If no P-51, how would the P-40 have evolved?

[Vincenzo]

Vicenzo, if the claims are worthless, then the repoarted losses are worthless, too. Both come from the same Air Force. You're saying one number is good but the other is junk? You can't choose only the data you want to believe, Vicenzo. You have to look at the aggregate data, whether or not it supports your theories. I don't see anyone in here saying the Italian Air Force claims should be disregarded, so why are you arguing about reported P-40 claims? Are you saying all claims are worthless or just Allied claims?

We've had these claim wars before and most everyone overclaimed a bit, but not horribly so. Regardless of the arguments, I recognize the numbers that are accepted by the respective Air Forces on both sides. You, of course, can do as you see fit, but you can't dismiss Allied claims and then turn around and accept Axis claims or you will lose your credibility in here. If you reject some, then you just started an enormous research project for yourself, Good luck.
.

yes i'm saying one number is good and the other is junk, Shore's books give detail of all fightning Nikademus did (partial sum, i did total sum) the sum. Obviously maybe there are some wrongs.
Italian air force?? why this add? the RA have not 109 in North Africa. All the claims are worthless.
The numbers that i presented are not axis claims

 

[GrauGeist]

Can't really say that continuing developement of an older airframe is "flogging a dead horse"...if that's the case, then explain how the Bf109 made it to the end of the war.

It was afterall, developed in the 30's like the P-36.

 

[Shortround6]

yes i'm saying one number is good and the other is junk, Shore's books give detail of all fightning Nikademus did (partial sum, i did total sum) the sum. Obviously maybe there are some wrongs.
Italian air force?? why this add? the RA have not 109 in North Africa. All the claims are worthless.
The numbers that i presented are not axis claims

the difference between claims and losses is that ones own losses SHOULD be known and accurate. How many aircraft left, how many came back, how many cracked up on landing. There may be a bit of jiggery-pokery in attributing written off airframes to combat or operational accidents. Claims are just that, CLAIMS, even with the best faith in the world, gun camera footage and witnesses not all claims can be verified. Damaged or hit aircraft descending through clouds and lost from view? Kill or damaged or probable?

 

[Shortround6]

Can't really say that continuing developement of an older airframe is "flogging a dead horse"...if that's the case, then explain how the Bf109 made it to the end of the war.

It was afterall, developed in the 30's like the P-36.

It made it because they too were flogging a dead horse.

The Germans had no good alternative and the 109 was able to perform fairly well in one of the more important missions the Luftwaffe needed in 1944-45, A short ranged interceptor.

There were plenty of other airframes from the Mid 1930s that never made it that far (or if they did, never should have) so that the fact that the 109 was still a useful aircraft can be considered an outstanding achievement.

The US had enough good alternatives that the P-40, with it's limitations, was a waste of time pursuing by 1943. If it was so good why did Curtiss themselves come up with so many successors? WHy not just pitch the latest "improved" P-40 instead of designing new wings/feselages/tails, etc.
The P-40 could have been improved, most any plane can be improved. The problem is the amount of time, effort and money needed to get a few % of improvement compared to the same amount of time, effort and money spent on a different design. If the second choice gives better results than going with the first option is flogging a dead horse.

 

[GregP]

Sorry Shortround and Vincenzo, you are both daft. Let's say we disagree.

The Me 109 was not a dead horse and neither was the P-40. Both could have been and were developed. The P-40 could have been developed a LOT.

Allied claim numbers are no more worthless than Axis claim numbers. Both sides made claims in good faith and sometimes were wrong. Losses were not always accounted for correctly. Heck, we don't even really know how many German planes were made in some cases becuase some of the records were lost. And you think the loss records were accurarte? I beg to diiffer.

But the claims and loss records are what we have to go by. There just isn't anything welse to go by ... unless you have a time machine in your garage.

The Spirfire, P-38, P-39, P-40, A6M, Me 109, and others were produced for the entire war. If they were dead horses, then the war was won by dead horses and you might give them due credit in any case.

Really, your opinions expressed above fly in the face of the history of WWII. The Spitfire and the Me 109 were both very competitive until the last day of the war. You might go read up on it sometime.

