P-39 vs P-40

[P-39 Expert]

There is a small thing on the P-47, called the R-2800. As conceived, it was to offer an extra 3/4s of power vs. V-1710. Price being weight and size, not just of the engine, but of necessary plumbing, turbo and intercooler. Big fuel tank is needed, since big power needs a lot of fuel. Now that we're to install a 2000 HP engine on a fighter, a suitable armament s needed - 8 HMGs. As before you know it, the fighter gets big & heavy.

We can recall that P-43 was smaller than Hawker Hurricane or F4F, neither of the 3 being slim. On the other hand, Hellcat didn't needed a turbo to be as big as P-47.

I can't tell if you are agreeing with me or not. The turbo itself, all the internal ducting to and from the turbo, the intercooler and it's ducting all make for a much larger single engined plane. Compare the photo of the P-60 with a P-40. Multiengined planes (P-38, B-17 etc) have more internal room for the turbos.

 

[tomo pauk]

I can't tell if you are agreeing with me or not. The turbo itself, all the internal ducting to and from the turbo, the intercooler and it's ducting all make for a much larger single engined plane. Compare the photo of the P-60 with a P-40. Multiengined planes (P-38, B-17 etc) have more internal room for the turbos.

My point is that any item on aircraft can influence the size. Obviously, the bigger and/or heavier item in question, the bigger and/or heavier the plane ends up; more items will also up the weight and size. The P-47 being the case in point.
On the other hand, plenty of 1-engined A/C didn't needed turbo and it's anciliaries to end up big and heavy, while some of turboed 1-engined A/C were still of modest size and weight.

 

[Shortround6]

The P-60 was also porked up by carrying 200 us gallons internal and an expected ( but not fitted) eight .50 cal guns.
The P-43, which may be one of the few "small" turbo charged fighters to actually go into production (at least in the western allies) was also somewhat cursed by using the standard Seversky fuselage which was easily adaptable to a two seater. Plenty of room for the for the turbo but hardly the smallest/lightest airframe possible.
The last versions built would have grossed around 7500lbs clean.

 

[wuzak]

I can't tell if you are agreeing with me or not. The turbo itself, all the internal ducting to and from the turbo, the intercooler and it's ducting all make for a much larger single engined plane. Compare the photo of the P-60 with a P-40. Multiengined planes (P-38, B-17 etc) have more internal room for the turbos.

You have made the assumption that all turbo single engine aircraft had to have acres of ducting and have the turbo in the rear fuselage, like the P-47.

The P-60A had the turbo up the front, from what I understand. The rear fuselage is no much deeper than a P-40, if at all.

Well, there is mounting a turbo in a P-40 fuselage and there is mounting a turbo in a P-40 fuselage.

View attachment 519757
This is the P-60A with the turbo Allison. Please note this aircraft has a 275sq ft wing.
View attachment 519758
It may have started as a P-40 fuselage but apparently a lot extra fairing was needed to hide all the turbo bits and pieces. Wingspan was 41 feet and it used a 11ft 8in prop. for it's 1425hp engine.

The Curtiss XP-37 and YP-37 were converted from the P-36.

Curtiss P-36 Hawk - Wikipedia

The YP-37 was 25 inches longer than the XP-37, but only 15.5 inches longer than the P-40E.

The fuselage modifications were mainly to move the pilot back to make space for the intercooler, radiator, fuel tank and oil tank. You can see the turbo under the fuselage, just forward of the wing, including the wastegate pipe.

If Curtiss was to convert the P-40 to a turbo aircraft, they no doubt would have kept the turbo's placement similar to the YP-37, but would have, most likely, kept the radiator up front like the P-40 and expanded the duct to include the radiator. And teh nose would look a lot like the P-60A.

For comparison, this is the XP-60D, powered by the Packard Merlin V-1650-3

And the XP-60E, powered by the R-2800

Both from Curtiss P-60 - Wikipedia

 

[Shortround6]

While these drawings may not be 100% accurate we can see that the turbo P-60A was significantly fatter than the Merlin powered XP-60 and P-60D.
Vents/ louvers are behind the cockpit showing that some part of the turbo system was back there.
Trying to add everything necessary for a turbo system forward of the CG on a P-40 is not going to work well.

