Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Which P-40s were designed as fighter bombers?P40 's were actually designed as a fighter bomber, hence the low end super charging.
Something I've encountered a lot is when people think Merlin engine, they immediately think of the Mustang and the Merlin 61 believing it was some kind of super engine not realizing it was, as you say, the two stage two speed supercharger.
P40 's were actually designed as a fighter bomber, hence the low end super charging. In North Africa P40s were encountering a lot of air opposition but in Italy there wasn't as many axis fighters to deal with IIRC so they could carry on without being bothered as much.
The 797 V 1650s produced by Continental were installed on P-51s.Not really - Packard was producing the V1650-1s used in the P-40F/L, and also the 2-Speed Merlin 28, 38, and 224sseries engines used in some Hurricanes, and the Lancaster Mk III and the Canadian Lancaster Mk Xs.
Plus all the 2-stage Merlins for the P-51, Several different marks of Spitfire - It was only at the end of the War that a second American Merlin production line was set up - Continental Motors produced a few, then the war ended, and all U.S. Merlin production stopped (Licensing agreements, and demand.)
If the P-40 Warhawk had been designed as a fighter bomber it would have an A- designation for attack just like used on the A-36 fighter bomber version of the P-51. There never was an A version of the Warhawk series of aircraft.
The P designation indicates they were designed as a pursuit (fighter) aircraft from day one.
And the reason the Allison only had a "low altitude" supercharger is because that is what the US Army demanded.
No. Both it and the P39 were designed for ground attack, with a secondary fighter capability, under prewar doctrine. The idea was the P40's and P39's would attack ground troops of an invading army while the P38's would take care of bombers per Fork Tailed Devil by Martin Caiden. It's also mentioned in his book about the B17.
And the A36 was a dive bomber. Any attack bomber/dive bomber got the "A" designation. Hence the Dauntless was redesignated as A24 by the USAAF.
No, both the P-38 and P-39 were designed as interceptors.
That is, they were to climb fast to high altitude to tackle incoming bombers.
The XP-39 was designed and fitted with a turbocharger. But the installation, particularly regarding the intercooler, was poor and the turbo dropped.
The P-40 was an upgraded P-36, a fighter.
The P-40 might not have existed had the XP-37 and YP-37 not have issues with its design - from the poor pilot position, to the unreliability of the turbocharger.
I've never read Caiden, but he doesn't have a stellar reputation in here!
I'm assuming you're referring to that big boxy monstrosity they fitted to the bottom of an Airacobra fuselage that caused too much drag? It was never installed in production P39's to my knowledge and thus relegated to lie altitude.No, both the P-38 and P-39 were designed as interceptors.
That is, they were to climb fast to high altitude to tackle incoming bombers.
The XP-39 was designed and fitted with a turbocharger. But the installation, particularly regarding the intercooler, was poor and the turbo dropped.
The P-40 was an upgraded P-36, a fighter.
The P-40 might not have existed had the XP-37 and YP-37 not have issues with its design - from the poor pilot position, to the unreliability of the turbocharger.
I've never read Caiden, but he doesn't have a stellar reputation in here!
Circular Proposal X-609
[edit]
In February 1937, Lieutenant Benjamin S. Kelsey, Project Officer for Fighters at the United States Army Air Corps (USAAC), and Captain Gordon P. Saville, fighter tactics instructor at the Air Corps Tactical School, issued a specification for a new fighter via Circular Proposal X-609.[7] It was a request for a single-engine high-altitude "interceptor" having "the tactical mission of interception and attack of hostile aircraft at high altitude".[8] Despite being called an interceptor, the proposed aircraft's role was simply an extension of the traditional pursuit (fighter) role, using a heavier and more powerful aircraft at higher altitude. Specifications called for at least 1,000 lb (450 kg) of heavy armament including a cannon, a liquid-cooled Allison engine with a General Electric turbo-supercharger, tricycle landing gear, a level airspeed of at least 360 mph (580 km/h) at altitude, and a climb to 20,000 ft (6,100 m) within six minutes.[9]
Are you sure?The P-38, P-39 and P-40 were initially all interceptors as any attack on the U.S. would be coming in the air. No need for strafing ground troops. As with all fighters, as the type ages, they are assigned more to close support of our troops as newer fighters do the air to air fighting. Brother Martin has fiction and opinion in with his facts. I have most of his books, including his works of fiction.
Are you sure?
American fighter Plane by Ted and Amy Williams.
Essentially, the P39 was designed to be an efficient, airborne way to deliver heavy fire to the enemy
Is this the part you are referring to?
Doesn't exactly say if the enemy was in the air, or on land or sea.
Note that the P-38 was also designed with the 37mm M4 cannon.
As was the Bell XFM-1/YFM-1, which carried two aimable 37mm M4 cannons. And that was designed as a bomber destroyer.
The XP-67 was to be fitted with 6 M4s to destroy bombers, and the XP-54 was to have two.
The XP-54 had a pressurised cockpit for high altitude operation.
The XP-54 and XP-67 had their origins in Circular Proposal R40C, which sought fighters of the highest possible performance, beyond what was in service at the time and was expected to be in service in the near future
If the P-39 was to be designed as a ground attack aircraft, you would thinki it capable of carrying more bombs, and more ammunition (30 rounds for the M4 initially?).
Yes there's a name for that, it's called research.Absolutely certain. Ted and Amy are not experts, but rewrite what others have written. My opinion, like it or not.
Was there a law saying they could send them to Guadalcanal?And we even had some not only in the the Western Desert but also at Guadalcanal.
View attachment 794618
I think it funny that the USAAF had P-40's with Merlin engines in the Pacific while the NZ and Aussies did not.Was there a law saying they could send them to Guadalcanal?
I think it funny that the USAAF had P-40's with Merlin engines in the Pacific while the NZ and Aussies did not.
Was there a law saying they could send them to Guadalcanal?
It actually had 15 round in the early versions.If the P-39 was to be designed as a ground attack aircraft, you would thinki it capable of carrying more bombs, and more ammunition (30 rounds for the M4 initially?).
I'm assuming you're referring to that big boxy monstrosity they fitted to the bottom of an Airacobra fuselage that caused too much drag?
As far as I know the P40 was kind of the plan B for the YP37 because, as you say, they couldn't get turbo to work.
The P36 may have been a thoroughbred fighter but that doesn't mean it's successor was.
I politely encourage you to read them and come to your own conclusions. I gotta tell you, I don't do this "he has a bad rep around here" nonsense because I'm going to tell you something, I try to double check everything and while I know Caiden has a rep for storytelling, but all the facts mentioned in his books line up from what I can tell because what I stated above is backed up by Jeff Ethell's book on the P40.