GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Thank you!
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Thank you!One of the best comments I've ever read on here.
Im restoring a P40K. Ed Rector (AVG) asked me why were people so interested in the P40! "We couldnt wait to trade those dogs in gor The P51". Thats about as first hand an opinion as you can getGood fighter when used under 15000 ft.
It was let down by requiring to carry ever more firepower and protection while receiving crumbs wrt. engine update.
Be it as it might, AVG (and other American units) were without the option to make a switch into the P-51s until some 20-25 months after the Pearl Harbor. 20-25 months of the ww2 was a darned long time for the people in the contact with enemy.Im restoring a P40K. Ed Rector (AVG) asked me why were people so interested in the P40! "We couldnt wait to trade those dogs in gor The P51". Thats about as first hand an opinion as you can get
I guess you mean Boelke's dicta.But as he said , when we had our warning net working and used Chennaults tactics rather than USAAF dicta, we did just fine. So were back to good pilots well trained in good tactics can often counter technical differences. If you read Richtofens dicta and compare it Chennaults youll find that successful fighter pilots often come to the same cobclusion
P-40 was short ranged in 1944 but long ranged in 1942. RAAF pilot Nat Gould said that he never loved the P-40 like he loved the Spitfire but the Spit simply couldn't have done the job in New Guinea because of its short range. A crop duster, Mike Dillon, who owned a P-40N in the 1960's said that he was surprised when he flew a P-51 because he thought his P-40 was better in every way except speed. They're mostly dead now but you used to hear lots of people say the P-40 was the nicest flying fighter that they flew.I think the P-40 was a pretty decent fighter for the time it was developed. Later fighters were better but, as suggested above, they darn well SHOULD have been since they were designed to BE better.
The P-40 rolled very well, better than later designs.
It climbed decently at low altitudes, on the order of 3,000 fpm.
It had the same armament as the P-51 / F6F, so the guns weren't a negative.
It was limited to about 15,000 feet as a fighter. Could reach the 30,000 feet, but wasn't really performing well there.
Turned well. Not like a A6M, but pretty well.
Main disadvantages were:
1) Restricted to low altitudes. About 15-16,000 feet as a fighter.
2) Not very fast. You had to work to get it faster than 320 mph.
3) Relatively short range ... 850 miles. That means about 350 mile radius if you want some reserve fuel.
4) Relatively poor initial pilot training with regards to combat-readiness.
Main Advantages:
1) Rugged and available.
2) The engine was very reliable.
3) Was available in some numbers early.
Possible:
Had they built the P-40Q, it wouldn't have been a P-51D, but it WOULD have been head and shoulders better than the regular P-40 in the theaters where the P-40 was being used a a primary aircraft.
Th P-40 never had the speed or altitude performance to be useful on operations from UK, range wasnt the issue. The Mustang Mk I had speed and range, whether it was more capable in turn, roll and dive didnt matter, it could get in and get out.P-40 was short ranged in 1944 but long ranged in 1942. RAAF pilot Nat Gould said that he never loved the P-40 like he loved the Spitfire but the Spit simply couldn't have done the job in New Guinea because of its short range. A crop duster, Mike Dillon, who owned a P-40N in the 1960's said that he was surprised when he flew a P-51 because he thought his P-40 was better in every way except speed. They're mostly dead now but you used to hear lots of people say the P-40 was the nicest flying fighter that they flew.
I stand corrected, to a degree. From what I can see, the only models that climbed at that rate were the L and N-1 models which benefited from drastic weight reductions including removal of 2 guns and among other things a significant reduction in fuel capacity. That's especially the case for the N1of which only 400 were built. However, they were an anomaly in the P-40 family. The subsequent N models gained most of the weight back with a greatly reduced climb rate. The earlier P-40M's climb performance was in the same ball park as the N-5 through N-15 models. Bottom line, the increased climb performance was not due to any significant increase in power until the advent of the XP-40Q which was still out performed by fighters already in production.A lot of the later ones could manage 3000fpm or even close to 3500fpm. HOWEVER, only over narrow band of altitude.
Using 57-60in of MAP (depending on version of engine) but the fall off from 10,000ft to 15,000ft was enormous.
