Most Beautiful Aircraft (1 Viewer)

[AlloySkull]

Tweet? That's lovely isn't it? I find MiG-21s, Me-109Es, P-40s, and the later model F-86 Sabres attractive Sukhoi Su-27s and 47s are quite nice.

 

[Elvis]

I prefer the simple lines of a J-3 cub

Elvis

 

[Freebird]

Just a historical tidbit..



Grumman P-38? would that be the "Lightning Cat"


.

I think he means the Lockheed "Atalanta"!

 

[AVRoe]

The AVRO Vulcan, 2nd Vickers Varsity 3rd Tigermoth

 

[Crumpp]

http://www.popularaviation.com/PhotoGallery/3486.JPG

http://www.popularaviation.com/PhotoGallery/2897.JPG

http://www.popularaviation.com/PhotoGallery/2386.jpg

Only thing Missing:




All the best,

Crumpp

 

[comiso90]

I think he means the Lockheed "Atalanta"!

What does that have to do with Grumman?

 

[kool kitty89]

I like the P-40B/C and the XP-42 (close-cowled P-36 that strongly resembled the P-40B/C) as well but the later model P-40s (ie Warhawk, Kittyhawk) were a bit ugly imho. Though the P-40D and later models do have the intimidating ugly kind of beauty not unlike the Bf-109 (particularly with a shark-mouth), albeit somewhat less than the 109's looks.

Below is the XP-42 from Image:XP-42.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and 3-views comparing the P-40 models from plan 3-vues

 

[Elvis]

It's my understanding that the P-40 is actually derrived from the P-36. The main difference being the radial powerplant of the P-36 was replaced by the V-12 of the P-40.
Apparently the streamling afforded by the slimmer engine gave enough increase in performance that the Army accepted it.


Elvis

 

[kool kitty89]

I knew that. In fact the P-40C and earlier models had virtually the same airframe as the P-36, excepth the engine section, while the P-40D and later models had a redesigned nose and fusalage and a stronger, wing-only armament. The XP-42 was an attemt to use close sowling to achive the same streamling with a radial engine as the P-40 had with the V-1710. Though this largely failed as performance lagged behind that of the uprated Allison powered P-40s had higher performance and the XP-42's engine had constant cooling problems (due to lack of a cooling fan).

Though I'm not sure what you mean by: "Apparently the streamling afforded by the slimmer engine gave enough increase in performance that the Army accepted it."

The USAAC had accepted P-36's for service, though they were obsolete by 1940 they still served at Pearl Harbour (at least the few that managed to get in the air) along with P-40B's. The P-40 was basically a quick-fix, or intrim measure since the P-39 and especially the P-38 were not ready for service in 1941, so the P-40 was chosen despite its lowere performance since it could be produced immediately. (sort of like the Hurricane in England was)

 

[Elvis]

Kool Kitty,

Sorry, my mistake.
It was my understanding that the P-36 was never accepted for service.
I stand corrected!


Elvis

 

[kool kitty89]

The USAAC originally chose the marginally higher performance P-35 over the P-36 (even though the P-36 was much cheaper and somewhat more reliable), but as the P-35s were coming out very slowly the AAC decided to order P-36s as a backup plan, though by this time the P-36 had been improoved and was outperforming the P-35 aniway. (~322 mph in the 36A while the P-35 never made 300) The P-36 was present in much larger numbers than the P-35 and was found to be much more servicable as a combat aircraft. The P-36C even had a decent early war armament with 2 .30 cal guns in each wing in addition to standard AAC armament of one .50 cal one .30 cal in the nose. (more powerful armaments like those of the P-40B/C as well as the 8 .30 cals like the spitfire/hurricane were tested but by this time the P-40 was already in production and almost entering service) Though it was still quite outdated by the Pearl Harbor. But it was definantly better than the alternative (P-35) and could have prooved a decent defensive force along with the P-40Bs at pearl Harbour if more planes had been able to get off the ground (only 4/39 P-36's did, scoring two kills: the first USAAC kills of the war)...

 

[Elvis]

kool kitty,

Thanks for the additional information.

Maybe I've watched "Tora, Tora, Tora" too many times, but its been my understanding for years now, that only two P-40's got off the ground during the attack on Pearl.
I've never heard about P-36's or any other aircraft in the sky to defend the Harbour on that day.

