P-40 what-if

[Shortround6]

Sorry to intrude on the current discussion, but I felt that I had to post a retort.
Respond, don't respond, its not important right now. I just feel that the below quote needs to be addressed.

The post in question...



My response...

Shortround6,

It seems you either completely misread my post or am intentionally responding in a way to sway the discussion in a way it was not intended. I don't know which, but you've done this before, so I'm becoming a little suspect of your actions.
In your response (quoted above) you go on about Merlin engines, but my only purpose for bringing up the Merlin is to show that the -45 Allison engine had enough ponies to use the version of the H-S prop I mentioned.
...and I understand what Clay was getting at, by mentioning the P-39.
The point here is that the P-51 never exists in the first place (or comes along much later than it actually did) because N.A. went ahead and built those P-40's for the British, instead of what really happened.
THUS, the P-39, with its big 37mm gun, becomes the Ground Attack / Bomber interceptor and the P-40 is then further developed into the Fighter interceptor / Bomber escort.
This is why I'm so keen on a combination of the IA version of the -45 engine and that H-S prop.
Because the idea IS to make the P-40 into a better high altitude fighter and the engine dates closest to a time period when that development work was being done (although I'd like it better a year or two earlier).
Elvis

I am sorry you feel that way. I admit to having a tendency to ramble.

The point as to the Merlins was that quoting take-off power, while useful somtimes for identifing the model of the engine, doesn't always relate to the actual design requirements of the propellor. I had hoped that was clearer.

The -45 engine was rated at 1325HP at sea level, 1150hp at 21,000ft.
The Merlin question (-7) was rated at 1720HP WER at 6,200ft and 1505 HP WER at 19.300ft. roughly 30% more power than the -45 Allison. I can see where it needed an extra blade for more area.
THe P-38K that used the big prop was rated at 1425Hp at 27,000ft (air about 1/3 as dense as sea level) and 1600hp at WER. I can see where fitting the big prop to those engines would increase performance over a propellor designed for 1300-1100hp at sea level/27000ft.
what I don't see is how the bigger propellor increases performance on the lower HP engine.

I thought I had gone over that in the original post. Please show me that I am wrong about this if you feel that the H-S prop would over a significant advantage. Can you come up with any performance figures just from a propellor swap and not trying to compare plane with a Paddle bladed prop that has 10-30% more power at the same time to a lower powered plane without the paddle blades.

I am glad you know what Clay was getting at when he brought in the P-39 because I didn't have a clue.
I have no idea of what the russians thought about the P-39 has to do with the altitude performace of the P-40, either real or fantasy. Unless his proposed modifications to the P-40 make it unusable at the lower altitudes something like a MiG-3? Strange that the German 109s didn't have this problem. or the Spitfires or the P-51. Their performance did change with altitude but they didn't REQUIRE a second fighter to cover that part of the sky for them.

You can make the P-40 a better fighter in the 20,000-25,000 ft area than it was. the question is can you make enough better to actually make a big difference.

Edit> lets take a hypothetical situation. Say at a certain altitude the Bf-109 has a climb rate twice that of the P-40 (normal) and due to the proposed modifications you increase the climb rate at that altitude by 50%. That is a considerable increase in performance and yet you are climbing only 75% as fast as the 109 (or the 109 is still 33% better). Has your improvement really altered the relation ship between the two aircraft or changed the tatics that each would use in combating the other?
This is the real question. Can you improve the P-40 ENOUGH to make a substantial difference in performance, ENOUGH to enable P-40 to change how it fights the 109?
If all you have done is reduce the time it takes for a P-40 to dive on a target and past it and then climb back up to attack altitude from say 10 minutes to 6 minutes have you really changed much of anything? THe improvement looks very good on paper (and it is) but if the target just continues to fly straight and level at even 300mph it will be several miles away by the time the P-40 is back at attack altitude. The only advantage you have gained is the ability to get into attack position (the first and maybe only time) a bit quicker. Say your squadron is flying at XXX height and is radioed that attackers are coming in at height YYY from direction ZZZ and are QQ miles out. THe "improved" planes might have the performance to climb to attack position before the attackers pass them when regular P-40s might not.< end edit.

