Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
You might be quite surprised at a number of aircraft if you fly them slow enough or at the right speed and Altitude.
Which is a rather unfair way to compare them.
Your definition and mine might be rather close. The early P-40s had rather good aerodynamics. Just compare speed to installed horsepower for the P-40, Bf 109, Hurricane and Spitfire.Perhaps it's a matter of how one defines "aerodynamics of a brick".
I'm not claiming the P-40 was the superior aircraft.
I posted the figures in response to GrauGeist's comment that the P-40 "had the aerodynamics of a brick when compared to later aircraft designs of the war." It seems the aerodynamics of the P-40 are perhaps a little better than that. This would seem to be borne out also by the drag comparison tables appearing on pages 113 and 592 of Dean's America's Hundred Thousand, which showed the P-40 having a better drag coefficient than the F4U-1D, P-38J, and F6F-3. (Of course, the P-40 lacked in performance in ways others that impacted on its ability as a fighter.)
Perhaps it's a matter of how one defines "aerodynamics of a brick".
And spent most of it's life overloaded for the engine it did have.The main failing of P-40 was that it never received engine upgrade
...
P-40 (and P-39) had been relegated to export and training by 1943 and the AAF certainly didn't want to gift the Russians with a high altitude plane at that stage of the war.
Maybe not, but if they did want them (who wouldn't) they would be demanding them, like P-39s and P-63s. Just more friction between our allies. Just another reason not to build them.Russians will not get the 1st pick on P-40s powered by 2-stage V-1710s.
Maybe not, but if they did want them (who wouldn't) they would be demanding them, like P-39s and P-63s. Just more friction between our allies. Just another reason not to build them.
I don't understand you last sentence? Russians are going to turn down lend lease supplies?
The mechanical two stage Allison -93 was in production by April 1943, about the same time that the first two stage Merlin started production at Packard for the P-51. P-40 (and P-39) would have greatly benefitted from this engine with critical altitude of 21000'. Move the carb from the second stage up to the normal position on the first stage and critical altitude goes up to about 25000'. Makes the P-40 a very competitive plane but the P-51 carried a lot more internal fuel and range was all important at this stage of the war. P-40 (and P-39) had been relegated to export and training by 1943 and the AAF certainly didn't want to gift the Russians with a high altitude plane at that stage of the war.
Regarding the poll my first choice for overrated aircraft is the Spitfire. My second choice would have been the Il-2.
The Spitfire was limited in use in the first part of the was due to small internal fuel. As a point defense fighter it seemed to be excellent. Later in the war, when closer airfields were available, limited range was less important.
The Spitfire was limited in use in the first part of the was due to small internal fuel. As a point defense fighter it seemed to be excellent.
IE, a point defense fighter. (And with the help of an extensive radar and GCI network.) Later, in Australia, without those tools to aid it, it didn't fare so well.The Spitfire didnt have small internal fuel, it had exactly the amount of fuel required for its job of defending Britain's airspace.
Aerodynamics has many facets, one of which is speed. Weight does have an effect on speed but not a huge effect. The Spitfire had to intercept at all altitudes. It may have been almost tied with the Spitfire at most altitudes but not at the highest, with the same engine. There would be little point in stripping the guns and radios out of Spitfires to get up to 40+ thousand feet if it weighed half a ton more to start with. The spitfires small frame and lightweight construction are often criticised but that was part and parcel of what it was and what it was designed to do, which others weren't.Your definition and mine might be rather close. The early P-40s had rather good aerodynamics. Just compare speed to installed horsepower for the P-40, Bf 109, Hurricane and Spitfire.
The P-40 was the heaviest by far and yet it was almost tied with the Spit MK I for first place in speed. What they did with the weight is subject to question but the plane was aerodynamic.
as for comparing to late war aircraft, one would hope that they learned something in 5 years, P-40 aerodynamics started in 1935 and finished in 1940. P-51 was designed in 1940 and perhaps improved in 1942 with the Merlin (referring to the radiator installation).