P-40 with Griffon engine

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

spicmart

Staff Sergeant
828
150
May 11, 2008
Would a P-40 with Griffon engine have been a competitive late war fighter?
 
Maybe it would have been possible to move the fuel tank under the cockpit somewhere else to install a less draggy ventral radiator like the K-61, the Yajovlev and Italian fighters have.
 
Maybe it would have been possible to move the fuel tank under the cockpit somewhere else to install a less draggy ventral radiator like the K-61, the Yajovlev and Italian fighters have.

Why do people automatically assume the radiator on the P-40 was so bad?
Or assume that all ventral radiators were good?

The P-40 was fitted with several different radiator set-ups, While test results may be lacking we can note that they never changed the production versions.
 
Why do people automatically assume the radiator on the P-40 was so bad?
Or assume that all ventral radiators were good?

The P-40 was fitted with several different radiator set-ups, While test results may be lacking we can note that they never changed the production versions.

Indeed.

The XP-40 had a ventral radiator, but it was changed because it was so bad and didn't work.
 
Maybe but why would you?, why fit good engines into P40's and Hurricanes when you could fit them into Spitfires and Mustangs instead.

Indeed the Griffon had been designed to fit into space left by the Merlin. As a result the Griffon engine Spitfire XII could be in service in 1942. Given there was P40's with Merlins the changeover would be relatively easy.

I think a Griffon P40 would have worked fine. P40's with the two speed supercharger Merlin 20 worked better than the Allison versions. Had the P40 been given the two speed two stage Merlin 60 I think the P40 would have had a 400mph speed as least as fast as the Spitfire. Early Griffons were going into Spitfire XII and there must have been few to spare.

License production of the Griffon is an interesting thought.
 
Indeed.

The XP-40 had a ventral radiator, but it was changed because it was so bad and didn't work.

Why didn't the ventral radiator work?

IIrc chin radiators were the worst dragwise.

An annular or drum radiator like late-war German planes featured would have been a simple and dragwise efficient solution to make the P-40 a fighter in the Spitfire XIV and Fw 190D category.
 
Last edited:
It seems to me that the additional power and altitude ratings would have improved performance, but what would be the benefit when there were better airframes that would benefit from the same power plants (Mustang/Spitfire)?
 
It seems to me that the additional power and altitude ratings would have improved performance, but what would be the benefit when there were better airframes that would benefit from the same power plants (Mustang/Spitfire)?

I understand that the Mustang was a better airframe as it could carry much more fuel and needed fewer horsepower.
I wonder if the P-40Q airframe could have been modified to accommodate larger tanks.
But a P-40Q with Griffon should have been the equal of the Spitfire Mk XIV.
 
The P-40Q was a very good airplane, but it DID come to the table somewhat late. It flew Jun 43, but didn't really make a splash until Nov 43. The thought to install a Griffon engine could have been as early as the first XP-40Q since the Griffon was around at the time. But isolationist views at the time likely would have prevented Curtiss and the Army from buying other than an American. The Merlin in the P-51B first flew 30 Nov 42. The only reason they tried the Merlin was that it was not a fighter anticipated to be used by the USAAC/F. Once they flew it, it was another story.

So, the move to put a Griffon in the P-40 might easily have cropped up if they had any Griffons ... that is doubtful since the Griffon was being used in the UK and the U.S.A. wasn't making them. I doubt the British had the Griffon capacity to export them to the U.S.A. Still, the beast would have been interesting!

A P-40Q bubble-canopy variant COULD have been flying in late 1943 - early 1944, but never materialized. Another "might have been" that could have made a difference in the war.
 
Last edited:
Indeed the Griffon had been designed to fit into space left by the Merlin. As a result the Griffon engine Spitfire XII could be in service in 1942. Given there was P40's with Merlins the changeover would be relatively easy.

The only reason why a Griffon P-51 didn't go too much further than initial analysis is that NAA considered the number of changes required to be excessive.

The Spitfire XII entered service in early 1943,


Early Griffons were going into Spitfire XII and there must have been few to spare.

There were not many to spare. Apart from the Spitfire XII, Griffons were going to the Fairey Firefly.

There were only ~8,000 Griffons of all marks built, and that includes many built post-war.
 
Why didn't the ventral radiator work?

IIrc chin radiators were the worst dragwise.

An annular or drum like late-war German planes featured would have been a simple and dragwise efficient solution to make the P-40 a fighter in the Spitfire XIV and Fw 190D category.

Why didn't it work? Two words. Curtiss. Wright.

Only joking, but the design may have suffered from excessive turbulence from the under surface of the aircraft.

The Hawker Tornado prototype also started with a ventral radiator that didn't work, and was switched to the chin position very quickly.

It worked for Hawker on the Hurricane, but not the Tornado.
 
Packard was set up to be capable of producing Griffons, but not simultaneously with Merlins according to the Fedden Mission

Packard Griffon.PNG
 
Why didn't the ventral radiator work?

IIrc chin radiators were the worst dragwise.

An annular or drum radiator like late-war German planes featured would have been a simple and dragwise efficient solution to make the P-40 a fighter in the Spitfire XIV and Fw 190D category.

An annular radiator was tried on a Tempest, it had a translating cowling, and proved superior to the chin radiator. The larger surface area meant lowere pressure loss and therefore lower drag. It wasn't pursued because it created a Centre of Gravity shift forward that would have disrupted production to implement design corrections.

The problem with a belly radiator is it also prevents carriage of drop tanks and bombs.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back