Was there only 4 P-36's in the sky, or were they accompanied by other allied planes?
Is the P-40 stat a myth?



Elvis

 

[Elvis]

...btw, here's a bit I gleaned off the Aviation History website...

"The P-40 was initially designed around the Allison V-1710 liquid-cooled inline engine which offered better streamlining, more power per unit of frontal area, and better specific fuel consumption than did air-cooled radials of comparable power. Unfortunately, the rated altitude of the Allison engine was only some 12,000 feet, rendering combat above 15,000 feet a completely impracticable proposition. The P-40's ancestry dated back as far as 1924; the famed Curtiss Hawk fighters being in the forefront of all US warplanes. But its development was hindered from the start. The overall limitations of its design were such that the addition of multi-speed superchargers was considered inadvisable in view of the pending production of superior fighter designs. The achievements of the P-40 were therefore all the more creditable.
The prototype XP-40, the Curtiss Hawk Model 81, owed its origin to the earlier Model 75 of 1935 vintage. With the standardization of the Allison V-1710 , the P-36 design was reworked to incorporate this engine, becoming the XP-37 which was equipped with a General Electric turbo-supercharger, and featured numerous other modifications, including a rearward positioned cockpit. Thirteen YP-37s were built for service evaluation; but, with increasingly ominous signs of an approaching war, development of this fighter was abandoned in favor of a less complex and more direct conversion of the P-36 for the Allison engine, the XP-40. This was, in fact, the tenth production P-36A with an integrally-supercharged 1,160 hp Allison V-1710-19 (C13) engine, and first flew with its new power plant in the autumn of 1938. Successful in a US Army Pursuit Contest staged at Wright Field, in May 1939 it was awarded what was at that time the largest-ever production order for a US fighter, totaling nearly thirteen million dollars.
The P-40 was a relatively clean design, and was unusual for its time in having a fully retractable tail wheel. One hundred and ninety-seven P-40s were built in 1939-40 for the USAAF, and many more were sold abroad to Britain and France. In the RAF, which service purchased 140 outright, it was known as the Tomahawk Mk. I, IA, and IB, and carried two .303 in. Browning machine-guns in place of the 0.30in.-calibre guns fitted in USAAF machines. It retained the standard synchronized armament of two 0.5 in.-calibre machine-guns in the top nose decking."


Interesting airplane with an interesting history.




Elvis

 

[kool kitty89]

Yep, but getting back to the topic at hand; I still think the early model P-40s (A, B, Tomahawk) were much better looking than the later model P-40s (D, E, Kittyhawk, warhawk, etc.). Though as I said earlier the later P-40's did have an ugly-menacing look somewhat akin to the Bf-109.

And, iirc, there were around 90 P-40's at pearl along with the P-36's as well as some ~20 P-26's. I beleive ~9-14 P-40's managed to take off, some of which (like George Welch) didn't have flight clearance, but when you're airfield's beeing gunned down what are you gonna do?

I try to find some actual figures though.

 

[Elvis]

I still think the early model P-40s (A, B, Tomahawk) were much better looking than the later model P-40s (D, E, Kittyhawk, warhawk, etc.). Though as I said earlier the later P-40's did have an ugly-menacing look somewhat akin to the Bf-109.

Hmmm, I never noticed much of a difference between the different versions of the P-40.
Think you could post a couple of examples of what you're getting at?

I beleive ~9-14 P-40's managed to take off, some of which...didn't have flight clearance, but when you're airfield's beeing gunned down what are you gonna do?

LOL! Yeah, I think you're on to something there!



Elvis

 

[kool kitty89]

Is's sad though since Welch was not awarded for his efforts in a P-40B (he shot down more than any pilot at Pearl, 4 kills ans 1-2 probables iirc and all this with a plane loaded only with .30 cal ammo since their little airstrip lacked .50 cal) He truely did some amazing things. First person to fly through the sound barrier (and live through it/maintain control; and actually twice before Yeager in the X-1, the 2nd time less than 1 hour before Yeager!), he racked up a high number of kills before being overcome by malaria, had he continued to fight it's conceivable that he'd have ranked along with aces like Richard Bong. See: The Amazing George Welch: Part One