And again, peak climbing speeds were done at around 150-160mph IAS so if the plane was doing 250mph IAS there was a lot less power to climb with.
And again, for all the tales of 70in MAP that was at just about sea level and the plane would loose about 2.25in of MAP for every 1000ft of altitude.
This is for the planes with the 8.80 supercharger gears
You do have to make sure you are quoting the right test figures.Bottom line, the increased climb performance was not due to any significant increase in power until the advent of the XP-40Q which was still out performed by fighters already in production.
A P-40Q would give a P-51 all it could handle, The only place it was slightly less was in top speed, by about 15 mph. Not saying it was better than a P-51. I AM saying it didn't suffer versus the P-51 in turn or general maneuverability and definitely rolled better. Nobody ever used top speed in combat anyway unless they were diving. You an only get there at full power in a straight line, which is a maneuver almost guaranteed to get you shot at or shot down. In a combat zone, where encountering the enemy is likely, you never fly straight and level for more than 30 seconds anyway, even in a jet.I stand corrected, to a degree. From what I can see, the only models that climbed at that rate were the L and N-1 models which benefited from drastic weight reductions including removal of 2 guns and among other things a significant reduction in fuel capacity. That's especially the case for the N1of which only 400 were built. However, they were an anomaly in the P-40 family. The subsequent N models gained most of the weight back with a greatly reduced climb rate. The earlier P-40M's climb performance was in the same ball park as the N-5 through N-15 models. Bottom line, the increased climb performance was not due to any significant increase in power until the advent of the XP-40Q which was still out performed by fighters already in production.
Yeah, but could the Q-ship fly from a base in Britain - & duke it out in mock combat with the Pony - over Berlin?A P-40Q would give a P-51 all it could handle, The only place it was slightly less was in top speed, by about 15 mph. Not saying it was better than a P-51. I AM saying it didn't suffer versus the P-51 in turn or general maneuverability and definitely rolled better. Nobody ever used top speed in combat anyway unless they were diving. You an only get there at full power in a straight line, which is a maneuver almost guaranteed to get you shot at or shot down. In a combat zone, where encountering the enemy is likely, you never fly straight and level for more than 30 seconds anyway, even in a jet.
Combat speed was about 300 mph in a P-40. Yes, you could go faster, but you likely didn't.
That from listening to 15+ years of hearing WWII combat vets give talks. Were there exceptions? Sure there were, but mostly not. There was plenty of opportunity for almost every situation to come up, but I'm talking about MOST times, not every time.
The P-40 generally gave a good account of itself in a fight, assuming a decent pilot at the stick.
Totally agree. Being as he was trained by and a disciple of Boelcke, Richtofens rules of engagement closely followed his dictaBe it as it might, AVG (and other American units) were without the option to make a switch into the P-51s until some 20-25 months after the Pearl Harbor. 20-25 months of the ww2 was a darned long time for the people in the contact with enemy.
I guess you mean Boelke's dicta.
But indeed, fighter pilots without the good training and without the good C&C system will not make the fighter A/C work, be it P-40s or what you have.
Over 330 mph top speed, six .50 cal mgs with cockpit armour, working radios, and competitive agility - a good start.I used to think that the P-40 was basically a mediocre plane that could get good results in the hands of exceptional pilots like the Flying Tigers, but I have been revising my opinion upward in recent years. Note the assessment given in Wikipedia:
For sure, I should dig out a memoir by an NZ ace (he was my mother's great uncle) an ex-Battle of Britian Spitfire pilot, who, back in NZ, thenTotally agree. Being as he was trained by and a disciple of Boelcke, Richtofens rules of engagement closely followed his dicta
To me the real deal is how much was accomplished by both American and Australian pilots accomplished with minimal support in a difficult environment with an obsolescent airframe. That courage is part of why the P40 is my personal favorite WWII fighter. (Plus frankly it is simply enough constructed that a fabricator like myself can restore one. That will never happen with the more sophisticated later aircraft)
The P-40 wasn't really a major ETO airplane, J.A.W. It was sent to the lower-priority theaters and held the line until such time as the 1st team could get there since they had won in the major theater. The P-40Q would have a quantum leap above the stock old P-40 variants in those lower-priority theaters and would not have required a new set of mechanics or much extra training. They'd need to be able to service a 2-stage Allison. From personal experience, it's not much different from a single-stage Allison.Yeah, but could the Q-ship fly from a base in Britain - & duke it out in mock combat with the Pony - over Berlin?