 

[GrauGeist]

Actually, the P-36 remained in service until the close of the war (and remained active abroad until the mid 1950's) along with the P-40.

The P-40, along with other dead horses (P-38, P-39, F4F, etc) managed to stem the tide of the Japanese in the Pacific and in the Med, the P-40 remained active until late 1944 in U.S. service. Other nations used the P-40 until the close of the war...

So the airframe was sound enough to engage more "modern" designs and in the absense of the P-51, it would have most likely followed the natural progression of upgrades (which, in fact, it did) to keep it a capable fighting machine.

 

[Shortround6]

Sorry Shortround and Vincenzo, you are both daft. Let's say we disagree.

The Me 109 was not a dead horse and neither was the P-40. Both could have been and were developed. The P-40 could have been developed a LOT.

Allied claim numbers are no more worthless than Axis claim numbers. Both sides made claims in good faith and sometimes were wrong. Losses were not always accounted for correctly. Heck, we don't even really know how many German planes were made in some cases becuase some of the records were lost. And you think the loss records were accurarte? I beg to diiffer.

But the claims and loss records are what we have to go by. There just isn't anything welse to go by ... unless you have a time machine in your garage.

The Spirfire, P-38, P-39, P-40, A6M, Me 109, and others were produced for the entire war. If they were dead horses, then the war was won by dead horses and you might give them due credit in any case.

Really, your opinions expressed above fly in the face of the history of WWII. The Spitfire and the Me 109 were both very competitive until the last day of the war. You might go read up on it sometime.

If I am daft then I hope I am in good company, I have done a fair amount of reading.

"The Spirfire, P-38, P-39, P-40, A6M, Me 109, and others were produced for the entire war"

well 4 out of 6 might not be too bad. P-39 production stopped in Aug 1944, about 1 year short of the end of the war in the Pacific. P-40 Production ended in Nov 1944 9 months short of the end of the end of the war.

I hope I am giving them due credit but due credit is not hero worship ( or the equivalent for metal objects). The P-39 and P-40 helped stem the tide and go over to the offensive. They should get due credit for that. Thinking that they were still in the front ranks of world fighters in 1944-45 is not due credit, it is wishful thinking. AS is thinking that ALL designs have the same amount of stretch or development potential. Conditions changed during 6 years of war. A war load (armament) that was first rate in 1939/40 was definitely 2nd class or 3rd class in 1944/45. Targets got tougher, expected ranges got longer and so on.

Some planes could handle bigger engines better than others. Some planes had room for more fuel and some did not. Some had the room or weight carrying ability to handle much heavier armament and some did not. Some had aerodynamic limitations that no amount of "tweaking" could overcome short of a major redesign (Typhoon to Tempest needed and entire new wing and modified fuselage, where does development stop and redesign begin?).

The Japanese made the Ki 43 for the duration of the Pacific war, in hindsight perhaps not one of their better ideas.

If you want to believe the P-40 was a first rate fighter plane in 1944 don't let me stop you. If you think it had the potential to equal the P-51 with just a little more "tweaking" go ahead and think it. I prefer facts and not faith.

 

[GrauGeist]

Well, fact or faith...I prefer reality...

If the P-51 was so almighty, then how was it that a lowly old Bf109 could shoot it down?

This scenario puts the Allies into a position of not having the prospect of a P-51, so assuming the British didn't request it's design and development then Curtis would have been hard at work keeping thier prime mover up to date...even if it meant creating a newer version. Without the A-36/P-51, there would have been engine resources available for the P-40 and so on.

Nasty old airframes sometimes offer new and deadly surprises, like the Fw190's offspring, the Fw190D and Ta152 for example.

 

[GregP]

Shortround,

If you read my posts, I already SAID that while it was not a first-line fighter, it was good enough to stem the tide until better ones came. I simply feel it could have been developed if Curtiss wanted to do so.

Apparently you think otherwise. That's OK.

I simply disagree and that is not unusual. I have no "hero worship," and I like most of the planes of WWII. I dislike very few and that is apparently where we disagree.

