"The P-60 has as much relation to a P-40 as F-18E does to a F-18A." Remember the P-60 started as a P-40 with a new wing.......BTW time they were done, aside from the engine maybe only the tailwheel and the rivets were the same. /s
P-40 top fighter?
- Thread starter spicmart
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
"The P-60 has as much relation to a P-40 as F-18E does to a F-18A." Remember the P-60 started as a P-40 with a new wing.......BTW time they were done, aside from the engine maybe only the tailwheel and the rivets were the same. /s
The only thing I have are a couple of quotes from a book called "Whatever Happened to Curtiss-Wright".
1. That he was hired specifically to push the P-36/P-40 programs
2. That he left because no one would listen to him.
As far as improvements, who knows? That could literally be anything from a cleaned up P-40 to consideration of the XP-46, XP-53, XP-60
Somewhere, I've read that a major bone of contention between Berlin and the management was he stated the airflow issues experienced by the short tail models was from turbulent air spilling out of the front of the radiator intake. Management said the tail was too short.....we see who won that argument and it didn't fix the problem.
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,022
- Jun 25, 2013
Without having somebody perform a CFD analysis (this won't be me), one can't be sure. "Poor detail design" is a good catch phrase, and is the sort of answer that is both completely true and somewhat useless.
This is the issue, really. Why bother? By the time the P-40Q gets to production status, the USAAF is ordering the P-80 Shooting Star. Piston engine wise, there's the P-51H and the P-47N, both of which could outperform the XP-40Q.
XP-75?
HE-177?
Blackburn Botha?
Breda Linx?
Sometimes, it does indeed seem wise to know when to quit!
Thaaaat's right. Mind you, Curtiss' own SB2C is a machine that should have been quit, but because of expediency wasn't.
Not sure the Buccaneer would have been any better.
wuzak
Captain
Sometimes, it does indeed seem wise to know when to quit!
The XP-75 was an emergency program for a long range fighter that didn't go too far, not too many were built.
It must be noted that the XP-75 was designed and built by the Fisher Body Division of General Motors, and the engine was the V-3420 from Allison, a General Motors subsidiary.
The He 177 is the only German bomber that could have been considered a strategic bomber. It was still useful, though unreliable.
michael rauls
Tech Sergeant
- 1,679
- Jul 15, 2016
My perception of the p40q is that it was just a little too late for what it was. It looks real good, at least on paper. A little slower than the p51 yes but better moaenuverability and much better climb.
Of course range, which is can be very important was not as good although it was not bad.
If it could have been squeezed out a year earlier it might have been valuable. Perhaps a more competent management could have pulled it off before it was too late to be needed.
What makes you say that?
Seriously though, it surprises me that the US Navy was left with those two designs as options, particularly after the SBD. Surely a better design could and should have been produced in its wake.
Shortround6
Major General
For the XP-46 it is very hard to say, the first prototype without guns, armor, self sealing tanks and other operational equipment is supposed to have hit either 405 or 410mph.
The 2nd prototype to fly (the first with full military equipment) saw a top speed of 355mph which was slower than the P-40E using the same engine. Most accounts blame the extra weight.
However gun openings seem to well hidden if present at all in some photos, the oil cooler under the nose seems to change shape, the radiator scoop seems to change shape and the location of the front edge seems to move. One account mentions cooling problems among other issues.
So it is rather hard to tell just what configuration the two planes were actually in at the different speeds.
The 2nd prototype to fly (the first with full military equipment) saw a top speed of 355mph which was slower than the P-40E using the same engine. Most accounts blame the extra weight.
However gun openings seem to well hidden if present at all in some photos, the oil cooler under the nose seems to change shape, the radiator scoop seems to change shape and the location of the front edge seems to move. One account mentions cooling problems among other issues.
So it is rather hard to tell just what configuration the two planes were actually in at the different speeds.
Shortround6
Major General
The "more competent management" was not necessarily Curtiss. If Allison cannot get the engine sorted out then it doesn't matter much what Curtiss does with the airframe.
michael rauls
Tech Sergeant
- 1,679
- Jul 15, 2016
Good point. Although better management at Curtis certainly wouldn't have hurt.