 

[Clay_Allison]

I have no idea of what the russians thought about the P-39 has to do with the altitude performace of the P-40, either real or fantasy. Unless his proposed modifications to the P-40 make it unusable at the lower altitudes something like a MiG-3?

That's what I was talking about exactly, if the modifications for higher altitude performance make it less effective at low altitude (like the MiG-3) then the P-39 could fill in the gap lower down.

 

[Elvis]

The point as to the Merlins was that quoting take-off power, while useful somtimes for identifing the model of the engine, doesn't always relate to the actual design requirements of the propellor. I had hoped that was clearer.
The -45 engine was rated at 1325HP at sea level, 1150hp at 21,000ft.
The Merlin question (-7) was rated at 1720HP WER at 6,200ft and 1505 HP WER at 19.300ft. roughly 30% more power than the -45 Allison. I can see where it needed an extra blade for more area.
THe P-38K that used the big prop was rated at 1425Hp at 27,000ft (air about 1/3 as dense as sea level) and 1600hp at WER. I can see where fitting the big prop to those engines would increase performance over a propellor designed for 1300-1100hp at sea level/27000ft.
what I don't see is how the bigger propellor increases performance on the lower HP engine.

Ok, this is a two-fold question, so let me address the "Horsepower" issue, first.
By quoting the take-off power of both engines, that gives one a better standard to compare them by.
You seem to insist on using the take-off power rating for the -45 Allison, but then quote WEP ratings for the -7 PM engine.
How can one come to any kind of logical conclusion using such different ratings?
Keep the power rating TYPE ("take-off", "...@ listed altitude", "War Emergency Power", etc.) the same when comparing the power of different engines.
Otherwise, you are doomed to draw incorrect conclusions.
Now then, lets address your concerns about the prop...
Yes, by quoting take-off power, I'm not addressing the design requirement of the new propeller. They were the only relative HP figures I had on hand, at the time I made my post.
I don't have the HP figures for a V-1650-7 @22400ft., but I should see if I can't locate them.
That would relate the power figures for those engines closer to the design of the prop.
However, you seem to have forgotten that I was excited, not about the Hamilton Standard prop as you say it existed, but that prop sized and configured the same as the Curtiss-Electric prop that was already on the airplane" (i.e., 3 blades@11' dia., not 4 blades@12' dia.).
So what difference does that make? It gives the engine a managably sized propeller that is better suited for high altitude work, due to the difference in the design of the blades.
Since the point here is to make the P-40 a better high altitude fighter plane, then switching the C-E prop to the H-S prop would be a step in the right directioin.

I am glad you know what Clay was getting at when he brought in the P-39 because I didn't have a clue.
I have no idea of what the russians thought about the P-39 has to do with the altitude performace of the P-40, either real or fantasy. Unless his proposed modifications to the P-40 make it unusable at the lower altitudes something like a MiG-3? Strange that the German 109s didn't have this problem. or the Spitfires or the P-51. Their performance did change with altitude but they didn't REQUIRE a second fighter to cover that part of the sky for them.

Although Clay addressed this point, as well, in a separate post, here's something else to think about...
Why was the USAAF so keen on making the P-40 work at an altitude 1/2 of what most of the more prominent axis fighters were capable of working at?
Doesn't that seem like a fruitless design element?
NOW, ask yourself this question - What flies in the range of 10,000 to 15,000 feet on such a regular basis, and is considered such a threat, that it is felt that one needs to design an interceptor to counter it?
Answer that question and you answer your own question about the need for a second interceptor (or "fighter", if you wanna call it that).

You can make the P-40 a better fighter in the 20,000-25,000 ft area than it was. the question is can you make enough better to actually make a big difference.

BY GEORGE, I THINK HE'S FINALLY GOT IT!
Considering the performance of the P-40's that existed in the first half of the war, YES, I actually think that utilizing a combination of an IA -45 Allison and a H-S "hi efficiency" prop of the same diameter and configuration of the C-E prop it would replace, will actually make it a better high altitude fighter, AND, by a great margin over the -33 and -39 Allisons that were installed in that plane, in those days.
If I didn't think it would work, I wouldn't have ever brought it up.
Even if it ends up not having superior performance figures (or even ones that match) versus the 109's of the time, IT WOULD STILL GIVE THE PLANE BETTER HIGH ALTITUDE PERFORMANCE, compared to how it was configured (and I'm not saying that it won't have superior performance to the 109).
Combine this aspect with the P-40's increased maneuverability over the 109 and now we're fielding a much more "serious" adversary than before.