If you were trying to buy a warbird today, you might just find the P-40 among the most expensive since there are comparatively fewer than for some other warbirds. I rejoice that I help build P-40 engines today. They'll be flying for awhile, and I love to fly in them.

 

[Shortround6]

Well, fact or faith...I prefer reality...

If the P-51 was so almighty, then how was it that a lowly old Bf109 could shoot it down?

Because a better airplane is no guarantee of immunity. Even a vastly better airplane is no guarantee of immunity. A few 109s were even shot down by Avro Ansons. That doesn't make the Anson a viable bomber to send into defended airspace.

Nasty old airframes sometimes offer new and deadly surprises, like the Fw190's offspring, the Fw190D and Ta152 for example

True but then the 190 was only about 1/2 the age of the 109 when they turned it into the Fw190D and Ta152 wasn't it? It is also not just about age but size and streamlining or drag. You can't turn a 109 into a Fw190D. the airframe is too small.

You can develop the P-40, it just needs a new wing, new landing gear, a new radiator installation and some new fuselage parts and a different engine. Do all that and it is still a P-40 right?

 

[Vincenzo]

Sorry Shortround and Vincenzo, you are both daft. Let's say we disagree.

The Me 109 was not a dead horse and neither was the P-40. Both could have been and were developed. The P-40 could have been developed a LOT.

Allied claim numbers are no more worthless than Axis claim numbers. Both sides made claims in good faith and sometimes were wrong. Losses were not always accounted for correctly. Heck, we don't even really know how many German planes were made in some cases becuase some of the records were lost. And you think the loss records were accurarte? I beg to diiffer.

But the claims and loss records are what we have to go by.

i've a large doubt who is the daft or who is in bad faith.
None has writed that allied claims are more worthless of axis claims. If a fighter not back, you (the unit) can wrong the cause but is a losses. the lost in german records are limited and i think are not relative to this campaign.

 

[Glider]

In the various books that I have read when comparing the P40 against the 109G and Fw 190, the VVS considered the P40 to be outclassed as did the RAF, the USAAF and most importantly the Germans.
I have yet to find any allied fighter pilot who said that they considered the P40 to be a match for the German fighters.

In one book 'Fighters Over Tunisia?' there were a number of interviews with allied pilots and IIRC they rated the fighters as first Spit IX, second Spit V and P38, third P40 and last Hurricane and P39.
All the books on the ME agree that allied losses dropped as soon as the first SPits arrived as the P40/Hurricnae combination wasn't up to the German fighters

Second question would seem to be could it have been upgraded.? reply is probably yes but not without some serious changes which would make the whole thing a wast of time as I cannot see it being a match for the P51 in range which was so important to the war effort

 

[drgondog]

It simply nets out as follows. The P-40 weaknesses against first line Japanese and German fighters, pricipally the A6M and Me 109F were exposed in 1942. Having siad this, both the P-38 and P-47 production was reaching initial substance in late 1942 but still woefully short of equipping both the US and our allies. The P-39 was never an answer but only a P-40 with a two stage/supercharged engine would have brought flexibility of operations to be a stopgap in 1943.

!943 was characterized as introducing the P-47 and P-38 in numbers to equip more than 10 Fighter Groups (combined). The P-51A and Mustang II production continued but both contracts were running out and the A-36 contract was only an emergency move by Arnold to keep the NAA line going while the P-51B emerged.

Net, Curtis kept producing primarily for our Allies and those theatres where backfill production of newer P-40's were required in late 1943 until the P-47s and P-38s reached high enough production volume to go to critical fronts - both of which were superior in every way to the P-40 except cost and mid altitude turn/roll capability.

The wing of the P-40 would have to be re-designed and replaced, along with a 1650-3 or higher engine to be even considered as useful in ETO for any heavy bomber escort role - just to a.) get fuel/range improvement, and b.) competitive performance against FW 190 and Me 109. The P-40K/N could have performed fighter bomber role past D-Day with probable higher losses but it would have served - and did continue to serve in MTO/CBI and some vestige in PTO.

