P-40 with Griffon engine

[Elvis]

Nothing really to do with the conversation that's happening, just a really cool pic of an early P-40 in flight.....

...caption for the picture reads as follows; Curtiss-Wright's Chief Test Pilot, H. Lloyd Child, in the cockpit of a P-40 Warhawk, circa 1940. (Rudy Arnold Collection/NASM)
Pic courtesy of This Day in Aviation for April 26, 1939.


Elvis

 

[Elvis]

...one more cool pic. This time its "Jacky C", flying over Long Island in the evening...

...from Mike Killian's Photography website

I find it interesting just how small the plane looks in this photo.
I've seen pics of 109's that gave me the same feeling.

Elvis

 

[gjs238]

View attachment 585150

I think the improved P-40 did exist though and it was the P-40Q. Basically a long tailed P-40K or a P-40N (depending on the specific model of the 3 prototypes) with a two-stage (and water injected) Allison engine and some fairly extensive streamlining, and a bit of a plumbing change (putting radiator intake scoops in the wings, while the oil cooler remained in the nose) and toward the end of the test series, slightly clipped wings... resulting in what would have been a fast and deadly dogfighter. Curtiss got this together a bit late, and basically dropped the ball with a series of prototype crashes. That on top of all the other aggravations and failed designs they had offered up to the USAAF, and it sealed the fate of the old Warhawk series fighter.

However if Curtiss had this working & into productoin say a year to six months earlier, it probably did have a niche.

I think the woulda coulda shoulda hit right there. It could have been a Griffon or a 60 series Merlin a year or two earlier, but I'm not sure if Curtiss had the werewithal any more. Even their regular P-40Ns, which was probably their most successful design, were having build quality problems by the end of the production run. That company had just lost their Mojo. Probably the death knell was when Don Berlin left, but I'm sure he left due to the stench that was already pervading the place.

Beautiful plane, but a day late and a dollar short.
Sometimes it's fashionable to show up late to the party, sometimes not.

 

[wuzak]

In regards to Optimal Altitude, if you're referring to the single stage Merlin, that increased working height could be a factor of a larger impeller working with a slightly smaller engine displacement....thus my earlier comments about utilizing the 12.18" impeller. Normally, the Allison used a 9.5" impeller in single stage configuration.
The Merlin normally used a 12" impeller.

The single stage Merlin usually had a 10.25" impeller.
IIRC the cropped impeller Merlins had a 9.5" impeller.
The Merlin 47 had a 10.85" impeller.

The two stage Merlins had a larger first stage.
The Merlin 61 had 11.5"/10.1" impellers.
Merlin 63 (?) onwards had 12"/10.1" impellers.
Merlin RM.17SM had 12.7"/10.7" impellers.

The Vulture had a 12" diameter impeller.

 

[wuzak]

I'm not sure what the problem was, maybe by the time they got them they had improved production sufficiently had had later model engines available. I know that some aircraft which came from Canada were rejected due to build quality problems. I think I remember something about ailerons...

Has anybody else heard about Packard Merlins being pulled in favour of Rolls-Royce Merlins?

Later model engines? Lancasters had XX series Merlins except the Mk II (Hercules) and a small number with 2 stage engines.

The main versions of the Lancaster were the B.I and B.III. The B.III was almost identical to the B.I except it had the Packard engines and controls modified to suit.

All Canadian built Mosquitoes had XX series Merlins.

The Spitfire IX with a Packard engine became the Spitfire XVI.

Of the 55,000+ Merlins made by Packard, the majority were sent to the UK. More than half, maybe 2/3,

 

[GregP]

I've heard people TALK about one Merlin being better than the other (British or U.S.) but, in practice, I've never heard of one being pulled for the sake of National origin. I would not rule that out during WWII, but have personally never heard of an actual incident of an engine being changed just for National pride. I fully believe someone might swap out one engine for another one when the engine was pulled anyway due to damage or overhaul or whatever, but pulling a perfectly good-running engine for that reason alone might completely alienate your crew chief ... not something anyone but an idiot would do on purpose.

As for the reality of British versus American, all Merlins had to pass testing at factory settings. I think there are likely more U.S. Merlins in the U.S.A. and likely more British Merlins in Europe just because the majority of flying warbirds over here are U.S. warbirds and I'd assume the majority of flying warbirds in Europe are of European origin. I could be wrong about Europe, but have been to enough U.S. airshows to say the majority here are U.S. warbirds because that is what was available here when they came to the civil market. I'm assuming that British warbirds, for instance, were the main warbirds available in the U.K. when THEY came to the civil market, but I have no real personal knowledge of that as I have never looked very hard at British civil warbird history.