Elvis

 

[Elvis]

The -45 engine was rated at 1325HP at sea level, 1150hp at 21,000ft.

Actually, its 1150HP @ 3000RPM @ 22400ft..

...you were close, though.


Elvis

 

[Clay_Allison]

Although Clay addressed this point, as well, in a separate post, here's something else to think about...
Why was the USAAF so keen on making the P-40 work at an altitude 1/2 of what most of the more prominent axis fighters were capable of working at?
Doesn't that seem like a fruitless design element?
NOW, ask yourself this question - What flies in the range of 10,000 to 15,000 feet on such a regular basis, and is considered such a threat, that it is felt that one needs to design an interceptor to counter it?
Answer that question and you answer your own question about the need for a second interceptor (or "fighter", if you wanna call it that).

Since he's being cryptic, information from the defeat of Poland and the battle of France was portraying the Ju-87 Stuka as a terrifying weapon and the army was horrified by the prospect of precision dive bombers wrecking their ground forces. They thought that turbocharged aircraft would be available to provide top cover but in hindsight that didn't materialize for a year.

The P-39 proved brutally effective in intercepting Ju-87s for the Russians. It would have been a good "second fighter" in the exact same role (and in escorting our own small bombers like the A-20 B-25).

 

[Shortround6]

Ok, this is a two-fold question, so let me address the "Horsepower" issue, first.
By quoting the take-off power of both engines, that gives one a better standard to compare them by.
You seem to insist on using the take-off power rating for the -45 Allison, but then quote WEP ratings for the -7 PM engine.
How can one come to any kind of logical conclusion using such different ratings?.

Except for one little fact.
The -45 Allison never recieved a WEP rating so,
A. I can't quote a rating that never existed.
b. what was the point of fitting a prop for a power rating that didn't exist?

Keep the power rating TYPE ("take-off", "...@ listed altitude", "War Emergency Power", etc.) the same when comparing the power of different engines.
Otherwise, you are doomed to draw incorrect conclusions.

Yes, that is true but you can also draw incorrect conclusions if an engine has a different power limitation than another engine. Merlins often had a lower take-off rating than their Max power rating.
Many American engines (but not all) Used a take-off rating that was equel to or higher than their altitude ratings.

I will agree that the lower powered -45 might only need a 3 bladed prop.

Now then, lets address your concerns about the prop...
Yes, by quoting take-off power, I'm not addressing the design requirement of the new propeller. They were the only relative HP figures I had on hand, at the time I made my post.
I don't have the HP figures for a V-1650-7 @22400ft., but I should see if I can't locate them.
That would relate the power figures for those engines closer to the design of the prop.
However, you seem to have forgotten that I was excited, not about the Hamilton Standard prop as you say it existed, but that prop sized and configured the same as the Curtiss-Electric prop that was already on the airplane" (i.e., 3 blades@11' dia., not 4 blades@12' dia.).
So what difference does that make? It gives the engine a managably sized propeller that is better suited for high altitude work, due to the difference in the design of the blades.
Since the point here is to make the P-40 a better high altitude fighter plane, then switching the C-E prop to the H-S prop would be a step in the right directioin.

If you were using the best figures you had available to you when you made your post, you were IMHO, making an honest atempt to present your case and I am sorry if I came across as too arguementative.

But if those figures turned out to give a wrong conclusion becasue they didn't adress the actual problem/situation wouldn't you want to be supplied with better information?

I will agree that the lower powered -45 might only need a 3 bladed prop.

Although Clay addressed this point, as well, in a separate post, here's something else to think about...
Why was the USAAF so keen on making the P-40 work at an altitude 1/2 of what most of the more prominent axis fighters were capable of working at?
Doesn't that seem like a fruitless design element?
NOW, ask yourself this question - What flies in the range of 10,000 to 15,000 feet on such a regular basis, and is considered such a threat, that it is felt that one needs to design an interceptor to counter it?
Answer that question and you answer your own question about the need for a second interceptor (or "fighter", if you wanna call it that).

