Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Yes there's a name for that, it's called research.
So suddenly because it doesn't agree with you, they don't know what they're talking about about?
Ooookaay then.
And I've just scoured three books and several websites. It was designed to stay at low altitude. None mention the high altitude requirement that the P38 was designed too. They all say unequivocally that the P40 was bought because it could get brought into production quickly.Dig out the specification that the P-40 was designed to meet and you will find PURSUIT only. I do not have a copy but at least one copy is floating around here.
As has already been mentioned the model 87 was the first to carry bombs. None of the model 81 aircraft in USAAC/F, RAF or French service carried bombs or drop tanks.
So what makes everyone think the authors above didn't do that?You are correct and research means getting, reading and comprehending PRIME sources.
PRIME sources are specifications, contracts, ACTUAL military records, manufacturers and government documents.
If you want to understand what very simple real research looks like go to this site but be warned - their index is purely retyped from the index at the end of each microfilm roll and the page numbers are useless in most cases because when digitizing AFHRA deleted all the blank pages.
View attachment 794652
Other errors are that the person who wrote the original index was not necessarily correct (for example the General Kenney diaries are not where they claim) or did not include much detail.
View attachment 794653
Was there a law saying they could send them to Guadalcanal?
Then what's it doing on Guadalcanal?Lend Lease and various other agreements
And
And I've just scoured three books and several websites. It was designed to stay at low altitude. None mention the high altitude requirement that the P38 was designed too. They all say unequivocally that the P40 was bought because it could get brought into production quickly.
There is this thing called strafing too you know? I believe that's qualifies as ground attack.
Sounds to me like your just butthurt because I don't agree with you.And I guarantee not one of your books or websites quotes one single line from the actual specification the P-40 was designed to comply with.
And I bet they do not have a bibliography listing a PRIME source for this claim.
Even more if you cut a sentence from any of your websites and drop it in to your search engine (inside quotation marks) you will find multiple other sites that have the exact same sentence because most lazy "researchers" plagiarise from other crap researchers and especially from Wakkypedia.
Just opinion based on speculation from reading other poorly researched sources -- or fairy tales from Caiden and other pulp fiction writers.
You mean kinda like getting all butthurt and running to your friends to give likes and green checkmarks to artificial bolster your position?Ah yes - the standard reply - attack the person because they presented facts and you only presented myths.
Because close support means generally means ground attack at least in modern parlance. And the last I checked, bombers tend to be in the air when they drop their bombs.
That's not to say they could shoot other planes down because they obviously did.
And I fail to see what the other aircraft you mention have to do with it.
He got the agreement from me because he's right.You mean kinda like getting all butthurt and running to your friends to give likes and green checkmarks to artificial bolster your position?
True. With both the XP-37 and the XP-39 the USAAC found that shoehorning a turbosupercharger into a single engined airplane was not easy. The XP-37 worked, with a much higher speed above 20,000 than the P-36, but putting the pilot way back right in front of the fin was unworkable. In the XP-39 the turbo installation actually resulted in so much drag that the airplane was slower with the turbo than without it. So for both airplanes as well as the new Mustang Mk I they set the supercharger on the V-1710 to the happiest medium they could cone up with, for best performance at about 15,000 ft. Setting it for a higher altitude would have hurt lower altitude performance. Personally, I think they screwed up royally by not building a two speed supercharger for the V-1710, which everyone else in the world did with their engines. And I recall reading where a NACA engineer was given the job of improving the V-1710 and complained it was a waste of time with that "piece of junk." The V-1710 was better than the Merlin in some respects, being lighter, easier to repair, easier to build and easier to maintain, but its supercharager condemmed it.The P-40 was not designed for low altitude work.
But according to Curtiss the Hawk 75 could.None of the model 81 aircraft in USAAC/F, RAF or French service carried bombs or drop tanks.
There is some dispute about if the the XP-38 used B-1 or B-2 GE turbos.