Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Nice picture. I believe I have already noted that the later P-40s got the extended fuselage/tail? and we do know they changed the engine which changed the nose contours.
So that proves..............? for other changes?
I believe I have acknowledged that they beefed up the structure. The wing gained about 300lbs for instance so no you can't take a P-36 wing and stick an P-40 fuselage and engine on it and hang a 500lb (or 1000lb) bomb from each wing.
You can debate it, just use facts and not profile pictures which ignore the 5 changes I listed for the wings,
I listed changes from the E to the F, you posted a drawing of a late G or K?
when facts fail go for personal attacks. Nice.
1000 km maybe pretty good (I would say 'medium' range) for 1940 but it's really not very impressive by 41 or 42
I understand what you are saying, and I know you know what you are talking about, but I still don't get it. Yes 1,000 km is longer than a Bf 109 - or a Spitfire or a Hurricane or a Yak-1. It's about the same as an LaGG-3. But If you are considering the idea of long range as a world standard, it's not that long, especially once you get into the mid-war. Yes I am aware the Bf 110 got big external fuel tanks, but so did every other aircraft and the 110 never did seem to have sufficient range to reach it's long range targets, at least from the perspective I'm mostly seeing it from in the Med or the Bay of Biscay.
Not to beat a dead horse but the Beaufighter had a 2,800 km range, A6M had 2,600 km range (with a drop tank) P-38 had close to 2,000 km and so on.
I'd call the 110 a "medium ranged aircraft" by the standards of say, 1941. But I can agree to disagree.
Pretty much any fighter design which progressed and in some form or another saw combat from the 30's to 1945 had to change a lot. Whether you call that a new aircraft or not is subjective. If they changed 18 things on a P-40 and 21 things on a Bf 109 and 25 things on an La 7, where you do draw the line? Do you evaluate based on construction / tooling, performance, design what? There are many ways to look at it therefore it's easy to entrench hard positions if you really want to.
You are a smart guy but this is a very hard position built over some very soft ground.
I think you will find that that the Me110 hardly ever, if indeed ever operated over the Bay of Biscay with the exception of an occasional mission. The Beaufighter fought the Ju88c over the Bay and did indeed dominate the Ju88.No, I don't think that's a valid assertion. I brought up the Beaufighter initially because I was told it was impossible to build a long range fighter in 1940. The Beau and the Zero are probably the two best counter examples to disprove that specious claim. But here I'm referring to the Beaufighter specifically because particularly in the maritime war from the Bay of Biscay to the Aegean, the Beaufighter was operating as probably the main competitor to the Bf 110 and frankly by the end of 1942 it was dominating those spaces.
There is a whole world of difference between 'tangling with Fw190's in a P40 in 1944' and 'Being Dangerous in 1944' compared to being on a roughly equal footing.And yet, P-40s were still flying front line combat missions, and tangling with Fw 190s as late as Anzio in 1944. Meanwhile, the 1930's vintage Bf 109 was competitive until the end of the war. So was the Spitfire. The Beaufighter and Zero were still dangerous in 1942 or 43 or 44 even though they were 1940 designs.
Normally I would agree with you, but clearly you haven't read up on the damage the Ohio took getting to MaltaTo sink a ship like the Ohio a 1,000 bomb load was sufficient.
The vast majority of Beaufighters had the 4 x 20mm and the LMG's were replaced with various things depending on the versionBut since you bring it up, the Beau had 10 guns to the 110s 6.
The XF4U had something like 600 or 800 changes before going into production, The Main visual differences are slightly longer nose and cockpit being moved back to fit in the fuselage fuel tank. After that changes to the F4U's airframe were minor. Changing from six .50 cal guns to four 20mm cannon may have required a slew of engineering drawings but the wing span, cord, airfoil, size of the flaps and ailerons all stayed the same.
Likewise on the P-36/P-40.
By the time you even get to the P-40 the Hawk 75 airframe was on it's 6th or 7th engine/power plant. It had gone from 3760lbs empty to 5,417lbs empty for the XP-40 and from 4843lbs loaded to 6,260lbs normal gross weight.
So are all the Hawk 75 versions separate aircraft or different versions/models of the same aircraft?
Wing is unchanged in size and shape, tail is pretty much unchanged, fuselage from the firewall back (except for the XP-37 and YP-37s) is pretty much unchanged.
Airframe may be beefed up to handle the higher weights.
Export Hawk 75s got four gun wings (2 to a side) well before the P-40B did so the gun and ammo layout and access hatches/doors predate P-40B.
XP-40 is the 10th production P-36A airframe, serial 38-10.
The 4th P-36A was turned into the XP-42
View attachment 588313
from the firewall back it was a standard P-36A.
SO when does the P-40 become a significantly different plane than the Hawk-75/P-36?
With the XP-40?
With the P-40 though P-40C?
With the P-40 D & E?
With the late P40F and the P-40Ks with the extended fuselage?
I think you will find that that the Me110 hardly ever, if indeed ever operated over the Bay of Biscay with the exception of an occasional mission. The Beaufighter fought the Ju88c over the Bay and did indeed dominate the Ju88.
Well, again I can cite some examples - some of the units operating over and around Anzio, notably the 79th FG, seems to have shot down a fair number of Fw 190s, more than they lost to them. Most of the latter were flying fighter bomber missions at the time. But I don't think that really matters, you couldn't say the P-40 wasn't competitive there. I can post some combat records from MAW IV in the other thread on combat histories.There is a whole world of difference between 'tangling with Fw190's in a P40 in 1944' and 'Being Dangerous in 1944' compared to being on a roughly equal footing.
Normally I would agree with you, but clearly you haven't read up on the damage the Ohio took getting to Malta
The vast majority of Beaufighters had the 4 x 20mm and the LMG's were replaced with various things depending on the version
But isn't there a 1941 version of the Bf 110? Lets compare like with like, I'm not trying to play any tricks. But I know if the aircraft has say, a 1,000 mile range without drop tanks, adding the drop tanks will only improve the range so much, because when the external tanks run out, it still has to make it back to base.
I'm not trying to give you a hard time, I think we just mean different things by the same terms. If a Bf 110 has the same range as a Beaufighter or a P-38 comparing with or without fuel tanks (so long as it's like with like) that is big news to me. It's not that easy to get precise figures for different flight configurations so I'd be glad to see more data.
Well, again I can cite some examples - some of the units operating over and around Anzio, notably the 79th FG, seems to have shot down a fair number of Fw 190s, more than they lost to them. Most of the latter were flying fighter bomber missions at the time. But I don't think that really matters, you couldn't say the P-40 wasn't competitive there. I can post some combat records from MAW IV in the other thread on combat histories.
Afair the F-4 and G-4 the night fighter versionSome 110's had a 3rd crew member.