Was the USAAF really "so keen on making the P-40 work at an altitude 1/2 of what most of the more prominent axis fighters were capable of working at?

Can anybody please point out a reference says the USAAF was TRYING to make the P-40 be LESS capable than it was?
Statements that they took out the turbo or other such nonsense will be ignored.
The AAF needed modern fighters in 1939. It needed a lot of them and it needed them fast. The turbo wasn't quite ready for operational use and the only 2 stage mechanical supercharger even remotely ready for production aircraft was the P&W one. This supercharger on the R-1830 offered 1200HP for take-off and 1050hp at 17,500ft in one of it's early versions and 1200hp for take off and 1000hp at 19,000 in the later Navy versions. For comparison the R-1830 used in the Early P-43 with it's not quite ready turbo offered 1200 for take-off and 1100hp normal at 20,000ft with 1200hp Military at 20,000ft. later versions raised the HP altitudes to 25,000ft.
Please note that the HP figures for the P&W 1830 with two stage supercharger aren't really much better than the power figures for Merlin MK X two speed single stage engine announced at the Paris air show in 1938.
SO what REAL choice did the AAF have?
They could have used an Allison with a higher geared supercharger like the Merlin III, and probably have gotton over 1000hp at 17,000ft or so but only at the cost of loosing 100-150hp for take-off which the heavier P-40 couldn't afford as well as the Spitfire.
They could have insisted on a two speed gear box which wuld have solved the take-off power problem but not changed things at over 20,000 ft by very much.
What else was ready to go in 1939-early 1940?
If you want aircraft that will be in squadron service over seas in the spring of the 1942 you better have DECIDED on the plane, engine and other bits in the spring of 1940. The P-47B proposal was given to the AAF in June of 1940 as a scale of timing. It took them a few months to actualy decide. in another attempt to "SKEW" the thread I will point out that Republic had a letter of intent for over 900 P-44s in Sept of 1940 so combining that with the P-38 I don't think that the AAF was deliberately ignoring the 20,000ft and up part of the sky. If you think different please post a reference.

idea: BY GEORGE, I THINK HE'S FINALLY GOT IT!

Please show me where I didn't "have It". What post/s and threads?

Saying that the P-40 couldn't have been improved at all and saying it wouldn't have been worthwhile are not the same thing.

Considering the performance of the P-40's that existed in the first half of the war, YES, I actually think that utilizing a combination of an IA -45 Allison and a H-S "hi efficiency" prop of the same diameter and configuration of the C-E prop it would replace, will actually make it a better high altitude fighter, AND, by a great margin over the -33 and -39 Allisons that were installed in that plane, in those days.
If I didn't think it would work, I wouldn't have ever brought it up.
Even if it ends up not having superior performance figures (or even ones that match) versus the 109's of the time, IT WOULD STILL GIVE THE PLANE BETTER HIGH ALTITUDE PERFORMANCE, compared to how it was configured (and I'm not saying that it won't have superior performance to the 109).
Combine this aspect with the P-40's increased maneuverability over the 109 and now we're fielding a much more "serious" adversary than before.

Care to share with us how you come up with these perfomance estimates?

THe flight manuals for the P-40D/E, P-40F/L and P-40N and maybe others are on this web site.
If you haven't yet perhaps you would like to look them up and see what the climb rates were between some of the models. Try the lighter weight climb charts at 20,000 and 25,000ft but be aware these may have been done at normal or maximum continous power rather than military power, except possiably in the case of the N model. Then compare them to Spitfire MK V time to climbs or fpm climb ratings at various altitudes and also try to get numbers for the 109F and G.

How much improvement are you going to need to match a Spitfire MK V or a 109 F or G?

A few hundred FPM climb won't cut it. Even 1000fpm of extra climb won't equel those fighters.

Can you get better performance than a P-40E, undoubtably.
Can you get better performance than a P-40F/L or N? quite probably.
Can you make a P-40 equel to even a MKV Spitfire? Now we are getting doubtful.
Can you make the P-40 equel to a 109 F-4 or G? Not in climb. or top speed.

It odes have advantages though and you might have to give up some of them in your attempt to turn the plane into a 20-25,000ft air superiority fighter.