 

[michaelmaltby]

... when I see all of the design variants ... from P-40 lookalikes to a sleek Jug-like P-60 ... I have renewed respect for Curtis Corp. .... they remained strong ... and by this time the P-40 designer Don Berlin had abandoned Curtis and jumped ship to Fisher, IIRC ... the company was among America's largest ... was strong going into war ... clearly strong, but with problems (P-47 build), during the war, yet, the company as it was in 1945 just tumbled into pieces ... North American Aviation, Republic and Grumman were the new top dogs.

 

[wuzak]

View attachment 519999

While these drawings may not be 100% accurate we can see that the turbo P-60A was significantly fatter than the Merlin powered XP-60 and P-60D.
Vents/ louvers are behind the cockpit showing that some part of the turbo system was back there.
Trying to add everything necessary for a turbo system forward of the CG on a P-40 is not going to work well.

Yes, it does look fatter. It looks more like the R-2800 powered P-60s than the Merlin powered ones.

The P-60C and P-60E show vents in a similar area to the P-60A, but neither the C or E had a turbo.

 

[Shortround6]

Yes, it does look fatter. It looks more like the R-2800 powered P-60s than the Merlin powered ones.

The P-60C and P-60E show vents in a similar area to the P-60A, but neither the C or E had a turbo.

True but the R-2800s used did have a two stage supercharger and indeed one of the engines used was the same one as the F6F used.
It may not have needed the size intercooler the P-47 used but it did need an intercooler.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

... when I see all of the design variants ... from P-40 lookalikes to a sleek Jug-like P-60 ... I have renewed respect for Curtis Corp. .... they remained strong ... and by this time the P-40 designer Don Berlin had abandoned Curtis and jumped ship to Fisher, IIRC ... the company was among America's largest ... was strong going into war ... clearly strong, but with problems (P-47 build), during the war, yet, the company as it was in 1945 just tumbled into pieces ... North American Aviation, Republic and Grumman were the new top dogs.

What I see is the last gasp attempts of a failing company. Despite Curtiss having the advantage of a large factory ready for production and being given the opportunity to develop several different designs, they were unable to win any orders. In fact the USAAF cancelled an order for 1900 P-60s as it was not performing anyway near expectations. With the end of P-40 production they were out of the fighter business. Meanwhile they were destroying their reputation in other categories with the SB2C, C-46, C-76 and SO3C. Curtiss was finished long before 1945.
As for Don Berlin I don't see how he could have helped. The Frankenstein creation that was the XP-75 is the exemplar of how not to design an aircraft. the attached PDF is the sordid history of the XP-75.

 

[Greg Boeser]

Issue with the P38 is that it got to the party so late. It missed 1942 in the Pacific and Nort Africa and the Russian front. The battles where the Allies won the war. P38, Vought Corsair, Hellcat, P51, P47 were still in development re-development, flight testing etc. Theier tardy designs got alot of Kamikazes and novice German pilots who never even got a shot off if they had machine guns at all. In 1942 the US and Australian and New Zealand pilots had almost no combat experience and less than oe equal to 40 hours of flight time.

P-38Es (54th FS) arrived in Alaska in June 1942 and were immediately put to use flying long-range escort and sweeps from Unmak Island to Kiska, 617 miles one way. The first P-38Fs (1st and 14th FGs) arrived in England in the Fall of 1942 and flew a few ops before transferring to NW Africa following the Torch landings. 82nd FG soon followed with P-38Gs. the 78th FG was supposed to operate P-38s from England, but had to give up all their planes and most of their pilots in Feb 1943 to the NW African based groups to replace the heavy losses incurred by these units. The 78th re-equipped with P-47s before becoming operational in April 1943. P-38s did not return to European skies until October 1943, with the arrival of the 20th and 55th FGs.

 

[Schweik]

While I personally agree the tipping point of the war was in (fall) 1942, things were still pretty up in the air through the middle of 1943. And P-38s were certainly making a difference in the Med and the Pacific during those crucial months. It's one thing to tip the balance, but it's another to really start the momentum going and keep it moving in the right direction long enough that the enemy can't recover. And the pressure was certainly on very heavily all through 1943.