But the main reason the US got mauled at Pearl Harbour is that we ignored the warnings. We were not well prepared for an attack and to top that the moblization of defences was slow as it was assumed to be a drill and this was supposed to be a day off (more or less). And even on top of this the US ignored radar warnings as the British technology was not well accepted and it was assumed to be mistaken. If only HALF of the air defences had managed to take action it would have been much worse for the Japanese. We had ~100 P-40s, ~40 P-36s, 20+ P-26s, a carrier of F2As (~20 iirc) and probably some F3Fs. Though the F3Fs and P-26s wouldn't be that useful they would have been better than nothing and the F2As would have been the best aganst the japanese fighters. Even with only 1/2 mobilizes that's over 90 fighters, that's a stark comparison to the <20 that managed to fly.
Even if they were only F2A-1s the Buffalos would still have had the strongest armament (3 .50s + 1 .30 cal) decent speed (271mph @ SL, 311mph max) and a 3000+ ft/s initial climb rate and handeling aproaching that of the Zero (handeling was excelent into high speeds too). If they were F2A-2s the climb dropped to the still impressive ~2500 ft/min and agility was a little less but the increased top speed (344 mph), armour, electronics, gunsight (ring bead replaced with teliscopic sight) and 4 .50 cal BMG armament made for an excelent early war fighter, especially in the pacific. (both the F2A-1 and -2s had been delivered prior to the attack so either could have been present, though I think they were F2A-1s) Wat's more is that the F2As wing guns were on a separate trigger/toggle from the cowlguns, allowing the pilot more options in combat and possible longer firing time. (as 2 .50s were often sufficient to down many Japanese fighters and the cowlguns, though slowere due to prop sync, didn't have the limits of distance syncronized wingguns so they could hit accurately at longer range) Of course, all 4 could be fire simultaneously too. Unfortunately the performance advantages were ruined in the F2A-3 and Buffalo Mk-1 which were not well rounded in any respect and those models gave the poor little fighter its bad name.

But I digress...

I already presented sketches for comparison on the previous page, but here they are again, and I'll add the P-36 for comparison:

 

[Elvis]

Its my understanding that there were no carriers present at Pearl.
The entire fleet was out to sea at that time, so there shouldn't have been any F2A's present that day (as you mentioned, they were stationed on the carriers).
You also forgot to mention that there were a flight of B-17's scheduled to come in.
In the movie, which depicted the most widely accepted version of why what the radar picked up was not reported with any urgency, this was already known to one of the operators, so it was ignored.
Plus, their only way of communicating with HQ was to scribble the message on a piece of paper, drive into town and hand deliver it.
This seems to support your comments on the mentality of the American Military, as it pertains to the importance of Radar as a defensive tool.

Of course, you also have to remember that the Military wasn't quite the "crack" outfit its considered today.
LOTS of "de-militarizing" happened between the wars.
I once heard a figure that sometime around the later 1920's or early 1930's, all of the personnel for all of the services, only came to 100,000 people.
That ain't much.
Thus, the military wasn't as "drilled" back then.
About 20 years ago, I lived with a girl I dated and her neighbor was a very nice old gent who spent his afternoons in the garage building dollhouses and wooden cutouts of famous cartoon characters, which he gave away to the local charities, or any little kid who happened along.
He was retired Army. Turned out to be some kind of "wig" (as Dad used to call them) and served from about 1938 'til sometime during the Vietnam conflict.
I remember his story's of going out on tests for what was then called "Puff the Magic Dragon" (we know it today as a 7.62 mini-gun).
Anyway, he mentioned to me once that when he joined up, being in the Military wasn't quite as "prestigeous" as it is these days.
It was litterally considered "just another job". Guy could've been an insurance salesman and it wouldn't be considered much different (not that there's anything wrong with selling insurance).
It was also in a certain state of dissarray. Training wasn't as well thought out. Field manuvers happened, just "whenever".
The mentality was still that The Great War was to be the last major conflict, so why gear up?
Who'd a thunk Hitler felt any remorse against the Poles?

It is sad to think that had we been even a little better prepared, we could've put up a much better defense.

...but I guess those are the lessons of history and that's a good example of why they should always be heeded.

