It seems that the issue with the Allison Mustangs was indeed how the ailerons were set up. This was fixed on the Merlin P-51s with 10, 12 or 15 degree rigging. Ironically, it was tested on a Mustang I that was modified to be an A-36 prototype which also tested 20mm cannon fits, per post #153 in the A-36 picture thread.
Appreciate the clarification
Problem is unless we have the performance reports on that particular aircraft and a similarly powered P-40, we're always going to sort of be comparing apples to oranges for one reason on another.
I think with the operational history you can compare like with like fairly well.
Even comparing the P-51B/D to the XP-40Q is going to be a bit like that, due to the fact that two were production planes and one was experimental. Now if you compare to XP-40Q to the XP-51F/G or its offspring (P-51H, which didn't see active combat in World War II though fighter units in the USAAF were equipped with them prior to August 15th '45), that's a bit more fair in terms of experimental plane vs experimental plane.
I think P-40Q, as interesting as it was, is a dead end precisely because it was an experiment, and one which failed basically due to a bunch of prototype crashes. It looked pretty good on paper but it probably wasn't as good as a late model P-51 or Spitfire, let alone a jet, so it wasn't bringing anything new to the table. And those crashes may have been due to errors on the side of Curtiss, given the many issues they were having at that time. That, in turn, probably predicts problems Curitss would have in production, which the USAAF and War Dept were already more than weary of.
Unfortunately, it also shows how far behind the curb the P-40 was by then, and probably that Curtiss/Curtiss-Wright had too many irons in the fire with stillborn programs that amounted to nothing.
Behind the 'curve' I think you mean, and yes I totally agree.
For whatever reason, until the Q, the P-40 never seemed to have the "stretch" in capability that the Spitfire and even the Me-109 had.
Well, to be fair, until the Q, nobody put anything remotely similar to a two-stage Merlin 60 or a DB 605 type engine in it.
But since the Mustang was clearly going to be faster regardless, and had the potential for twice the range, and same for the P-38 and ultimately, the P-47, I think they went the right way.
And given the later -109's issues with that, that's sort of saying something. Though in fairness to the P-40, at least it's handling and overall performance didn't deteriorate (speed and climb just hit a wall), while the -109 suffered pretty badly until it got some of it's mojo back with the late G and K series.
But we do have to be fair in terms of combat performance. The least that can be said of the P-40 was that it held its ground and helped pave the way for better aircraft that came later, just as the Allison Mustangs did and other designs.
This is where I diverge from the standard trope. I'd say in Dec 1941- May 1942 ... roughly, the P-40 (mostly) held it's own. From June 1942 it mostly did a little better than hold it's own, even while some newer types were having serious teething issues or running into limitations. And that is why they kept it in the fighter role as long as they did.
As is no doubt obvious, I've done a deep dive into this, as the discrepancy between several individual pilot and individual unit assessments of the P-40 and the summary of it's general traits and history is a yawning chasm, and one of the mysteries of the war for me. Fighter units that are pulling their weight usually score about 2-1 or 3-1 or better in terms of victories to losses. That is because they don't always face other fighters of the first rank, so at least some of their combat encounters should be relatively easy.
For a long time there was really no way to verify anything. All we had was some stats and some wartime legends, really. Now thanks to Shores, Claringbould et al, we can see the details of operational history on both sides. In the early 'desperate days' of 1941-mid 1942, with the exception of the AVG, most P-40s units were doing about 1 for 1, or 1 for 2 (as in, two p-40s lost per 1 enemy aircraft) depending on the specific theater and battlefield. This was at a time when most other Allied fighters were doing a good bit worse than that, so they kept them 'in the breach'. AVG was doing better than that, about 2-1 against enemy fighters and about 3-1 overall, partly due to better tactics. From mid 1942, thanks to improved tactics and training plus a bit better aircraft variants, most P-40 units all over the world, US, RAF, RAAF, SAAF, RNZAF, and Soviet / VVS, were doing 2-1 or 3-1, and that continued until some time in 1944 in most cases.
So I would say that ultimately as a fighter type, over the course of the war it did more than hold it's ground.