 

[Shortround6]

Actually, its 1150HP @ 3000RPM @ 22400ft..

...you were close, though.


Elvis

Care to identify your source?

And if it is :http://www.enginehistory.org/ModDesig/I2 9.tif

Tell me when I can stop laughing.

If it is something else perhaps we can discuss it and I might be wrong.

 

[Shortround6]

Since he's being cryptic, information from the defeat of Poland and the battle of France was portraying the Ju-87 Stuka as a terrifying weapon and the army was horrified by the prospect of precision dive bombers wrecking their ground forces. They thought that turbocharged aircraft would be available to provide top cover but in hindsight that didn't materialize for a year.

The P-39 proved brutally effective in intercepting Ju-87s for the Russians. It would have been a good "second fighter" in the exact same role (and in escorting our own small bombers like the A-20 B-25).

Thank you Clay. But I am not sure that is right. I am not sure that is is wrong either.
From Information in the "Vee's for Victory" book it is claimed that the AAF ordered 524 P-40s on April 26,1939. These were to be 134 planes to be paid for with FY 39 funds and a further 66 P-40's, 22 P-40D's and 301 P-40E's to be paid for with FY 40 funds. Due to delays in the development of the V-1710-F3R engine (-39) (or the P-40D/E ?) An order was placed for 131 P-40Bs and 193 P-40C 's to be paid for with FY 41 funds to keep production lines open.
If this information is correct then it means the USAAF was ordering fighters with only the knowledge of the combat results from Spain and not Europe. This information my not be correct in which case you could be right.
Of Course this information only applies to these first batches of aircraft and not to any follow up batches of P-40 E's or K's ( I would consider the F's an attempt to improve the altitude performance of the P-40) which may very well have been ordered in line with reaon you put forward.

 

[Clay_Allison]

Thank you Clay. But I am not sure that is right. I am not sure that is is wrong either.
From Information in the "Vee's for Victory" book it is claimed that the AAF ordered 524 P-40s on April 26,1939. These were to be 134 planes to be paid for with FY 39 funds and a further 66 P-40's, 22 P-40D's and 301 P-40E's to be paid for with FY 40 funds. Due to delays in the development of the V-1710-F3R engine (-39) (or the P-40D/E ?) An order was placed for 131 P-40Bs and 193 P-40C 's to be paid for with FY 41 funds to keep production lines open.
If this information is correct then it means the USAAF was ordering fighters with only the knowledge of the combat results from Spain and not Europe. This information my not be correct in which case you could be right.
Of Course this information only applies to these first batches of aircraft and not to any follow up batches of P-40 E's or K's ( I would consider the F's an attempt to improve the altitude performance of the P-40) which may very well have been ordered in line with reaon you put forward.

For the orders you are referring to, you are definitely right, but I have read elsewhere that the Army was resistant to changes that could have been added to the D/E (I.E. a Supercharger with a higher critical altitude rating) during that delay. I'm sorry I can't provide source, I was sitting in a bookstore reading a book for free when I read that and I don't remember the title.

I also don't know how much high-altitude fighting happened in Spain. I doubt that 1936 Bf 109s and I-16s were capable of fighting any higher than 15k feet.

 

[Elvis]

...and still, he continues to argue...

Alright, whatever, Shortround.
Just a couple of things I wanted to address from your last post to me...

1) Apology accepted

2)

Was the USAAF really "so keen on making the P-40 work at an altitude 1/2 of what most of the more prominent axis fighters were capable of working at?
Can anybody please point out a reference says the USAAF was TRYING to make the P-40 be LESS capable than it was?

I never stated that the USAAF was trying to make the plane less capable than what it was.
See? this is what I'm getting at about you "skewing" posts. You state your reply in such a way that makes it seem relative to the post, but actually, all you're doing is fanning the flames of an argument.
If I didn't know better, I'd swear you were a lawyer.
Second of all, YES, the USAAF was keen on making the P-40 work at an altitude 1/2 of what most of the more prominent axis fighters were capable of.
...and if you require a quote and a link, here's what our own "JoeB" has to say on that subject.

From his website...