P-38s were important due especially to range in the Pacific and both range and altitude performance in the Med where they flew escort to mostly the four engine bombers, B-17s and B-24s. The latter were surprisingly effective and useful in destroying enemy airfields and aircraft, but were also quite vulnerable to fighters and took serious losses. The P-38s took horrible casualties but seem to have given about as good as they got as the saying goes, based on what I can read in Christopher Shores Mediterranean Air Wars, Vol IV of which is out now by the way

In that fourth volume of his series incidentally you do see a couple of occasions where P-39 units scored some real verifiable victories, including at least one day where they came off pretty well in a clash with some FW-190s. You really don't see that at all in Volume III. Maybe the pilots got a little more used to them. But that gives us a hint that American pilots might have had the same kind of successes with them that the Soviets did under the right circumstances (what those circumstances would be precisely I don't know).

P-40s were being used in fighter sweeps and escort missions (mostly for B-26s and other medium bombers, as well as for A-36s) at a high rate through mid 1943, particularly at Pantelleria, over Sardania and Sicily where I would say from the records Shores shows us, P-40s were more than holding their own against German and Italian fighters (the former including Fw 190s and G series 109s and the latter including both MC 202 and MC 205, Re 2002 and later G55s). Certain P-40 units in particular clearly did have the good kill / loss ratio in air to air combat that they claimed to have and merited their reputation, certainly you don't see the kind of losses that the RAF suffered in 1942. In mid 1943 some of these US P-40 units started switching to P-47s. By that point the Italians are also basically out of the fight.

After mid 1943 P-39s are being used mostly for coastal defense and maritime patrol, but coming into the fight more than previously due to Axis attacks on Allied shipping The P-40s are being used more for ground attack, though still engaging with enemy fighters frequently. There is another flare up of air to air combat near and around Anzio in January and February 1944 where US P-40 squadrons are repeatedly clashing with Bf 109s and FW 190's and still seem to have held their own. The P-47s don't seem to be doing any better than the P-40s in terms of real victory to loss ratios. The last significant dogfight I found involving P-40s was September of 1944. They were not taking heavy losses at any time in 1944 from Axis fighters, most of their losses were from flak during ground attack missions. P-47s were about the same. By contrast P-38s were taking heavy losses sometimes as many as 10 -12 on a single day. P-40 units were getting in large scale fights with Axis fighters (30-40 on both sides) but suffer 2-3 losses and scored at least that many victories (though sometimes it's hard to be certain who got what victory especially later in 1943 and into 1944).

In contrast to the Americans the RAF seems to have relegated almost all of it's P-40s to a pure FB role by mid 1943, with the Spitfire IX and increasingly, VIII's taking the lead..This may be because they didn't get very many of the Merlin powered P-40s in their arsenal (with only two squadrons so equipped) so couldn't fight at the higher altitudes. Anyway they made very few claims and mostly seemed to suffer heavily from Flak and ground fire. The A-36s seemed to also take very heavy casualties.

 

[Schweik]

I'm going to do some longer and more thorough posts from the MAW stuff in the P-40 vs 109 thread, but I thought some of it was relevant to the discussion here.

 

[Schweik]

So one of the incidents I mentioned with the P-39s was Friday June 11, 1943, during the destruction of Pantelleria. During a long day of intense raids, Allied aircraft bombed the island and intercepted Jabos sent to attack the landing fleet which was on the way. It's hard to be certain what happened exactly based on the data but it looks like the P-39s didn't get slaughtered anyway.

There were multiple claims by Allied fighters made through the day:

10:30 -11:00 P-40Fs from the 57th Fighter Group claimed 2 x Bf 109s destroyed and Spitfires from the 31st Fighter Group claimed 1 Fw 190 destroyed and 2 damaged
12:30-13:45 Spit IX's from the 31st Fighter Gorup claimed 5 x Bf 109s destroyed +1 damaged
12:40 a P-38 from the 1st FG claimed a Bf 109 'probable'
13:00 P-39s from the 93rd FS, 81st FG claimed 3 Fw 190s destroyed and 1 probable
13:00 A Free French Spitfire from GC 1/7 claimed a Fw 190 destroyed
15:40 Spitfires from the 31st FG claimed 5 FW 190s destroyed and 1 Fw 190
18:14 English Marauder I gunners claimed 1x Bf 109 destroyed and 1 damaged.

Allied losses for the day were 2 x Spit Mk V's from 31st FG and 1 B-26 lost to flak.

This is Christopher Shores commentary on the mid day part of the battle:
"...a raid was made by FW 190s but was intercepted by P-39s of the 81st Fighter Groups 93rd Squadron and French flown Spitfires of GC 1/7. Here the defending fighter pilots claimed 4 Jabos for the American pilots and one for Sgt Chef Louis Kahn, the former a most unusual success for the frequently ill-fated Airacobras."

