kool kitty89
Senior Master Sergeant
The best all around performer of the "standard" P-40s would have been the P-40M, which was the same as the P-40K except it had a V-1710-81 engine (same as the P-51A and P-40N). This would not be including the lightened P-40L (short range) or the P-40N's with reduced armament. The Tomahawks of the AVG were a special exception with non-standard (up to 220 higher HP than standard) engines allowing 370 mph top speed and along with there lighter weight (P-40B configuration, though converted from P-40C) would have been the best true "dogfight" performing P-40s.
That aside the wing loading of the P-40M would be similar to the P-51A (albeit the P-40 had a higher CL) and power loading would be slightly worse. Thus climb would be similar (slightly less) and turn rate would likely be slightly less than the P-51 though radius would likely be better. The P-51A was also ~40 mph faster than P-40M. The V-1710-81 had max 1,200 hp takeoff (limited to prevent over boost) and WEP from 5,000-10,400 ft was 1,480 hp. Critical altitude for 1150 hp Mil power was ~18,000 ft. Thus altitude performance was similar to the Merlin engined P-40s, but with much better low alt performance.
I haven't seen many specific figures (with altitudes, load, and power settings listed) for the P-40M or the N of similar configuration, but the P-51A info is here: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p-51a-1-6007.jpg Mustang (Allison Engine) Performance Trials
The only real statistics with a good range of info for the P-40M I've seen is in the historical performance info from the Il-2 flight simulator. I can post them later, but I'm not sure of the accuracy. (though from the comparisons I've seen most data is quite accurate and all values which were calculated and not test data are listed as such)
The P-39 would have been much more closely matched to the 109 up to 15,000 ft than the P-40 was with a better turn rate, power loading, and initial climb than most P-40s. Hoever the MAX range of the P-39 was about 50% less than the P-40, though still better than the 109. (with 91 imp gal drop tank the P-39 could manage ~1050 mi, while the p-40 could manage ~1,600 mi at optimum cruise) The range difference is a major reason (along with its ruggedness and the fact that someone taler than 5'8" could fly it) that made the P-40 more successful in the PTO than the P-39. Plus the armament was better suited for dogfighting.
That aside the wing loading of the P-40M would be similar to the P-51A (albeit the P-40 had a higher CL) and power loading would be slightly worse. Thus climb would be similar (slightly less) and turn rate would likely be slightly less than the P-51 though radius would likely be better. The P-51A was also ~40 mph faster than P-40M. The V-1710-81 had max 1,200 hp takeoff (limited to prevent over boost) and WEP from 5,000-10,400 ft was 1,480 hp. Critical altitude for 1150 hp Mil power was ~18,000 ft. Thus altitude performance was similar to the Merlin engined P-40s, but with much better low alt performance.
I haven't seen many specific figures (with altitudes, load, and power settings listed) for the P-40M or the N of similar configuration, but the P-51A info is here: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p-51a-1-6007.jpg Mustang (Allison Engine) Performance Trials
The only real statistics with a good range of info for the P-40M I've seen is in the historical performance info from the Il-2 flight simulator. I can post them later, but I'm not sure of the accuracy. (though from the comparisons I've seen most data is quite accurate and all values which were calculated and not test data are listed as such)
The P-39 would have been much more closely matched to the 109 up to 15,000 ft than the P-40 was with a better turn rate, power loading, and initial climb than most P-40s. Hoever the MAX range of the P-39 was about 50% less than the P-40, though still better than the 109. (with 91 imp gal drop tank the P-39 could manage ~1050 mi, while the p-40 could manage ~1,600 mi at optimum cruise) The range difference is a major reason (along with its ruggedness and the fact that someone taler than 5'8" could fly it) that made the P-40 more successful in the PTO than the P-39. Plus the armament was better suited for dogfighting.
