Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
There was at least one of very similar design.No plane was better designed for a shark's mouth. You can throw up all the pictures of other planes before/after the P-40 that you want.
AIUII am going to go through the P-40 lineage using Curtis figures. Adjust as people see fit.
P-40D Kittyhawk I - GW...............7787lbs, (120gal), top speed 359 mph at 15,000ft, initial climb 2580 fpm.
P-40E Kittyhawk I- GW.................7952lbs, (120gal), top speed 366 mph at 15,000ft, initial climb _____. 15,000ft 6.25min.*
P-40E Kittyhawk IA- GW..............8100lbs, (---gal), top speed 354 mph at 15,000ft, initial climb 2050fpm. **
** I don't really know what was going on in the two different P-40E versions.
And a proper name for a plane like Warhawk, who names a plane after a horse or some other mammal like a Buffalo FGS?No plane was better designed for a shark's mouth. You can throw up all the pictures of other planes before/after the P-40 that you want.
I am going to go through the P-40 lineage using Curtiss figures. Adjust as people see fit.
P-40 Tomahawk I gross weight 6807lbs (120 US gal fuel), 357mph at 15,000ft. Initial climb 3080fpm, 15,000ft 5.3min.
P-40B Tomahawk IIa - GW..........7352lbs (120 gal), top speed 352 mph at 15,000ft, initial climb 2860 fpm. 15,000 5.1 min ( I know, it doesn't work)
P-40C Tomahawk IIb - GW..........7504lbs,(120 gal), top speed 345 mph at 15,000ft, initial climb 2690 fpm(climb to 15,000ft not given)
P-40D Kittyhawk I - GW...............7787lbs, (120gal), top speed 359 mph at 15,000ft, initial climb 2580 fpm.
P-40E Kittyhawk I- GW.................7952lbs, (120gal), top speed 366 mph at 15,000ft, initial climb _____. 15,000ft 6.25min.*
P-40E Kittyhawk IA- GW..............8100lbs, (---gal), top speed 354 mph at 15,000ft, initial climb 2050fpm. **
P-40K Warhawk --- GW...............8300lbs, (120 gal), top speed 362 mph at 15,000ft, Climb at 5000ft was 2160fpm, Climb at 15,000ft/1650fpm.
P-40F Warhawk I -- GW,..............8509lbs, (120 gal), top speed 364 mph at 20,000ft, climb ___________.
P-40L Warhawk/Khawk II, GW...8120lbs, (120 gal), top speed 370 mph at 20,000ft, initial climb 3300 fpm.
P-40M Warhawk -- GW...............8319lbs, (120 gal), top speed 360 mph at 20,000ft, initial climb 2050 fpm. 15,000ft 7.2 min
P-40N Warhawk -- GW..............7740lbs, (??? gal), top speed 378 mph at 10,500ft, 15,000 6.7 min (stripped version, four guns, WEP)
P-40N-25 Warhawk - GW............8354lbs, (159gal), top speed 350 mph at 16,500ft, initial climb 2120fpm, 14,000ft in 7.3 min. (heavy FB version, six guns)
*Standard US performance figures for climb use military power for climb (3000rpm for the Allison) for 5 minutes and then max cruise (2600rpm for the Allison) for the rest of the duration of the climb and do not accurately reflect combat capability.
US often tested at standard altitudes like 15,000ft and not at the altitude that gave best performance (like 14,000ft or 16,000ft).
** I don't really know what was going on in the two different P-40E versions.
All weights are for standard Gross weight, clean with the 'standard' fuel load which is NOT full internal fuel. These are also the weights for a specific airframe pulled off the Curtiss line, The P40F for instance was 109lbs over guarantee weight. A few P-40s were up to 29lbs light, others were over. Any production aircraft could vary 2-3% in speed and still be accepted
I will also note than on the P-40Ls and the early P-40N they pulled one internal fuel tank out so the range really took a hit without the external tank, all figures do not include external tank. External tank could be worth 20mph on speed.
No information on if they tested clean or with brackets/braces.
A note on the P-40D,E and K, the change in critical altitude was change in the power rating from the earlier engines, They were allowed to use higher boost at lower altitude (not WEP) in military power and so made 1150hp at just under 12,000ft instead the 1040hp at 14,300ft for the earlier engines, however the newer engines would still make 1040hp at 14,300ft.
Some of this depended on exact intake manifolds and flame arresters/backfire screens.
If the pilots on the older airplanes used more than book boost (there were no pressure limiters) they could (and did) get the 1150hp at the same altitudes the -39 engines did and more than book power lower down.
Also note that may of these planes had two critical altitudes, one at high speed level flight (max ram) and one for climbing (140-150mph/min RAM) and they were thousands of feet apart.
There's no question that the P-40 was meant for a sharkmouth, but an early Bf109 wore it well, too.No plane was better designed for a shark's mouth. You can throw up all the pictures of other planes before/after the P-40 that you want.
Typhoon's shark mouth was not so impressive - it was too short. Early 109s were better.However, nothing look more terrifying with a sharkmouth than a Typhoon.
Au Contraire.Typhoon's shark mouth was not so impressive - it was too short. Early 109s were better.
Looks a bit comical to me. But it's a matter of taste - I won't insist that I'm right.Au Contraire.View attachment 760300
Of the Luftwaffe types that had a sharkmouth, the Bf110 wore it best, to be honest.Looks a bit comical to me. But it's a matter of taste - I won't insist that I'm right.
I was trying to keep the individual lines short, and I got "lucky" in that the weight breakdowns kept saying 720lbs for fuel until the near end, Which is one reason that some of the service tests change. For some reason the US and Curtiss agreed that 120US gal was "standard" despite what the tanks actually held. The 52 gal drop tank was an attempt to make up for the reduction from 181 gallons in the P-40 to under 150 gallons in the P-40B.The Curtiss test tended to be more optimized for better results (lower weight, cleaner plane etc.), while most of the US and Australian military tests often had all the gear but used higher power settings than the British.
I'm sure it was someone with impeccable credentials.And a proper name for a plane like Warhawk, who names a plane after a horse or some other mammal like a Buffalo FGS?
It looks like it's about to hurl.Looks a bit comical to me. But it's a matter of taste - I won't insist that I'm right.