Total claims were for 18 'confirmed' victories.

Actual Axis losses were 7 aircraft: 2 x Bf 109G-6s from JG 53, 3 Fw 190A-5s from Sch G 2 (ground attack) and 1 x MC 205s from 360 sq and 1 x MC 202 from 160 Sq.

Two of the Fw 190s were lost at 10:45 and one at 13:00 but there were no times indicated for the other losses.

It was certainly a busy day with the usual overclaiming but it is clear that the P-39s didn't suffer any losses in the combat and seems likely that they shot down at least one of the Fw 190s lost that day, although it could have also been the French Spit.



A more clearly defined incident took place three days earlier on Tuesday June 8, also near Pantelleria,

Around midday a P-38 from the 1st FG claimed a Fw 190 at 13:35 and Spitfires of the 31st FG claimed 1 x MC 200 out of a group of them which were attacking Allied torpedo boats at 13:35.

At 1910 hours in the evening, 15 x P-40Fs of the 85th Fighter Squadron, 79th Fighter Group were performing a sweep ('armed reconnaissance') over the Island when they were 'jumped' by 11 Macchi 205s, 6 (Italian flown) Bf 109G, and 20 x Macchi 202s. Some of the latter were attempting to attack a large group of B-17s while some attacked the P-40s.

In the ensuing combat 79th FG P-40Fs claimed 6 enemy fighters, while the Italians claimed 8, plus a four engined bomber.

Actual Allied losses for the day were 1 Spitfire shot down and 1 damaged, both in the morning..

Actual Axis losses were 5 Italian fighters - 2 x Macchi 205 and 3 x Macchi 202. All of these losses were during an engagement in the "early evening"

Because of the reported time of the combat by the Italians, I think it's fair to say the 79th FG P-40s got them.

There were several incidents like this during May through July of 1943 involving American P-40 units.

 

[P-39 Expert]

Here's a chart of the P-39K vs the P-40E in red and P-40F (Merlin) in black. These are representative of the early models with the 8.8 supercharger gears in the Allison.

As you can see the Merlin provided the P-40F with substantially improved performance both in speed and climb over the P-40E. The P-40E clean without drop tank climbed at about the same rate as the P-39K WITH a drop tank. Climb was the major problem for both these planes. Combat ceiling was generally described as the altitude at which a plane could no longer climb at over 1000ft/min. A clean P-40E (virtually all AAf fighters carried drop tanks on combat missions) could barely climb to 19000' which is too low for almost any combat theater. Add the ubiquitous drop tank and combat ceiling was even lower.

Even after the significant performance increase provided by the Merlin the P-40F was still slower than the P-39K up to 20000'. Climb would have been about the same for both planes at 3000rpm (combat power). Climb on the chart was at 2850rpm for the P-40F and 2600rpm for the P-39K above 12500'.

Weight was the major problem for both these planes. The P-40E weighed 8260# clean and the P-39 weighed 7650# while a comparable SpitfireV weighed 6600#, a 109G weighed 6900# and an early Zero weighed 5500#.

In summary the P-39K performed substantially better than the P-40E and a little better then the P-40F. Later (Nov. '42) Allison models with the 9.6 supercharger gears provided substantial performance improvements for the P-39N and the P-40N but the P-39N was still substantially faster and climbed a lot faster than the P-40N. Any perceived superiority of the P-40 was due to pilot quality of both the AAF and their opposition.

 

[taly01]

By paper statistics the P-39 seems to be superiour to the P-40 yet the USAAF clearly preferred the P-40, i can't ever recall reading a US pilot praising or liking the P-39. It would be nice to see US pilots opinions of those who flew both P-39 and P-40. I wonder if the P-39 mid-engine effected common combat aerobatics? ie. the P-40 was meant to be good at high speed Split-S the engine in nose probably helped that? In reverse the P-39 was meant to have some dangerous spin characteristics due to the weight been in the centre of the plane.

 

[P-39 Expert]

By paper statistics the P-39 seems to be superiour to the P-40 yet the USAAF clearly preferred the P-40, i can't ever recall reading a US pilot praising or liking the P-39. It would be nice to see US pilots opinions of those who flew both P-39 and P-40. I wonder if the P-39 mid-engine effected common combat aerobatics? ie. the P-40 was meant to be good at high speed Split-S the engine in nose probably helped that? In reverse the P-39 was meant to have some dangerous spin characteristics due to the weight been in the centre of the plane.

