Colin1
Senior Master Sergeant
Agreed on all but one point
with the P-51 not around to hog resources and Lockheed looking to keep pace with the latest Axis developments, who knows, the P-38K might have had her day.
Mustang Mk I/P-51/P-51A (Allison engined) vs. P-40
- Thread starter gjs238
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
with the P-51 not around to hog resources and Lockheed looking to keep pace with the latest Axis developments, who knows, the P-38K might have had her day.
MikeGazdik
Senior Airman
Very, very good point!
billswagger
Airman 1st Class
- 256
- Mar 12, 2009
i gather that the P-60 was over shadowed by the performance of the P-51, and if the Mustang was never built then the P-60 may have received more attention. The long range P-40 is also pure hypothetical, but it would probably end up resembling a P-40Q in some ways and fitted with wing tanks. Its actually hard to conceive with out thinking it would eventually turn out like a mustang.
What's sort of been over looked thus far is how the planes actually compared from a tactical, practical and combat perspective.
I seem to remember reading something about the actual time to altitude, something like 10,000ft, from engine start up that put the P-51 towards the back of the pack. Part of the advantages of the P-40 in an actual combat zone may have been its ability to get up and go with out a lengthy take off procedure. Why the P-51 took so long to get up in the air I'm not sure.
Any thoughts on that?
Bill
drgondog
Major
Depended on the engines
The basic engine for the P-51 and P-51A and Mk I was the 1710-39 with a blower gear ratio of 8.8:1
The A-36 got the P-38 V-1710-87 w/o the turbo or the high altitude pressurized ignition system - but had a 7.48:1 Blower ratio and was a better low altitude engine (also better than P-40).. this engine developed +200hp at Military power more than the -81 below but had a lower critical altitude than the -81.
The Mk II got the V-1710-81 with a 9.6:1 and developed better power above 8,000 feet - This one had a climb to 20K at 6.9 minutes at 8630 pounds - almost 200 more than the P-40F.
The Soviets received 4 ex-RAF Mustang I's; including 3 which used at the front for evaluation by 5th Guards Fighter Regiment in fall of 1942. They didn't like the plane and recieved no more.
An interesting P-51A and P-40 comparison is combat results in Burma in1943, per "Air War over Burma" which were surprisingly unfavorable for the P-51. In the course of that year P-40's achieved a kill ratio of 21:7 v IJA Type 1 (Oscar) units in Burma, mainly in interceptions of escorted bombers, also some hunting of Type 1's which were in turn hunting transports flying 'Over the Hump' to China. P-51A's and P-38's, mainly on escort missions over Rangoon scored 6 known kills against a mix of Type 1, Type 2 (Tojo) and Type 2 two-seat (Nick) units; losses aren't recorded for a few of those Japanese units but the USAAF fighters only even claimed a handful more victories than 6, v loss of 8 P-51A's and 2 P-38's. It wasn't directly comparable operations to the P-40's and isn't a very big sample, though it was against very similar opposition including some of the same Japanese fighter units the P-40's faced. It doesn't seem to indicate any significant advantage though of the P-51A over the P-40 v that type of opponent, at least.
Joe
Last edited:
Hello Tomo
the main complains by Soviets were lack of horizontal and vertical manoeuvrability, even if dive characters were good, and lack of acceleration. They saw that the power loading was too high. But plane was easy to fly.
IIRC Japanese thought at first that P-51A was only a new version of P-40, nothing spectacular.
Juha
the main complains by Soviets were lack of horizontal and vertical manoeuvrability, even if dive characters were good, and lack of acceleration. They saw that the power loading was too high. But plane was easy to fly.
IIRC Japanese thought at first that P-51A was only a new version of P-40, nothing spectacular.
Juha
billswagger
Airman 1st Class
- 256
- Mar 12, 2009
So you think the model with out all the high altitude fittings was quicker to get into the air?
BTW, i've seen no direct comparison as far as time to altitude concerning the P-40 and P-51. And to clarify, I mean from engine start up, not from take off. These sort of differences can really make a difference in a combat zone.
Glider
Captain
They would have bilt more P47, after all the P47 was a considerable improvement on the P40 so why not.
Shortround6
Major General
It doesn't make much difference unless you are trying to set up an air defense system with a limited warning system and few, if any standing patrols.
It makes no difference to offensive operations, fighter sweeps or bomber escort missions.
It varies with climate conditions. England vs North Africa or South Pacific vs Aleutian Islands.
If quick response was really needed planes were either started and left idling for periods of time or started, warmed up and then shut down periodically.
I know this is an old thread but it came up on my feed so thought I should mention it here -
Many people have said, and some even said during the war, that the Allison engined Mustang was a much better plane than any P-40. It was certainly faster, climbed better, and had better range. However there is one issue with that.
P-40 had a much better combat record than the Allison Engined P-51. P-51A and A-36 were getting slaughtered by Ki 43s in China and Burma. Didn't do very well in Italy either except as bombers, and in fact the A-36 squadrons in Italy were drawn down due to high casualties and replaced with ... P-40s.
There was only one Allison Engined Mustang Ace, an American flying A-36s in Italy. By comparison there were 18 USAAF P-40 Aces in the Med, 45 in the CBI, 40 in the Pacific, and 46 RAF / Commonwealth P-40 Aces including at least 8 double and 4 x4 Aces (all of those numbers only counting confirmed victories while flying P-40s). Not sure how many in Russia but it was a lot, probably more than Commonwealth. There were 4 x4 P-40 Aces Russia and 12 double aces.
This is not just a matter of there being many more P-40 squadrons - if you look at it on a per-sortie basis, the P-40s come out way ahead. Nor the nature of the missions, the majority of P-40 sorties were fighter-bomber missions too. In fact quite often specifically dive-bombing.
Apparently one of the issues with the early P-51s was that the ailerons weren't designed right and they fixed this in the P-51B
S
Many people have said, and some even said during the war, that the Allison engined Mustang was a much better plane than any P-40. It was certainly faster, climbed better, and had better range. However there is one issue with that.
P-40 had a much better combat record than the Allison Engined P-51. P-51A and A-36 were getting slaughtered by Ki 43s in China and Burma. Didn't do very well in Italy either except as bombers, and in fact the A-36 squadrons in Italy were drawn down due to high casualties and replaced with ... P-40s.
There was only one Allison Engined Mustang Ace, an American flying A-36s in Italy. By comparison there were 18 USAAF P-40 Aces in the Med, 45 in the CBI, 40 in the Pacific, and 46 RAF / Commonwealth P-40 Aces including at least 8 double and 4 x4 Aces (all of those numbers only counting confirmed victories while flying P-40s). Not sure how many in Russia but it was a lot, probably more than Commonwealth. There were 4 x4 P-40 Aces Russia and 12 double aces.
This is not just a matter of there being many more P-40 squadrons - if you look at it on a per-sortie basis, the P-40s come out way ahead. Nor the nature of the missions, the majority of P-40 sorties were fighter-bomber missions too. In fact quite often specifically dive-bombing.
Apparently one of the issues with the early P-51s was that the ailerons weren't designed right and they fixed this in the P-51B
S
