How good a plane was the P-40, really? (2 Viewers)

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

I never understood the reason for that oil tank. Was the extra oil meant to cope with dust?

I think they underestimated the effects of the faring on drag. It had a streamlined shape but it's just too large, anything that sticks out into the slipstream has a cost in drag. And that Vokes filter is a lot.

 

[Shortround6]

The extra oil was to allow for the extra range of drop tanks.
The Spitfires and Hurricanes had been designed for short range and their oil tanks had been designed accordingly for the size of their fuel tanks.
The Photo recon Spits had extra large oil tanks.
Hurricanes had an oil tank in the leading edge of the left wing but it wasn't big enough for long flights with drop tanks.

Tank is inboard of the guns. Exposed tank also acted as an oil cooler. Changing the wing tank may have meant modifying the ribs on either side or some other problem?





P-40s had been designed for 160-180 US gallons of fuel originally and had oil tanks designed accordingly.
I don't know what they did for ferrying. There may have been different amounts of oil consumption per hour of cruise flight vs oil consumption per hour of high speed or combat power?

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

I would assume you consume less oil flying at lower RPM and boost

 

[GrauGeist]

I believe that all of the air intakes for the Bf109 series were on the left side.

The DB6xx engine intakes were to port, the Jumo2xx intakes were to starboard.

The early DB intakes were angular and later versions had more of a radiused design.

 

[Just Schmidt]

All that nose armor.

I'll get my jacket.

Don't forget the cast iron cockpit heater!

 

[HP52]

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:



Given that more P-40s were produced than any other American army or navy fighter other than the P-47 and P-51, it would seem that the people in charge had a high opinion of the plane at the time.

Your thoughts?

You have to look at timespan - in 1940 the P40 was near the top of it's game and needed to be lightened by Gipsy Rose Lee to stay competitive. It is a time game.
Hampdemon

 

[tomo pauk]

You have to look at timespan - in 1940 the P40 was near the top of it's game and needed to be lightened by Gipsy Rose Lee to stay competitive. It is a time game.
Hampdemon

People at NAA, Suprermarine, MTT, Macchi etc used a superior way i order to keep their fighters competitive, namely by installing the engines with condiderably more power for all altitudes.
Worked very well; not so much what the P-40 received.

 

[Shortround6]

People at NAA, Suprermarine, MTT, Macchi etc used a superior way i order to keep their fighters competitive, namely by installing the engines with condiderably more power for all altitudes.
Worked very well; not so much what the P-40 received.

P-40 got a double whammy.
They crammed too much stuff into it in the D & E models and they didn't have enough Merlin engines to keep making the F & L versions into 1943.
Or rather Allison spent too much time screwing around with the two stage engine and not enough time making a better single stage supercharger.

A lightened P-40 with a Merlin 24 engine (18lbs of boost) might have been very interesting
Not a P-51 by any stretch but having several thousand ft of altitude over a 'normal' P-40N might have been interesting.

The Us should have decided wither they wanted a P-40 or B-40 (one 1000lb under each wing and 500lb under the fuselage) and designed the wing/landing gear accordingly.
An 8300-8700lb fighter clean (no drop tank) is going to need an hell of engine to compete with 7100-7500lb fighters.

 

[ThomasP]

<Homer Simpson's voice> "mmmmm . . . P-40F/Ls with Merlin 24s . . . & 4-blade props"

 

[SaparotRob]

 

[Shortround6]

and 400-500lbs lighter

 

[Frog]

And paddle prop blades.

 

[Think Tanker]

P-40 got a double whammy.
They crammed too much stuff into it in the D & E models and they didn't have enough Merlin engines to keep making the F & L versions into 1943.
Or rather Allison spent too much time screwing around with the two stage engine and not enough time making a better single stage supercharger.

A lightened P-40 with a Merlin 24 engine (18lbs of boost) might have been very interesting
Not a P-51 by any stretch but having several thousand ft of altitude over a 'normal' P-40N might have been interesting.

The Us should have decided wither they wanted a P-40 or B-40 (one 1000lb under each wing and 500lb under the fuselage) and designed the wing/landing gear accordingly.
An 8300-8700lb fighter clean (no drop tank) is going to need an hell of engine to compete with 7100-7500lb fighters.

Be that as it may, the Kittyhawk III-IV series proved to be quite excellent fighters and interdictors in the MTO during this period. And while not as glamorous as the duties served in the ETO, these were still sterling records which manifestly contributed to victory in the War.

Yes, their altitude performance suffered, though in these theatres the effect of this mattered far less. Instead, you had an aircraft with good speed at low altitude (noting that if one compares a P-40N-5 series from 1943 to a Bf-109G-6 from the same period, the P-40 comes out with a slight advantage in 'on-the-deck' speed, and this is neglecting any filters which would accentuate this performance difference...), and a generally-superior combat radius compared to its in-theatre contemporaries.

Combine this with the other characteristics which made the type and excellent interdictor: Maneuverable and responsive controls, decent armament, rugged and well-protected airframe, sizable bombload (especially for the later P-40N / Kittyhawk IV types, which were cleared for a 2,500-lb ordnance load) and it becomes no surprise why the P-40 series was well-regarded by the USAAF and RAF alike in this region, among many other Allied nations abroad in other theatres.

The type was uniquely well-suited to the kind of isolated pursuit, escort and interdiction duties that were required in the desolate sands of North Africa, or the rugged hills of Italy. It was superb at the kind of low-altitude dogfights and logistical attrition which was necessary to bleed the Axis of their supply lifelines into these theatres.

So, in truth, I am not sure I agree that the US needed to "pick a horse" in this case. Having the type as a flexible and adaptable airframe was what allowed it to remain relevant until the War's conclusion. There were many improvements to the type I would've loved to see, though by the time of the 1944 Fighter Conference you see the general perception among USAAF staff as "Why fix what isn't broken, especially when we have other types to fulfill the more 'first-rate' duties?"

Now, of course, I personally still would love to see the fruition of Don Berlin's fantasies of sticking a two-stager Merlin in a P-40 airframe in 1940...but that wasn't feasible at the time considering the military realities of the RAF, and the political realities of a neutral US.

 

[pbehn]

Now, of course, I personally still would love to see the fruition of Don Berlin's fantasies of sticking a two-stager Merlin in a P-40 airframe in 1940...but that wasn't feasible at the time considering the military realities of the RAF, and the political realities of a neutral US.

Everyone would have loved a two stage Merlin in 1940, but it wasnt there. The first two stage Merlin Spitfires came in service in spring 1942 and were almost exact contemporaries of the Allisson engined Mustang Mk I (P-51A). There were approx 6 squadrons of each at Dieppe in August 1942.