Actually Greg, I was just having a bit of fun, since the ability to 'duke it out' hard over Berlin & get home was the P-51's forte & trump.The P-40 wasn't really a major ETO airplane, J.A.W. It was sent to the lower-priority theaters and held the line until such time as the 1st team could get there since they had won in the major theater. The P-40Q would have a quantum leap above the stock old P-40 variants in those lower-priority theaters and would not have required a new set of mechanics or much extra training. They'd need to be able to service a 2-stage Allison. From personal experience, it's not much different from a single-stage Allison.
So, I don't care at all whether or not it could go from London to Berlin and back since it's not what the P-40Q would have been doing. It would have been in the CBI, Southwest Pacific, Central Pacific and maybe the Med. But not really the Med since that theater would collapse as soon as the ETO collapsed. The P-40Q would have been a nasty shock to anyone in combat who was expecting regular P-40s to show up.
Just my 2-cents worth.
But, it's a "what if." Who knows, maybe it WOULD have wound up in the ETO. I can't say and you might be right. In that case, I'd say the P-40Q would not have the range to play with the Mustangs on their early long-range escort missions. But, the P-40Q would have come in later when the raids were being flown from much closer airfields in continental Europe and they COULD have gone along easily in my opinion and would have handled the missions nicely. Again, my opinion.
In point of fact, they didn't get produced and the people who made that decision were right for the ETO but wrong for the lower-priority theaters where the regular P-40s soldiered on until the war ended. The P-40Q COULD have made a big difference in those places. In the end, I suppose it didn't need to do so and the people who made the non-production decision were proven correct, whether by good planning or by the good luck that the German "Wonder Weapons" didn't arrive sooner so as to really make a difference. It seems many events cooperated with either good luck or bad luck, depending on what we're talking about and which side, to bring the war to a close when it actually stopped instead of 1.5 years later.
I watched TP-40 "American Dream" in 2022 at Sun 'n' Fun and couldn't believe my eyes -- it was exhilarating. There is a better quality video than the one I'm linking, but it's so close up to the plane that you get no sense of the vertical airspace his maneuvers occupied. The vertical was astounding, and you get the idea from the linked video.I have to say, I recently watched a small town airshow, & was most impressed at how the P-40 performed in the hands of an expert,
The two stage Allison in the P-40Q still didn't have the altitude performance of a Merlin P-51 or a P-47 and the engine itself was known to have not always performed as advertised. The Air Force was not happy about using it in F-82s after the Merlin production license expired.A P-40Q would give a P-51 all it could handle, The only place it was slightly less was in top speed, by about 15 mph. Not saying it was better than a P-51. I AM saying it didn't suffer versus the P-51 in turn or general maneuverability and definitely rolled better. Nobody ever used top speed in combat anyway unless they were diving. You an only get there at full power in a straight line, which is a maneuver almost guaranteed to get you shot at or shot down. In a combat zone, where encountering the enemy is likely, you never fly straight and level for more than 30 seconds anyway, even in a jet.
Combat speed was about 300 mph in a P-40. Yes, you could go faster, but you likely didn't.
That from listening to 15+ years of hearing WWII combat vets give talks. Were there exceptions? Sure there were, but mostly not. There was plenty of opportunity for almost every situation to come up, but I'm talking about MOST times, not every time.
The P-40 generally gave a good account of itself in a fight, assuming a decent pilot at the stick.
Well, we have gone over the ammo and armor. I have no idea if they have 'real guns' or fake guns or just metal tubes sticking through the leading edge.'ve wondered all along, just how much lighter this aircraft is than a typical wartime P-40N,
The tube-type two-ways (plus any IFF and related) weighed a considerable amount compared to a modern Yasu, iCom or Kenwood (etc.).New radios?