Never saw one before today. Interesting History.

[Robert Porter]

Anyone care to guess what this is? It threw me. Not what you may first think it is.

 

[fubar57]

That'll be your P-40Q....bwahahahaha.....hahaha

 

[Robert Porter]

Indeed! Quick work! My first thought was a P-51 prototype of some kind.

 

[fubar57]

It was the best looking of the breed, IMHO

 

[Robert Porter]

It does have nice lines. No kit for it I imagine, it would have to be a scratch build.

 

[fubar57]

If you want to model in 1/72 there are 2 though I don't know the availability of them. Planet Models and AMC make them and the later seems to be a lot of work...AMC 1/72 Curtiss XP-40Q-2 Warhawk, by Peter Burstow

 

[Wurger]

The model of the kite of the 1/48 scale is offered by the Planet Models. It is a resin kit.

Some of the review...

XP-40Q Final Version Review by Steven Eisenman (Planet Models 1/48)

 

[Wayne Little]

Not a bad looker...

 

[Robert Porter]

Think I will see if I can acquire the Resin kit, but it will be a stash queen for quite awhile as I am not yet ready to attempt an entire resin kit! But thanks for the heads up from everyone about the kits, she is a clean looking aircraft! Remarkable to me how much like a hybrid graft between a P-51 and P-40 she appears to be.

 

[Old Wizard]

 

[Gnomey]

Nice shot!

 

[pbehn]

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, after years of pushing the P40 its makers had to admit the P51 was better and make a P40 that looked like a P51.

 

[Sir Percy Ware-Armitage]

Great picture! Thanks for sharing.

 

[newst]

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, after years of pushing the P40 its makers had to admit the P51 was better and make a P40 that looked like a P51.

Looked like a P-51 and used a laminar flow wing like a P-51.

 

[pbehn]

Looked like a P-51 and used a laminar flow wing like a P-51.

But I suspect the resemblance is just at first glance. Those pods for the landing gear dont look very "laminar flow" and I doubt that the chin radiator had close to zero cooling drag.

 

[Elvis]

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, after years of pushing the P40 its makers had to admit the P51 was better and make a P40 that looked like a P51.

More like Curtiss having so much blind faith in that design, but realizing it could still be improved on.
A little whittling here and there, an engine upgrade (...I think...) and what they ended up with was like a P-51.
...not to take anything away from the rest of the P-40 line, but yeah, that "Q" version had to be a cold slap in the face for them.


Elvis

 

[pbehn]

More like Curtiss having so much blind faith in that design, but realizing it could still be improved on.
A little whittling here and there, an engine upgrade (...I think...) and what they ended up with was a P-51.
...not to take anything away from the rest of the P-40 line, but yeah, that "Q" version had to be a cold slap in the face for them.

I disagree, it merely looks like a P51. The P40 series were great aircraft but were of their time, a pre war design. You can only tweak a design so far and in my opinion the P40Q was just a tweak too far, it was never put into production because it simply wasnt as good as the P51 D/H. The P51 (or Mustang) was specifically designed and ordered to be better than the P40. This new design was from the ground up using technology and ideas not available to the original design of the P40. Hawkers could have tried making a Hurricane look more like a Spitfire but it wouldnt be a Spitfire because underneath the base design (and philosophy) was different. They had to make the Typhoon and then the Tempest to produce a better design, and even then that is arguable. 1944/45 saw the peak of piston engined warplanes, a few designs continued due to the difficulty of getting jets to take off and land from carriers.

The cut down rear fuselage, bubble canopy, clean lines and laminar flow wings were common in late war designs. However the P40Q wasnt cleaner than a P51, its cooling system and its landing gear pods were "draggy", it therefore was not as good as planes in production so why order it?

 

[Elvis]

pbehn,

Thank you for putting that in my face.
It should've read "...and what they ended up with was like a P-51.".
Apologies for the typo. I've corrected the post.


Elvis

 

[parsifal]

what was the engine driving this beast?

 

[Elvis]

Same Alison that powered the rest of them, but a different version that was never used on prior variations.

The XP-40Q-1 was the first aircraft, and it was built in 1943 from a P-40K-10 (serial 42-9987) that had been damaged in a landing accident on 27 January 1943. The Q-1 was painted olive drab and had the standard P-40 wing and canopy. The nose of the aircraft was lengthened to accommodate the V-1710-101 (F27R) engine. At 3,200 rpm, the -101 engine produced 1,500 hp (1,119 kW) at 6,000 ft (1,829 m) and 1,325 hp (988 kW) for takeoff. The Q-1's engine air intake was positioned above the cowling. The radiator and oil cooler were moved from the P-40's iconic chin location to the wing center section, just below the fuselage (similar to the XP-40K). The XP-40Q-1 had a 37 ft 4 in (11.4 m) wingspan and was 35 ft 4 in long (10.8 m)—about 2 ft (.6 m) longer than a standard P-40.
The Q-1's first flight reportedly occurred on 13 June 1943 from the Curtiss plant in Buffalo, New York. It is not clear if the aircraft suffered another accident, or if Curtiss was unhappy with its configuration and decided to modify it further. Regardless, by November 1943, the Q-1 had been modified and redesignated XP-40Q-2. The aircraft's rear fuselage was cut down and a bubble canopy installed. Engine coolant radiators were positioned in the wings just outboard of the main gear. The oil cooler and engine air intake were relocated to the classic P-40 chin position, but the scoop was shallower and more elegant. The Q-2 retained the olive drab paint.
Still utilizing the -101 engine, the Q-2 was noted for having excellent visibility and handling.

Here's a linky to the full article - Curtiss XP-40Q Fighter



Elvis