Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The P-40Q was about 20-30mph slower than a Mustang while carrying less fuel, fewer guns and less ammo per gun.
Yes if you stuffed even more power into the airframe you could get it to go faster but obviously it was not competitive with newer aircraft.
Sticking in a two stage Griffon means hundreds of pounds more weight, and larger radiators.
The P-40Q was already operating at about double the weight of the prototype P-36/Hawk 75.
But it was a bit lighter and more maneuverable and just as fast below 20k.
As I see it the only potential customer for the P-40Q is Soviet Naval Aviation for use in the Kuriles, but do we really want to give them something that can reach into Hokkaido. I think not.Yes. The question was if it was possible to make the P-40 a machine which was able to fight with the best on equal terms. Its short range meant that it would have been more of a point-defense interceptor in the mold of the Spitfire.
As both were considerable more draggy than a Mustang. a Griffon would have been needed to reach the performance envelope of the P-51.
Would such a machine be on par ith the Spitfire Mk. 14 or was the P-40 an inherently outdated design (for which reason.)?
The P40-Q was ready in 1943As I see it the only potential customer for the P-40Q is Soviet Naval Aviation for use in the Kuriles, but do we really want to give them something that can reach into Hokkaido. I think not.
The Mustang I was designed to be the next generation of fighter, it was supposed to be better than the P-40 that is why the British ordered it, off the drawing board. The P-51 with the Merlin engine became the best long range escort fighter, but extreme long range isn't all that desirable in most cases, you certainly cant call a P-40 short ranged. The P-51 was just generally better, uprating the P-40 could close the gap, like uprating the Hurricane close the gap on the Spitfire and Bf109 but you will never close some gaps completely. The P-51 was a later and better plane in most scenarios, though not in every respect. If I was attacking ground targets I think I would prefer the P-40, and while that wasn't what it was designed for it isn't what the P-51 was designed for either and neither was long range escort.Yes. The question was if it was possible to make the P-40 a machine which was able to fight with the best on equal terms. Its short range meant that it would have been more of a point-defense interceptor in the mold of the Spitfire.
As both were considerable more draggy than a Mustang. a Griffon would have been needed to reach the performance envelope of the P-51.
Would such a machine be on par ith the Spitfire Mk. 14 or was the P-40 an inherently outdated design (for which reason.)?
The P40-Q was ready in 1943
Should not been hard to change production line to upgrade the plane.
Would have been a healthy improvement over the K/L/M/N models.
Even if Curtis just used the improved engine.
More power would have improved offensive capabilities, climb and speed.
Could the P-40 have become a top-of-the-line fighter when mated with a two-stage Merlin or Griffon to rival a Spitfire lX or XlV respectively?
And of course with a less draggy cooling system, if installation is possible, such as a ventral (Mustang style), underwing or leading edge radiator.
Please see XP-46.
Yep.
View attachment 563863
Somehow, despite a smaller wing, the pointy nose and "superior ventral radiator" it managed to be slower than a P-40D/E using the same engine.
View attachment 563864
as for sticking the Griffon in the P-40, anything is possible if you spend enough money, time and sweat. Wither it is worthwhile is a different story. The two stage Griffon is over 650lb heavier than the Allisons used in P-40s and over 550lbs heavier than the V-1650-1 Merlin used in the P-40F/L. Needs a bigger prop and radiator and oil cooler.
Just maybe, had there been any extra two stage Griffons hanging about the warehouse Curtiss could have stuffed one in the P-60 instead of resorting to stuffing the R-2800 radial into the airframe.
P-60 with two stage Merlin
View attachment 563865
YP-60E with R-2800.
View attachment 563866
Navy style two stage supercharger.
The XP-60 series went through (planned or actually built) 6 different engines. One would think that if it was so easy to convert the P-40 they would have done so.
Please note that one XP-60 prototype using a single stage Merlin was actually faster than a P-40F using the same engine while using a larger wing and weighing more. AN indication that a new airframe was the way to go instead of cramming new engines into the old P-36/P-40 wing and fuselage.
I think, but am open to correction, that the P-60 series all used the same wing.
However the fuselages did vary considerably. Point is why would Curtiss spend a lot of time/ effort in trying to stuff large engines into the P-40 when they had a more modern wing/airfoil already built to use?
The P-60 has as much relation to a P-40 as F-18E does to a F-18A. The YP-60C/D/E has as much resemblance to the P-60A/B as the YB-15 does with the B-29/s.
Yep.
View attachment 563863
Somehow, despite a smaller wing, the pointy nose and "superior ventral radiator" it managed to be slower than a P-40D/E using the same engine.
View attachment 563864
as for sticking the Griffon in the P-40, anything is possible if you spend enough money, time and sweat. Wither it is worthwhile is a different story. The two stage Griffon is over 650lb heavier than the Allisons used in P-40s and over 550lbs heavier than the V-1650-1 Merlin used in the P-40F/L. Needs a bigger prop and radiator and oil cooler.
Just maybe, had there been any extra two stage Griffons hanging about the warehouse Curtiss could have stuffed one in the P-60 instead of resorting to stuffing the R-2800 radial into the airframe.
P-60 with two stage Merlin
View attachment 563865
YP-60E with R-2800.
View attachment 563866
Navy style two stage supercharger.
The XP-60 series went through (planned or actually built) 6 different engines. One would think that if it was so easy to convert the P-40 they would have done so.
Please note that one XP-60 prototype using a single stage Merlin was actually faster than a P-40F using the same engine while using a larger wing and weighing more. AN indication that a new airframe was the way to go instead of cramming new engines into the old P-36/P-40 wing and fuselage.