Never saw one before today. Interesting History.

[Graeme]

Another shot of NX300B...

 

[Wurger]

 

[Old Wizard]

 

[GregP]

Definitely the best of the breed, and COULD have been in service MUCH sooner than they built it.

There are a lot of nay-sayers in here about it, but wherever the P-40 was used, this would have been a huge step forward, had they "upgraded" to it. Since it had about the same range as a standard P-40, it could have been used in those places EASILY. Another benefit is that they would not have had to do much retraining of pilots or mechanics and the supply chain was exactly the same.

They SHOULD have built it, but history has also spoken and they didn't.

 

[parsifal]

Whether to place the type in production or not isn't just about the increases in performance. One thing that WWII showed in spades was that performance was always trumped by numbers. Provided your inventory remained relatively competitive it mattered not if you were flying or driving the biggest and meanest piece of kit, if, in achieving that qualitative advantage, you have had to sacrifice numbers. The Germans found this out to their cost with programs like the Panther tank, or the jet programs. They had the best tanks around , but this advantage came at a heavy cost that finished up costing more that it was worth.


The P-40 was a great aircraft, but fighter it was not. It was a fighter bomber by the time this variant came around, a workhorse, not particularly glamorous, not outstanding in performance but able to complete the functions assigned to it (fighter bomber mostly) with great effect. What it lacked in finesse it made up for in numbers and sheer ruggedness.


You have to ask yourself if this new type would be worth the dislocation its introduction would have caused to P-40 production. Obviously the powers that be saw its improvements as being not needed.

 

[pbehn]

Definitely the best of the breed, and COULD have been in service MUCH sooner than they built it.

There are a lot of nay-sayers in here about it, but wherever the P-40 was used, this would have been a huge step forward, had they "upgraded" to it. Since it had about the same range as a standard P-40, it could have been used in those places EASILY. Another benefit is that they would not have had to do much retraining of pilots or mechanics and the supply chain was exactly the same.

They SHOULD have built it, but history has also spoken and they didn't.

Maybe if the pictures of the P40Q were taken in 1940/41 things would have been different.

 

[michaelmaltby]

.... Curtis, the home stable, was not terribly focused .... they made a lot planes and a variety of planes but they weren't a standout organization like Douglas, Boeing or North American ... and they lost their chief designer, Don Berlin, to Fisher/GM early on.

 

[Elvis]

The P-40 was a great aircraft, but fighter it was not.

I'll agree with everything else you wrote in that post, but I have to take exception to that line, at least to some degree.
Sure, the P-40 was a 1930's design and by mid-war most of those were considered obsolete, regardless of who designed/built them, but the P-40 in particular was always considered to have an excellent roll rate and the faster you can bank that plane, the quicker you can take that turn and get on your opponents 6.
Sure the climb rate wasn't spectacular and (eventually) it lacked the density of firepower that later designs enjoyed, but it was still a viable design that could help hold back the line until more advanced designs could make an appearance and turn the tide.
It's like the Aussies used to say about it, "Dam'd by words, but flown to glory".
It was a good fighter. Not spectacular, but one of the best things we had when we entered the war.
Eventually, advanced designs passed it, but that happens with anything.
So to state outright, ",,,but fighter it was not", is bit too much of a generalization in my mind.



Elvis

 

[Elvis]

Maybe if the pictures of the P40Q were taken in 1940/41 things would have been different.

Anyone here have production cost numbers for the P-51 and the P-40? (maybe a P-51D compared to a P-40N?)
I feel you are correct, to a point, pbehn.
However, if I'm not mistaken, I believe the P-51 was also a simpler design and one that may have been less expensive to build.
If so, it may have been that both planes would have existed during the war, although reality says that the Q2 variant strongly suggests it was based on data pioneered by the P-51.
IOW, if it look like a duck and quacks like a duck, well then by God we should build one too!


Elvis

 

[pbehn]

If so, it may have been that both planes would have existed during the war, although reality says that the Q2 variant strongly suggests it was based on data pioneered by the P-51.
IOW, if it look like a duck and quacks like a duck, well then by God we should build one too!

My point was that a plane similar to the P40Q could have been shown to the British purchasing commission that ordered the Mustang/P51. Laminar flow wings and the Meredith effect were not secrets known only to N.A. Curtiss could have produced a much superior design in 1940 but didnt. If they had perhaps the P51 would never have been ordered and then history would have run a different course. I doubt whether it was any where near as aerodynamically slippery or whether the undercarriage could withstand the massive overloading that the P51 had with internal and external fuel tankage.

 

[Elvis]

Remember, the British wanted The P-40 .
N.A. basically made a bet that they could design and build a "better" plane in the allotted time for field tests...and that's just what they did.
In the end, the British accepted the P-51, but they ordered the P-40.


