, but it went into action a good bit after the P-40. The Allison Engined P-51s, which were used side by side with P-40s in China, and as the P-36, in Italy, had a much less impressive combat record against other types. P-39 as well, side by side in the Pacific. Only 5 pilots made ace flying P-39s in US service.
It's true that the P-40 seemed to be unusually sturdy, but I don't think that is the reason why pilots liked them and why they did well in combat. No aircraft is sturdy enough to endure a fusilade of 20mm cannon shells, or even light machine gun bullets if they hit accurately enough.
P-40s had a severe limitation in altitude / performance ceiling. 12,000 ft to 17,000 ft for Allison engined types. About 20-22,000 ft for the Merlin engined types. This meant they often got attacked from above, which is a severe disadvantage. But the P-40 also had the best roll rate of almost all Allied fighters. It had one of the best turn rates as well. It had an extremely high dive speed and due to pilots breaking the rules on boost per above, was able to perform much better than spec at lower altitudes. All of which conspired to make it very good at evading being shot down, and quite lethal below 10,000 ft.
But a P-40 could definitely out turn a P-47 or P-51, and outroll a P-38 or a Beaufighter.
I don't think it makes sense to judge all aircraft types in WW2 by the 1945 standard. As I've pointed out to the consternation of many here, by 1945 pretty much all piston engined fighters are obsolete due to the Me 262.
P-40 was a very important and successful type well into 1944. Much longer than many histories and online summaries claim, even to this day.
Last edited:
Shortround
Yes the first P-40E's turned up in late Mar 1942 (from 50 sent), the first losses noted as 10th April 1942 - They had 32 aircraft with two others (41-5688 and 41-5697) lost before they were "officially" taken on strength of the AVG therefore not counted against their numbers, of the reminder its believed 4 didn't make it (one lost at Karachi) with the others going to 51FG. First K models arrived Jul 1942 - after the AVG has disbanded.
Buz
Wild_Bill_Kelso
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,231
- Mar 18, 2022
AVG had a few P-40E, though they seem to have mostly switched over to them from the Tomahawk type before handing over the reigns to the 23rd FG. They didn't have P-40K but the 23rd Fighter Group certainly did, in fact it was probably the most important and successful type for them.
Good question. The AVG was cooperating closely with the British in the defense of Burma during their early combat actions, but I don't know if they were able to get any British fuel.
Agreed, but they were apparently overboosting even the Tomahawk types.
Wild_Bill_Kelso
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,231
- Mar 18, 2022
There are a lot of cliche's and tropes about the P-40, as about so many other aircraft used during the war - Ki-43, Wellington, Wildcat, Hurricane, D3A, SBD. There are some positive myths and tropes about the P-40 (and it does have a few foolish enthusiasts), but mostly negative, and more importantly, mostly wrong. It's time to clear that up I think, as well as the many others.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Not even an Fw190A could.
However, once the P-40 pilots realized that getting into a turning fight on an A6M or KI-43's terms meant death, they upped their game to energy fighting.
The P-40 had a great turning radius and roll rate at higher speeds, where the KI-43 and A6M were at a disadvantage and the P-40 drivers used this to their advantage.
The P-40 and F4F were the seawall that held back the Japanese storm.
The Willy's Jeep of the air now the seawall that held back the Japanese storm
Your the bloody King of brilliant one liners.
yulzari
Staff Sergeant
Reading all of the posts on the thread brings me to the conclusion that the P40 was, adequate, and remained, adequate, through its wartime service. Depending upon the time and location it varied from, just adequate, to, quite adequate. Hardly ever the best yet rarely the worst flying machine a pilot might be given.
The key thing is that it was there and it worked. Not the finest tribute but you work with what you have and it worked. From the ex French ones replacing Lysanders in RAF Army Co-operation squadrons in August 1941 through to the P40N in August 1945.
The key thing is that it was there and it worked. Not the finest tribute but you work with what you have and it worked. From the ex French ones replacing Lysanders in RAF Army Co-operation squadrons in August 1941 through to the P40N in August 1945.
Mike Williams
Senior Airman
- 572
- Oct 19, 2006
Can you share or provide sources for "some diaries and official docs that show the AVG using significantly more (in the 50-60 region)"? Thank you.
- Thread starter
- #259
Wild_Bill_Kelso
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,231
- Mar 18, 2022
Robert DeHaven, 49th FG Ace with 10 victories on the P-40 (through Jan 1944), and then got four more on P-38s, said the following:
"[Y]ou could fight a Jap on even terms, but you had to make him fight your way. He could outturn you at slow speed. You could outturn him at high speed. When you got into a turning fight with him, you dropped your nose down so you kept your airspeed up, you could outturn him. At low speed he could outroll you because of those big ailerons ... on the Zero. If your speed was up over 275, you could outroll [a Zero]. His big ailerons didn't have the strength to make high speed rolls... You could push things, too. Because ... f you decided to go home, you could go home. He couldn't because you could outrun him. [...] That left you in control of the fight."
He also noted that
"If you flew wisely, the P-40 was a very capable aircraft. [It] could outturn a P-38, a fact that some pilots didn't realize when they made the transition between the two aircraft. [...] The real problem with it was lack of range. As we pushed the Japanese back, P-40 pilots were slowly left out of the war. So when I moved to P-38s, an excellent aircraft, I did not [believe] that the P-40 was an inferior fighter, but because I knew the P-38 would allow us to reach the enemy. I was a fighter pilot and that was what I was supposed to do."[63]
Definitely agree. And P-40s also had a very prominent role in rolling back the Germans and Italians in North Africa, and also played a significant if not dominant role in some key areas in Russia in 1942 and 43.
