Merlin engined P40 (2 Viewers)

[MiTasol]

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.

You are correct BUT research means getting, reading and comprehending PRIME sources and identifying those sources in your document.

PRIME sources are specifications, contracts, ACTUAL military records, manufacturers and relevant government documents. All else is opinion based on speculation.

If you want to understand what very simple basic 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 frame (page) numbers are useless in most cases because when digitizing AFHRA deleted all the blank pages. And on a lot of frames the frame number is not readable.

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.

 

[CD Baumann]

And

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.

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.

 

[CD Baumann]

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

So what makes everyone think the authors above didn't do that?

 

[MiTasol]

Was there a law saying they could send them to Guadalcanal?

Lend Lease and various other agreements

 

[CD Baumann]

Lend Lease and various other agreements

Then what's it doing on Guadalcanal?

 

[MiTasol]

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.

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.

 

[CD Baumann]

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.

Sounds to me like your just butthurt because I don't agree with you.

Now open your door, be warned it's going to be bright. And you'll see some green pointy stuff on the ground. It's called grass.
Go touch it.

 

[MiTasol]

Ah yes - the standard reply - attack the person because they presented facts and you only presented myths.

 

[CD Baumann]

Ah yes - the standard reply - attack the person because they presented facts and you only presented myths.

You mean kinda like getting all butthurt and running to your friends to give likes and green checkmarks to artificial bolster your position?

 

[wuzak]

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.

The point of the other aircraft was that they all used, or proposed to use, the M4 cannon, like the P-39, but they were all bomber destroyers.

It was the USAAC's favourite air-to-air weapon for a while.

 

[SaparotRob]

You mean kinda like getting all butthurt and running to your friends to give likes and green checkmarks to artificial bolster your position?

He got the agreement from me because he's right.
FWIW. He gave me my only thumbs down. It was the topic we disagreed on and not personal.

 

[MIflyer]

The P-40 was not designed for low altitude work.

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.

By the way, the 37MM gun on the P-39 could NOT bust tanks. The muzzle velocity was too low. It waa designed for air-to-air combat.

Now, the A-36A was designed for ground attack and was powered by a V-1710 that gave its maximum speed at 5000 ft.

None of the model 81 aircraft in USAAC/F, RAF or French service carried bombs or drop tanks.

But according to Curtiss the Hawk 75 could.

 

[MiTasol]

Yes and the C model could carry a bomb on the centreline as well as shown in your post.

It could also be fitted with a centre line 52USG fuel tank as a customer option but the USAAC rejected that proposal. From the primary source identified below:-

This policy changed two days after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and the USAAF immediately started the process to have the 75 gallon drop tanks that Lockheed wanted to fit to the P-38 approved for manufacture and use. I have, at this time, found no start date for the P-40 drop tank process.

Note that it took until April 3, a total of 116 days, to get those tanks, that apparently had already been built in small quantities, to the stage where the USAAF was willing to place an order. Note also that the contractor was given a further 60 days to start deliveries of the mass production tanks.

In relation to the P-40 drop tanks the USAAF first initiated action to produce these tanks on 28 February 1942 and that the tank to be produced was the same part number 75-45-433 proposed for the P-36C and available as a customer option on export H-75 (P-36) aircraft.

The phrase initiating action to procure can be read several ways with the shortest time frame being that Curtiss or some other P-40 tank manufacturer had already completed their preproduction tasks such as the blueprints, the creation of all the tooling needed, creation of test assemblies, flight, vibration and drop testing of those prototype units, and had then made the necessary refinements as required. This would have been followed by an order which, like the Lockheed P-38 tanks, would have included a requirement to deliver the first examples within 60 days so we are looking at May 1st as the earliest realistic date these tanks could have entered service.

Additionally of course the aircraft had to be modified to carry the tanks. Given the modification documentation, and flight manual documentation, also had to be created, tested, and approved, PLUS the required components had to be purchased or manufactured, collated and delivered prior to the tanks actually being fitted shows that even a May 1 operational start date was optimistic.

Fortunately the RAF Kittyhawk aircraft carried drop tanks so the design and testing had already been completed for or on behalf of the RAF and low level production by Curtiss or a subcontractor existed Instantly scaling production would have been impossible without additional staff and tooling and those both take time to train and obtain.

 

[Shortround6]

I will note that the USAAC wanted only air cooled engines on attack planes starting with the A-12 which was a re-engined A-8 basically. The USAAC did not buy another liquid cooled attack plane until the A-36 and that was a funding trick to keep the P-51 Mustang production line open until more funding could be found for Pursuit aircraft. At the time the A-36 order was placed there was no money left in the budget for Pursuit Aircraft but they hadn't spent all the money in the "Attack" account.
Not actual "proof" but one more circumstance.

Another circumstance, not only did Curtiss put out some ads for Curtiss 75A as a fighter bomber as shown by MIflyer there is a 24 page brochure on the 75A here.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-36/Curtiss_Hawk_75-A_Detail_Specifications.pdf
See pages 16, 18, 20 & 21
It is undated but judging by the engines used it is probably from 1939. Both P&W and Wright were exporting higher powered engines in 1940.

Curtiss already had the bomb beams, racks and mounts designed up to 850lbs of bombs for the Hawk 75A/P-36 when they were ordering the P-40 (or in process of ordering it) and they never asked for modification or change in the contract to get a better plane for ground attack until well into 1941?
The P-40C got the ventral tank and was in production in March/April of 1941. Due to the internal self sealing tanks in the P-40C compared to the external sealed tanks of the P-40B fuel capacity was cut considerably and the under fuselage 52 gal tank pretty much restored the original range/endurance.

As noted by MiTasol there is a difference between testing something and listing it in manuals and providing spare drop tanks in quantity.

Another circumstance, The P-40 and P-39 were given engines with 8.77 supercharger gears. The engines in the YP-38 and XP-39 used 6.44 supercharger gears. This allowed for about an extra 100hp for take-off and at low altitude. The P-38 kept the 6.44 gears through the E model and then changed to 7.48 gears, the same gears that were used in the A-36 engines.
Allison engineers were not dumb, They gave the Army the best performing engine they had at the time at altitude. They had options available for more power at low altitudes (say 5000ft?), but less power at 14,000ft. The Army didn't want them.

There is some dispute about if the the XP-38 used B-1 or B-2 GE turbos. The YP-38s and through the Es they used B-2s. The XP-39 used a B-5 turbo (?) the P-38F & G used B-13 turbos. They were fooling around with the turbo controllers ( and 3rd supplier) with the Army acting as the coordinator. Turns out the early army designed controllers were crap (fundamentally flawed) and a new type of controller was needed.
The Army was well aware of the state of the turbo engines in 1938/39/40. and even into 1941-42.

The case is very strong that Allison was left behind by developments by Britain and Germany in 1940-42 that significantly improved their aircrafts performance at altitude.
It didn't help that that the US over-loaded the ever loving crap out of the P-40 and P-39 with the P-40E gaining 1145lbs of weight (clean with only 120 US gal of fuel) over the P-40 no letter and using pretty much the same engine (beefed up a little and a new reduction gear). P-40E carried 38% more guns and ammo than a Spit VC or Spit IX.

Without primary documentation for the ground attack or low altitude role I am not buying it.