I'm inclined to agree with you that the AAF probably preferred the P-40 although I can't see why. Chuck Yeager always said the P-39 was his favorite plane (until he got a P-51B) and he also said he didn't know anyone who didn't like the P-39. He was flying later models of the P-39 in training. Big difference in performance with the P-39N over the earlier models.

Common aerobatics were not affected, the P-39's CG was about the same as other single engined planes. Taxi, takeoff and landing were much easier. It was said that the P-40s were slightly more maneuverable than P-39s although their wing loadings were about the same.

 

[Greyman]

Got a few quotes from a quick skim of Shores' latest - A History of the Mediterranean Air War Volume Three

1/Lt. Jerry Collinsworth, 307th Squadron, 31st FG
The P-39 was a miserable fighter for Tunisia; we used to have to escort them because the Bf and FW outperformed them in every conceivable way; dive, manoeuvre, speed – you name it! The Kittyhawk was very little better.

Lt. Jack G. Walker, 97th Squadron, 82nd FG
In May 1943 I was transferred to Casablanca to help in the reorganisation of the Free French air force, just equipped with the P-39 Airacobra. ... Our accident rate was tragic due to the overheating engine and some stability problems with the P-39.

Capt. John L. Bradley, 58th and 59th Squadrons, 33rd FG
The P-40 was an untried aircraft in Europe and it just didn't have the performance to compete when it did arrive. It was capable of taking a lot of punishment and coming home, and it did possess good firepower. However it was obsolete for the job it was called on to perform. ... I flew a couple of escorts to P-39s during my tour. Many of the pilots of these aircraft were afraid of them and figured they didn't have a chance if they were jumped by enemy aircraft without top cover.

 

[Schweik]

Here's a chart of the P-39K vs the P-40E in red and P-40F (Merlin) in black. These are representative of the early models with the 8.8 supercharger gears in the Allison.

As you can see the Merlin provided the P-40F with substantially improved performance both in speed and climb over the P-40E. The P-40E clean without drop tank climbed at about the same rate as the P-39K WITH a drop tank. Climb was the major problem for both these planes. Combat ceiling was generally described as the altitude at which a plane could no longer climb at over 1000ft/min. A clean P-40E (virtually all AAf fighters carried drop tanks on combat missions) could barely climb to 19000' which is too low for almost any combat theater. Add the ubiquitous drop tank and combat ceiling was even lower.

Even after the significant performance increase provided by the Merlin the P-40F was still slower than the P-39K up to 20000'. Climb would have been about the same for both planes at 3000rpm (combat power). Climb on the chart was at 2850rpm for the P-40F and 2600rpm for the P-39K above 12500'.

Weight was the major problem for both these planes. The P-40E weighed 8260# clean and the P-39 weighed 7650# while a comparable SpitfireV weighed 6600#, a 109G weighed 6900# and an early Zero weighed 5500#.

In summary the P-39K performed substantially better than the P-40E and a little better then the P-40F. Later (Nov. '42) Allison models with the 9.6 supercharger gears provided substantial performance improvements for the P-39N and the P-40N but the P-39N was still substantially faster and climbed a lot faster than the P-40N. Any perceived superiority of the P-40 was due to pilot quality of both the AAF and their opposition.

Couple of points on the above...

The P-39s mentioned in Volume IV of MAW were P-39L, which I had never even heard of. Is that V-1710-85? But anyway I think the ones they were using in some of the earlier debacles in fall 1942 or winter 42/43 were much earlier versions. Not certain though I'd have to check.

The P-40E's as delivered and under official rules for engine management were quite underpowered but they seem to have worked around that by mid 1942 in the Med. Of course only the English and the Russians ever used P-40E's as far as I know. Initially the Kittyhawks (P-40D and E) were doing worse than the Tomahawks, but various changes to engine management and / or maintenance seemed to have changed that by mid 1942, coinciding with a change in strategy. Per Australian double P-40 Ace Bobby Gibbes:

"Well it was basically the same aeroplane. We were a little disappointed when we first got the Kitty, we thought it'd be way ahead of the Tomahawk. In actual fact, it was a little bit better. One thing I personally didn't like about it was the Tomahawk had fairly high sides and you'd be sitting behind a thin sheet of metal but you felt safer. The Kittyhawk had perspex coming way down and you felt as if you were sitting up, very vulnerable, because you could see out so much. That was one feature I do remember. However, later when we got our Kittyhawks running properly - were getting better performance - they were a better aeroplane."