The P-40 was already obsolete by European standards even before the first prototype flew, and it never did catch up. Its initial inadequacies, in the form of low firepower and lack of self-sealing fuel tanks or armor, were a reflection of mid-'thirties USAAC requirements. The P-40 had been developed basically as a low-altitude close-support fighter under mid-1930s US tactical concepts which envisaged more need for low-level ground support operations than for high-altitude interceptions. Low-altitude performance and rugged construction received priority over high-altitude capabilities. The military doctrine of the "ascendancy of bombardment over pursuit" was dominant in 1937 when the P-40 first appeared. This doctrine assumed that the prospect of high-altitude enemy air attack on the USA was extremely remote, with coastal defense and ground attack in the defense of US territory being seen as the main tasks for any future fighter aircraft.

...and I'm sure that won't be good enough for you, so if you need validation on the information, its all listed at the bottom of the page the link goes to.

For the record, I believe the P-40 could have been made into a much more formidible opponent for the Me-109 (and, to some degree, the A6M "Zero") had the plane been fitted with an IA version of the -45 Allison engine, coupled with a "properly sized" version of the Hamilton-Standard "Hi-Efficiency" propeller.
You seem to think otherwise, and that's ok, but this is the premise I am standing behind.



Elvis

 

[Elvis]

Care to identify your source?

And if it is :http://www.enginehistory.org/ModDesig/I2 9.tif

Tell me when I can stop laughing.

If it is something else perhaps we can discuss it and I might be wrong.

Glad I could make your day, although I fail to see the humor.
I did get that information from Engine History's Model Designation page, however, I don't know if your link is exactly the page I found it on.
I'm on dial-up and its pretty slow out here. The link you posted never did load up for me.



Elvis

 

[Shortround6]

...and still, he continues to argue...

Yes I will continue to argue with things that I think are wrong.
Unless somebody can come up with evidence to support their position and prove mine wrong.

I never stated that the USAAF was trying to make the plane less capable than what it was.

Second of all, YES, the USAAF was keen on making the P-40 work at an altitude 1/2 of what most of the more prominent axis fighters were capable of.

Which is it?

Keen-----6. enthusiastic: eager and willing to do something
not very keen on the idea

1. in the late 30s there was ONLY ONE axis fighter that could work at the altitudes you are talking about.
2. From Joe Baugher's XP-40 page ;

"Realizing that the radial-engined P-36A was at the limit of its development, Curtiss designer Donovan Berlin got USAAC permission in July 1937 to install a 1150 hp Allison V-1710-19 liquid-cooled engine with integral supercharging in the 10th P-36A (Serial No 38-10). This project was given the company designation of Model 75P, and the USAAC gave the project a new fighter designation, XP-40."

isn't July of 1937 the first time a DB engined 109 is revealed to the west? two prototypes at an air meet? Production models don't show up for over another year. Granted this is well ahead of the P-40s time schedule but how much faster could the P-40 have been made?
3. The Allison engine doesn't pass a 150hr type test until April of 1937 and this is at 1000hp.
4. The version of the Allison chosen to power the P40 uses the highest supercharger drive gear available (8.77 to 1) meaning it gives the highest critical altitude. Later engines did use a 9.60 gear ratio but that required a redesigned supercharger drive using wider gears to handle the increase load.


or is this skewing the posts?

From his website...


...and I'm sure that won't be good enough for you, so if you need validation on the information, its all listed at the bottom of the page the link goes to.:

You are right. it isn't good enough for me. While I don't have all those books I do have some of them.
I do have some questions about this therory that the P-40 was so far behind.
1. At the time it first flew NOBODY was using armour or self sealing tanks. that they weren't installed on production models isn't quite the same question.
2. for a "close support fighter" the P-40 was horribly ill equipped.
even the P-26 Pea Shooter was equipped with bomb racks for 200lbs of bombs.
The P-35 had bomb racks.
Some Hawk 75 (P-36 airframe) models had bomb racks and yet this 'close support fighter' is provided with racks for only six 20lb bombs. About 1/3 of what the P-35 could carry.
THe USAAF already a number of 'Attack' planes that mounted two .30cal MGs in each wing so wing mounted guns isn't a new or untested idea. Sticking with two slow firing .50 cal Mg with only 200rpg (prototype) for a ground straffing aircraft doesn't seem to make sense.
3. Even if the P-40 couldn't match the 109's altitude in 1938-40 the likelyhood of a 109 reaching America was pretty small. What were the service ceilings of the worlds bombers in 1938-40? Or large flying boats or any other type of plane that might be expected to actually make it to America? Did the P-40 have enough performance to intercept any "likely" target?