I haven't seen either the dates or the fuel tank capacity for P-40Q test results so I can't speculate on its future versus P-47N or P-38J but it did not, even with the figures presented by Greg, deliver any confidence that it would ever be a contemporary 'go-to' fighter versus either one of them. Certainly the Allison that it was tested with would have performed well - dunno how well relative to range.

 

[GregP]

Well said Drgondog,

Though I like the XP-40Q, one cannot tell how good of an operational fighter it might have made since they only built three, none were identical to one another, and the test data are hiding from us even today except for the 422 mph top speed number and the output of the V-1710-121 engine in the third airframe. I like to think it could have been weaked into a good one and others feel it was simply another P-40, despite tet fact that the few numbers we have for it are more than 60 mph faster than most P-40's.

I like to stick with real life rather than what-ifs and, in the war, things happened a certain way. Whether or not the trusty old P-40 could have been deleoped into a first-rate fighter seems to have awakened the passion of some in here.

I'll let it go and say the P-40 acquitted itself well in the war given the circumstrances in which it found itself. In the end, it was a solid if pedestrian fighter that did the job well until being replaced by better equipment, and it soldiered on well after the war was over in many places around the world.

As I am now curious, I'll look into the XP-40Q and see what I can dig up.

 

[Dcazz7606]

My squadron booklet says the P-40Q's top speed was 426 mph. I don't recall what load or at what altitude. Says with that with the P-38,47 and 51 with equal or better performance there was no need for a 4th. Makes sense. I like the P-40 and the Q would have been a winner a year or two earlier IMO.

 

[GrauGeist]

Hey Bill, wasn't the XP-40Q running the Packard V-1650 Merlin like the L versions?

They were definately onto something with the Q version with it's 4-bladed prop, squared wings and bubble canopy

 

[muscogeemike]

Because a better airplane is no guarantee of immunity. Even a vastly better airplane is no guarantee of immunity. A few 109s were even shot down by Avro Ansons. That doesn't make the Anson a viable bomber to send into defended airspace.



True but then the 190 was only about 1/2 the age of the 109 when they turned it into the Fw190D and Ta152 wasn't it? It is also not just about age but size and streamlining or drag. You can't turn a 109 into a Fw190D. the airframe is too small.

You can develop the P-40, it just needs a new wing, new landing gear, a new radiator installation and some new fuselage parts and a different engine. Do all that and it is still a P-40 right?

Don't forget a Turbo. I read that Curtiss was reluctant to use a competitors products and spent too much time, effort and money trying to develop one of their own.

 

[wuzak]

Hey Bill, wasn't the XP-40Q running the Packard V-1650 Merlin like the L versions?

They were definately onto something with the Q version with it's 4-bladed prop, squared wings and bubble canopy

No, the Q ran a 2 stage V-1710.

 

[wuzak]

Don't forget a Turbo. I read that Curtiss was reluctant to use a competitors products and spent too much time, effort and money trying to develop one of their own.

Curtiss was a part of the Curtiss-Wright corporation. It was the Wright side of the business that was developing a turbo.

Curtiss wasn't opposed ti using competitors' products - the P-36 used a P&W R-1830, for instance, and one version of teh P-60 flew with a V-1710 and GE B-series turbo combination.

 

[drgondog]

Hey Bill, wasn't the XP-40Q running the Packard V-1650 Merlin like the L versions?

They were definately onto something with the Q version with it's 4-bladed prop, squared wings and bubble canopy

Dave - I believe they were all Allison 1710's and believe Grep was correct with -81, -101 and -121 respectively. The P-40Q offered a lot of promise but the original engine was -81 one stage, one speed, WE Hp same as P-40M/N-1 with 1360 Hp. The -121 wa Two stage at 1800hp WE, and 1100 hp MP at 25K.

I haven't found out yet when the XP-40Q first flew. The first observation is that is was nearly a completely different airplane - not quite as radical as a 51H compared to 51D but tooling up would have taken some time. If it was being tested in spring 44 its competition was the P-51G/J which was One helluva lot better performer.