Partly this means they were replacing older V-1710-39 Allisons with more robust V-1710-73 of the P-40K. Partly it meant overboosting and other engine management changes.
By 1943 English are mostly using Kittyhawk III (either P-40K or M, the former having much better low altitude performance, with 1550 hp at WEP / 60" Hg or 1325 hp at military power / 51" Hg, the latter better high altitude - higher effective ceiling- but lower powered overall).

As far as altitude, it's in some ways even worse than most people think - the performance ceiling for the low-geared V-1710-39 and 73 was actually at about 12,000 feet, only the higher ratio engines could manage the oft cited 15 -16,000 ft, and the lightened "high altitude" P-40Ns were still performing reasonably well at 17,000 ft. But they did routinely operate well above those altitudes using special tactics. There is a detailed defense industry blog article about how they were able to successfully use P-40E in the defense of Darwin, where lets not forget for whatever reason they had more success than Spit Mk V's did, and elsewhere in the Pacific and especially the CBI they were flying them at much higher altitudes on a routine basis, including escorting transports over the Himalayas. The jist of it seemed to be that they could pick up speed so well in a dive, extend and then (however long it took) climb back up, and they operated in smaller flights of 4 aircraft.

This wasn't really an option though in the Med where the much better organized German opposition required them (and basically all Allied fighters) to operate in Squadron sized units of 8-15 basically all the time. They were also able to use the radio a lot more in the Pacific apparently, at least according to some of the Australian pilots who were brought from the Med to the Pacific. The Germans were very efficient at locating the source of radio transmissions.

The bottom line on the P-40E is that it was used effectively against enemy aircraft in the Med, in the Pacific and CBI, and in Russia. We can say that the P-39 was used effectively in Russia. The P-39 had better climb but there is more to "performance" than climb rate.

I think the difference between the two aircraft may boil down to ease of handling and training. One common thing with many Allied fighter squadrons in 1941 and 1942 was that they were given badly inadequate transition training on the actual aircraft they were going to have to use in combat. Some of the Australian P-40 pilots who fought at Milne Bay, Darwin and the Kokoda trail for example had less than 10 hours training on the type before they were ferrying them into battle and then fighting. They actually lost more in landing accidents, maintenance issues and from getting lost on ferrying flights than they did in combat. Clive Caldwell the Australian P-40 ace noted how little airfcraft specific combat training they had received on the P-40 in North Africa and he set about trying to establish some. But as tough as it was to get used to, and I don't think it was "easy" to fly (clearly more challenging than the Hurricane for example), I think the P-40 pilots were able to get to competence in a few weeks whereas with the P-39 in the Med and Pacific it seems it took them longer, and some of them never learned to trust the plane because they didn't have a sense how far they could push it in turns and vertical maneuvers.

For the Americans, British and Anzac pilots, the P-40s had serious limitations but the limitations were known and pretty well understood, so they fairly quickly developed strategies that allowed them to work around these flaws and exploit their avantages.

The Russian pilots by contrast had often transitioned from I-16s, MiG 3's, LaGG-3's and other aircraft which were notoriously unstable and twitchy so for them the P-39 may have actually been an improvement in that department, and as I have pointed out somewhere in the forum before, from the Lend Lease.RU article on the Soviet use of the P-39 we know that they did an almost 4 month workup on the aircraft before sending it into battle, which means that you had at least some pilots who knew the limitations of the fighter in maneuvering and some institutional knowledge as to how best to use it. I suspect that may be the real difference.

My other theory is that the P-39 may have just flown better in cold air but I'm not sure if that's really it, summers were hot on the Russian Front particularly in the Southern reaches Crimea etc.

 

[Schweik]

As for who liked what plane, I haven't yet read any American or Western / Allied pilot who liked the P-39 (the John Glenn thing is new to me though I'm not disagreeing) but of course for the Soviets it was by far their favorite Lend Lease fighter. P-40s were disparaged by Anglo-American military leadership and administrators, for understandable reasons (the altitude limitation was a serious flaw) but a lot of the pilots did like it and weren't shy about saying so. Some didn't that is certain, including some high scoring P-40 aces for example Neville Duke. But it's not hard to find those that did.