Elvis

 

[parsifal]

I'll agree with everything else you wrote in that post, but I have to take exception to that line, at least to some degree.
Sure, the P-40 was a 1930's design and by mid-war most of those were considered obsolete, regardless of who designed/built them, but the P-40 in particular was always considered to have an excellent roll rate and the faster you can bank that plane, the quicker you can take that turn and get on your opponents 6.
Sure the climb rate wasn't spectacular and (eventually) it lacked the density of firepower that later designs enjoyed, but it was still a viable design that could help hold back the line until more advanced designs could make an appearance and turn the tide.
It's like the Aussies used to say about it, "Dam'd by words, but flown to glory".
It was a good fighter. Not spectacular, but one of the best things we had when we entered the war.
Eventually, advanced designs passed it, but that happens with anything.
So to state outright, ",,,but fighter it was not", is bit too much of a generalization in my mind.



Elvis

I was thinking of the RAAF experience with the type when I wrote that . In North Africa, when No3 and one other squadron operated the P-40B in the fighter role, they did reasonably well, though the weak armament and poor climb rate limited its success in that role.

In the PTO success as a pure fighter was more elusive. Despite at least 850 being supplied to the RAAF after the entry of Japan, the type managed to account for something less than 100 enemy a/c in air combat (roughly speaking).

P-40s in RAAF service did some great work otherwise, but they were not super successful in the fighter role. IMO the RAAF copies were as busy as any others in the fighter role, and there is no reason to suggest they were any more, or any less successful in the than other nations.

 

[pbehn]

Remember, the British wanted The P-40 .
N.A. basically made a bet that they could design and build a "better" plane in the allotted time for field tests...and that's just what they did.
In the end, the British accepted the P-51, but they ordered the P-40.

I was merely speculating that if Curtiss had already built a better plane and had it flying then the British may have ordered it instead of taking a risk on the P51. It is worth quite a lot to a military organization to have fewer suppliers and supply routes.

 

[Elvis]

Ok, so you're saying, as if what really happened had been flipped around.
The Bitish ordered the P-51, but accepted the P-40Q2.
Gotcha.

 

[pbehn]

Ok, so you're saying, as if what really happened had been flipped around.
The Bitish ordered the P-51, but accepted the P-40Q2.
Gotcha.

Sort of. From what I have read Curtiss were complacent. The P40 was a good aircraft for 1936, by 1940 it was becoming obsolete. This gave North American Aviation the chance to steal a march on the P40 and promise something much better, which they delivered. The aerodynamics of the P51 were not secret, neither the wing profiles or the Meredith effect. If Curtiss had a flying prototype of the P40Q as the next generation in 1940 then the P51 may well not have ever flown and N.A. would make P40s under license. The P51 was a reaction to and improvement on the P40. The P40Q was a reaction to the P51, taking flight in 1943 it was 3 years too late. Even if it had been ordered, by the time it was put into production, shipped to Europe and put in service the air war would have been over. The situation had flipped around, the P51 had taken the place as the plane of choice in the escort role, it was upto others to displace it.

I am putting forward the idea of the British ordering more P40s, to add to those diverted from French orders followed by the uprated P40Q and the P51 staying on North American Aviations design board. A logical but possibly disastrous turn of events.

 

[Shortround6]

Sort of. From what I have read Curtiss were complacent. The P40 was a good aircraft for 1936, by 1940 it was becoming obsolete.

A lot of writers throw out the idea that Curtiss was complacent. However they seem to be lacking in facts or history.

Curtiss and Don Berlin were well aware of the age of the Curtiss P-40, the radial engine Hawk was Curtiss design 75. The long nose P-40 though P-40C were labeled as the Curtiss design 81. Curtiss and Don Berlin were working on the the preliminary design of the XP-46 in the early fall of 1939 and the USAAC ordered two prototypes on Sept 29th 1939. Please note the first production P-40 isn't flown until April 4th 1940. However all is not smooth and Curtiss also comes up with the plan to install the same engine as the XP-46 used in the P-40 airframe. This results in the Curtiss 87 design designation. Meanwhile Curtiss and the Army are working on the what would be the XP-53 (or not, none competed as such) with the Army ordering two prototypes on Oct 1st 1940. This is the Curtiss model 88.
Now back in June of 1940 it had been decided to use the Allison -39 engine from the XP-46 in the above mentioned Curtiss 87/P-40D.
Please note that this is over 6 months before the first P-40B is completed. I would also note that the first unarmed/under equipped XP-46 doesn't fly until Feb 1941. It was followed in May of 1941 by the first P-40D. The Army having ordered the P-40D in Sept of 1940.

I know the time line is confusing and complicated. but it gets worse. The XP-53 was supposed to be a P-40D fuselage with a new laminar flow wing, the Army's favorite engine The Continental XIV-1430 engine. Unfortunately the Army wanted EIGHT .50 cal machineguns.
Within six weeks the plan fell apart. The Continental engine was nowhere near ready even projecting a year or more into the future. The second Prototype was selected to take a Merlin engine (single stage) as the XP-60. This was the Curtiss model 90.

Meanwhile (as if this sequence wasn't bad enough) Curtiss and Don Berlin also tried to build the XP-55 Ascender starting preliminary work/calculations in the fall of 1939.

This hardly sounds like a complacent company, if anything they sound over confident in their design ability. Rather than depending on an old design they over committed to a number of designs running in parallel.

 

[wuzak]

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

No, it did not have a laminar flow wing.

As SR stated, the laminar flow Curtiss' were the XP53/XP60.