Thanks for posting the pics of the airplanes.
I'm sorry, but I still don't see a big difference between the "B" and "E" models of the P-40.
The oil cooler cowling of the "E" looks bigger and a little more integrated and the "B" has that small intake on top of the nacele, but otherwise I just don't see a difference.
Maybe I have to see some actual pictures.
I'll have to do some research on the net and see what I see.

...btw, did I ever tell you I have a piece of video about a P-40 that was dug up in Canada and sent to Australia to be rebuilt?
Great little piece of documentary footage.
The plane's owner was Cole Palen (sp?).
Check it out if you ever get the chance.

...in the meantime, here's a little something I found on U-Boob...


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Z8rEOMlT_Q

...and...


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NcbF9ysddN4

...and...


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KLuPfuk5wk


Enjoy!



Elvis

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Why coundn't there have been F2A's? They might have been on shore for repairs.

Dont take me wrong I am not saying there were. All I am saying is that just because they were based on carriers does not mean there could not have been any at Pearl for various reasons.

 

[kool kitty89]

Ok well for some reason I'd thought there was one carrier docked in harbor. It was probably good that all cariers were away though, since they were then spared and the a/c carrier was the decisive force in the pacific. I assumed the F2As had been on a carrier, but they were probably doing training/defense duties if they were on land. (and probably the F2A-1s which had already been replaced by F2A2s and F4F3s were just entering carrier service, at that time too)

This is what gave me that impression: " F2A Buffalos were in service at Pearl Harbor, in the Philippines, and Wake Island and Midway" from Naval Air 1942

see also: Brewster F2A Buffalo

and I forgot to mention the P-35s stationed at pearl which claim 3 kills and 1 down at pearl.

Also the F2A-3s were at least as good overall if the load was low (1/2 fuel load with no drop tanks still gave over 600 mi, and with the drop tanks it still had the ability to drop and fight on a patrol) so stay below 6000 lbs and you're good. from Brewster F2A-3 : " The increased fuel capacity dramatically increased the range -- the additional 80 gallons of fuel gave the F2A-3 a maximum range of 1680 miles. Five and six-hour patrols became routine. However, the increased weight of the F2A-3 with no corresponding increase in engine power imposed a severe performance penalty. Maximum speed decreased to 321 mph, and the rate of climb fell below 3000 feet per minute. Many pilots actually preferred the F2A-3 to the F4F Wildcat, but one experienced Buffalo pilot said that he would have never have taken an overweight F2A-3 into combat." so they were good as long as they were not overweight, even then they were still probably better than the Buffalo Mk-1 at the same fuel load. (and had added armor and improved systems compared to the F2A-2)

But the F2A really needed a more powerful engine, like the uprated 1300-1400 hp R-1820. Then again the P-36 might have been up to P-40 standards with a 1400 hp R-2000 engine... (a P-42 with R-2000 would have probably been on par with even later P-40s if they'd solved the cooling issues with a cooling fan, I think the R-2000 also incorporated a 2-stage or 2-speed supercharger so better altitude performance too) I know some R-1820's models had 2-speed superchargers.

 

[Elvis]

My comments on the F2A's presence at Pearl was in response to Kool Kitty's comments about carrier's being present there and nothing more.
Seems they were present after all, thanks to further research by Kool Kitty.
Great articles on the Buff's, btw. Thanks for the links.
It was always said that pilots who tested both the F2A and F4F's always preferred the handling of the F2A.
I think it gets a worse rap than it truely deserved, despite what happened at Midway (and notice how different the outcome was in Finland!).
As for the F2A-3 comments, a more powerful engine fitted to a slightly larger prop (or maybe just more blades) would've probably made a great difference in the handling of the airplane.
I'm thinking the Wright R-1820-56, that was fitted to the FM-1 varient of the F4F would've been a fine candidate.
In the FM-1, it's performance was "okey-dokey", but in the lighter Buff, who knows.
I also suspect that extra 10" of length ahead of the wings was part of the "-3's" problem's as well.
Would it have been so difficult to adjust the wing's placement on the fuselage to account for the added length?
...of course, did it really need that extra 80 gallons of fuel to begin with?
Maybe the "-3" should've just been the "-2" with self sealing tanks and the more powerful engine, and forget about the extra fuel or the increase in armour plating (didn't it have some to begin with?).



Elvis