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,022
- Jun 25, 2013
Curtiss' management -- and management philosophy -- ended up putting Curtiss out of the aircraft business by the early 1950s and the engine business a few years later. Allison, possibly because of GM's ownership, remains in the engine business, with two successful turbine engines (the 250 and the 501) and some usable turbojets during the 1950s. GM ended up selling Allison to Rolls-Royce in 1995. Curtiss merged with Wright in 1929; it's last aircraft design was the XF-87 (a design that cries "What were you thinking!"). It never transitioned to jet engines (its jet engines were all license built).
Shortround6
Major General
I don't know if Curtiss was not trying hard enough or if they were trying too hard and spreading their design staff too thin. Curtiss may have been involved in more programs that produced at least prototypes than any other US aircraft company in WW II and was close to twice as many as any other company. Many were flops for various reasons but they were certainly trying.
michael rauls
Tech Sergeant
- 1,679
- Jul 15, 2016
That's an interesting take on Curtis and one I had not considered before. I had always viewed them as simply incompetent. Of course it may have been that also.
[QUOTE The He 177 is the only German bomber that could have been considered a strategic bomber. It was still useful, though unreliable.[/QUOTE]
Well there you go, there is the P-39/P-40/SB2C/(Insert name of marginally obsolete but still useful/dangerous airplane of your choice here.) in a nutshell. It was still useful. (Remember my comment about the Fairey Barracuda that raised so many hackles?
The XP-75? Should have been cancelled as soon as the P-51B started production.
Well there you go, there is the P-39/P-40/SB2C/(Insert name of marginally obsolete but still useful/dangerous airplane of your choice here.) in a nutshell. It was still useful. (Remember my comment about the Fairey Barracuda that raised so many hackles?
The XP-75? Should have been cancelled as soon as the P-51B started production.
Last edited:
Curtis Wright was a classic case of Corporate Arbitrage.
One of the reason was President Hurley was focused on Short Term Profits
Did not like spending money on long range development programs.
At same time was known for its poor quality and missing deliverables.
CW was the second largest and richest company after WW2.
Now they are a fraction of their size
P-39 Expert
Non-Expert
Regarding the P-40Q, the Allison two stage mechanical engine went into series production in April/May 1943 as the V-1710-93, an E model engine with remote reduction gear for the P-63.
Given Allison's modular design the same new auxiliary supercharger could have been fitted to an F series engine for the P-40 and P-51. Given the relatively clean installation in the P-40Q it appears that the big objection to the new engine being 16" longer than a standard Allison was somehow overcome. Probably could have been fitted to the P-51 also.
This -93 engine would have been an earlier version of the V-1710-121 that actually went into the P-40Q. This -93 engine would make 1180HP at 21500' and 1325HP for takeoff. For comparison the single stage engines used in the P-39N, P-40N and P-51A would produce about 950HP at 20000'.
Point is that the P-39, P-40 and P-51 would have all benefited greatly from the two stage Allison, and it was in series production from April/May 1943. To put that into perspective, the first combat mission for the P-47 was April 30, 1943 and the P-38 only reached combat four month's earlier.
Given Allison's modular design the same new auxiliary supercharger could have been fitted to an F series engine for the P-40 and P-51. Given the relatively clean installation in the P-40Q it appears that the big objection to the new engine being 16" longer than a standard Allison was somehow overcome. Probably could have been fitted to the P-51 also.
This -93 engine would have been an earlier version of the V-1710-121 that actually went into the P-40Q. This -93 engine would make 1180HP at 21500' and 1325HP for takeoff. For comparison the single stage engines used in the P-39N, P-40N and P-51A would produce about 950HP at 20000'.
Point is that the P-39, P-40 and P-51 would have all benefited greatly from the two stage Allison, and it was in series production from April/May 1943. To put that into perspective, the first combat mission for the P-47 was April 30, 1943 and the P-38 only reached combat four month's earlier.
Agreed pretty much.
IMO - the early 2-stage V-1710 would've pushed the P-40 into Fw 190A and Bf 109G territory ( speeed at altitude at least, and climb vs. the 190), while the latest 2-stage V-1710s will mean it can fly as fast as Fw 190D and Bf 109G with AS and ASM engine.
IMO - the early 2-stage V-1710 would've pushed the P-40 into Fw 190A and Bf 109G territory ( speeed at altitude at least, and climb vs. the 190), while the latest 2-stage V-1710s will mean it can fly as fast as Fw 190D and Bf 109G with AS and ASM engine.