If the P-40 can intercept any likely target that could threaten America for the next several years after it is ordered why delay ordering the P-40 while trying to come up with something even better. It is not like the USAAF had a surplus of fighters that could perforem anywhere near as well as the P-40 to tide them over until newer, better P-40s or P-38 showed up in numbers.

For the record, I believe the P-40 could have been made into a much more formidible opponent for the Me-109 (and, to some degree, the A6M "Zero") had the plane been fitted with an IA version of the -45 Allison engine, coupled with a "properly sized" version of the Hamilton-Standard "Hi-Efficiency" propeller.
You seem to think otherwise, and that's ok, but this is the premise I am standing behind.
Elvis

I think I got that part. what you haven't explained is why this combination is going to perform so much better than a P-40F. I could be in error here. When I get the time I will try charting the power of the two engines and see how far apart they are in power at a few altitudes.
I also haven't seen (or did I miss it) how an 1150 HP engine in even a 7500lb plane beats an 1100-1200hp engine in a 6100lb plane (Bf 109F-4 operating several thousand feet above critical altitude with 1/2 tank of fuel).

 

[Shortround6]

Glad I could make your day, although I fail to see the humor.
I did get that information from Engine History's Model Designation page, however, I don't know if your link is exactly the page I found it on.
I'm on dial-up and its pretty slow out here. The link you posted never did load up for me.
Elvis

It should be the same.

It has been pointed out before, this document has a number of errors. It is a very useful, quick reference and can certainly point the way for further study but it should not be taken as the 'last word' in an arguement.
IN additon to the fighter/ pursuit designation thing there are weights that are off, fuel requiements that are way off, altitudes for power ratings that are off by 10,000ft (simple typo, a 2 instead of a 1) extra digits showing up in impellor diameters and many others.

I am not sure that any one document/book can be taken as the "last word". One does have to use a bit of judgement to see if a number is too far outside the 'norm'.

 

[renrich]

I see that the effort to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear is still going on for the members of the P40 Appreciation Society. It makes for and interesting and entertaining debate and I am enjoying. Many thanks.

 

[Elvis]

I see that the effort to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear is still going on for the members of the P40 Appreciation Society. It makes for and interesting and entertaining debate and I am enjoying. Many thanks.

Good thing I wasn't drinking any milk or else I'd have shot it out of my nose and across the room, after reading that.
LOL! That was good Renrich.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Shortround6,

LOL! Whatever you wanna think is cool by me. I've stated my point. Thank you all for reading. The dinner show will start at 7:30.



Elvis

 

[vikingBerserker]

I see that the effort to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear is still going on for the members of the P40 Appreciation Society. It makes for and interesting and entertaining debate and I am enjoying. Many thanks.

Ok, that was funny as hell!

 

[renrich]

I think that what would make for a stimulating discussion would be to get the P40 Appreciation Society and the Brewster Buffalo Appreciation Society to have a joint meeting and decide which aircraft is most underappreciated. The winner gets the Sows Ear into the Silk Purse award.

 

[Clay_Allison]

I think that what would make for a stimulating discussion would be to get the P40 Appreciation Society and the Brewster Buffalo Appreciation Society to have a joint meeting and decide which aircraft is most underappreciated. The winner gets the Sows Ear into the Silk Purse award.

Too bad we didn't give any P-40s to Finland.

 

[Elvis]

Clay,

They got the P-36, instead (although not from us)....and they made a winner out of that one, too.
Would've been interesting, though, in that it seems they used their fighters differently than the Russians did.
...oh well, the Finns ended up with the 109 anyway.
I'm surprised they didn't "borrow" the J-22 from the Swedes.
Of course, that would've been 1943 and the Continuation War was almost over by then.
I think they were actually starting transfer of 109's by then anyway.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Renrich,

That was only funny the first time.




Elvis

 

[Elvis]

Sorry, just had to make the post count a nice round number.




Elvis