AVG pilot Erik Shilling was a well known advocate for the P-40. Some of his comments included "If you look up maneuverable in Webster's Dictionary, by all criteria the P-40 was more maneuverable. " and "The P-40 was faster (354 mph with combat load vs a little over 300 for the Zero), the roll rate at 240-280 mph was 3 times faster and the aircraft could outdive the Zero."

Australian P-40 quadruple P-40 Ace and 112 RAF sqn commander Clive Caldwell said it had "almost no vices" and that it "would take a tremendous amount of punishment, violent aerobatics as well as enemy action"

Nicky Barr, 3 RAAF P-40 double Ace noted:

"The Kittyhawk became, to me, a friend. It was quite capable of getting you out of trouble more often than not. It was a real warhorse."

Robert DeHaven, 49th FG double ace and Silver Star winner, noted:

"If you flew wisely, the P-40 was a very capable aircraft. [It] could outturn a P-38, a fact that some pilots didn't realize when they made the transition between the two aircraft. "

and

"[Y]ou could fight a Jap on even terms, but you had to make him fight your way. He could outturn you at slow speed. You could outturn him at high speed. When you got into a turning fight with him, you dropped your nose down so you kept your airspeed up, you could outturn him. At low speed he could outroll you because of those big ailerons ... on the Zero. If your speed was up over 275, you could outroll [a Zero]. His big ailerons didn't have the strength to make high speed rolls... You could push things, too. Because ... f you decided to go home, you could go home. He couldn't because you could outrun him. [...] That left you in control of the fight."

Nikolai Golodnikov said in an interview:

"Actually, the P-40 could engage all Messerschmitts on equal terms, almost to the end of 1943. If you take into consideration all the characteristics of the P-40, then the Tomahawk was equal to the Bf 109F and the Kittyhawk was slightly better. Its speed and vertical and horizontal manoeuvre were good and fully competitive with enemy aircraft. Acceleration rate was a bit low, but when you got used to the engine, it was OK. We considered the P-40 a decent fighter plane"

General Benjamin Davis of the 99th FS ("Tuskegee") had a lot of praise for and confidence in P-40s:

"The P-40 operations in the Pacific and Europe were much like the F-86 and the MiG in Korea*. All the MiG's had to do was stay away from the F-86's; yet we had an eleven-to-one kill ratio of F-86's over MiG's**. Same thing with the P-40 and the Me 109. If the German fighters wanted to stay away, the P-40's couldn't get them. When the Me 109's came down to engage the P-40's we were superior."

Charlie Hall also 99th FS said:

"The P-40? Sure we liked them. Most of us got home that flew them. I don't think the real potential of that aircraft was ever realized. Anyway that's what we had and it did the job. I fought with four .50s. Took out the other two so I could carry more ammunition. "

Tenth Air Force pilot Bob O'Neil (16th FS, 4 victories) ... who was stationed in the Assam Valley India and in Burma and fought over the 'hump' in the Himalayas, said:

"I loved those P-40's. They had their faults; but they'd get you home when nothing else would. All our battles with the Japs were between 15,000 and 20,000 feet. We couldn't out-maneuver their fighters but we could out-dive them and the Hawk would take more punishment than anything we met. It was a sturdy, fine airplane."

RAF 24-kill Ace Billy Drake (13 victories in the P-40) praised the heavy guns of the Kittyhawk and said in this interview:

"Altogether, air to air it was just as good as anything we were liable to meet." "The six 0.5 guns had a terrific effect" "If you were caught out, if you put it in a dive it went very fast"

I can post plenty more examples if needed.

*General Davis was Director of Operations and Training, FEAF, Japan, fought over Korea and was commander of the 13th AF during the Korean War)
**I know this isn't the actual ratio that is just a direct quote

 

[eagledad]

Schweik,

The P-39K and P-39L both used the V-1710-63 Allison. The only major difference between the 2 aircraft was that the K used an Aero company propeller, the L used a Curtiss propeller. The -63 Allison was rated at 1325hp for take-off and 1150 at 12,000 feet "Emergency Maximum. Data from Pilot Operating Instructions for P-39K-1 and P-39L-1, dated Dec 20, 1942.

Eagledad