I HAVE seen at least three U.S. Allisons get built-up and sent to Russia for use in former Soviet warbirds. Two of them are in an Il-2 and a MiG-3. Not sure about the third one, but seeing a former Soviet WWII warbird flying is way cool regardless of the engine in it. I'd love to see several sets of parts for a Mikulin AM-35/38 along with drawings and manuals come here to a good shop, but I have never heard of a stash of WWII Soviet engines or parts. There are a few in museums, but that is not enough of a potential population to start an overhaul company with.

 

[wuzak]

It also defeats the purpose of getting engines built in the US.

 

[P-39 Expert]

...one more cool pic. This time its "Jacky C", flying over Long Island in the evening...

View attachment 585175

...from Mike Killian's Photography website

I find it interesting just how small the plane looks in this photo.
I've seen pics of 109's that gave me the same feeling.

Elvis

I think a lot of modern pilots make their WWII planes look smaller by wearing a bigger hard helmet instead of the leather helmets they wore back in WWII. Makes the pilot look bigger so the plane appears smaller. I don't know.

 

[Elvis]

I wasn't just looking at the helmet, but yeah, I can see where that might make a difference.

 

[GregP]

If something happens, a modern jet helmet gives WAY more head protection than an old leather helmet as well as having built-in electronics for communications and hearing protection. That's a win-win for the pilot regardless of how authentic it may not be.

There was a guy (Steve Appleton) out there with a full glass panel in a two-seat Hawker Hunter. It wasn't authentic and also had an uprated engine, but was a wonder of functionality. Unfortunately, he was later killed in the crash of a Turboprop Lancair IV in Boise, ID.

Improvements when the aircraft is out of military service are actually improvements.

 

[Elvis]

Greg, wasn't Steve a member here at one time?
His name sounds familiar.

 

[GregP]

Steve Hinton is one of the higher-time warbird pilots in the world. He should sound familiar if you are a WWII - Korean War-era aircraft fan. Being the president of the Planes of Fame, he flies everything in our flyable inventory, from the Boeing P-26 Peashooter to the A6M5 Model 52 to the F-86 / MiG-15-bis and a lot more including many first flights of just-restored warbirds.

I'm not too sure if Steve was or is a member here, but he pays attention to a lot of things and I would not be surprised to find him in here. Neither would I assume he has time to read threads arguing about what-ifs that never happened. He seems firmly rooted in what is real and flyable, but you never know, do you?

 

[wuzak]

Steve Hinton is one of the higher-time warbird pilots in the world. He should sound familiar if you are a WWII - Korean War-era aircraft fan. Being the president of the Planes of Fame, he flies everything in our flyable inventory, from the Boeing P-26 Peashooter to the A6M5 Model 52 to the F-86 / MiG-15-bis and a lot more including many first flights of just-restored warbirds.

I'm not too sure if Steve was or is a member here, but he pays attention to a lot of things and I would not be surprised to find him in here. Neither would I assume he has time to read threads arguing about what-ifs that never happened. He seems firmly rooted in what is real and flyable, but you never know, do you?

Elvis may have been referring to Steve Appleton, who was mentioned in your post prior to this.

 

[Elvis]

...we were at war with Korea?

...just kidding. Yes, I was referring to Steve Appleton, but it would be very cool if Steve Hinton were a member here too!

 

[P-39 Expert]

The P-40 didn't climb well, but exactly how badly it climbed depended on the variant. and the power setting. You are referring to a D or E used at lower rated takeoff or military power. The Tomahawk (B, C) had a 2,800 fpm + initial climb rate. The K had almost a 3,000 fpm rate as well if climbing at higher power settings they used in the field up to about 12,000 ft. The P-40L-10 climbed at 3,300 fpm according to "The Curtiss Hawks", Wolverine Press, 1972 - P.234 and Carl Molesworth's, "Snub nosed Kittyhawks and Warhawks" (2013), P. 32

P-40F was the same as the L when they were stripped down for fighter combat, as they usually were in the MTO. But climbing performance wasn't the only measure of a fighter.

Without any doubt we could debate stats all day long which would be quite pointless. I'm not talking about performance stats, I'm talking about the operational history. The P-39 and P-40 were used roughly in the same quantities in the Pacific, in fact there were more P-39s deployed during several key battles such as at Guadalcanal (probably because on paper they looked like they would be better) and yet P-39 units claimed less than half as many victories as P-40 equipped units did (288 for P-39s vs 660 for P-40s) suffered more losses, and had a lower morale. If you include the ANZAC P-40 units that's another 248 victories. So I would say P-40s did a lot better there.

In the CBI the ratio was 5 claims for P-39 equipped units vs. 973 for P-40 units (only counting US and not Chinese units here). I don't think that many P-39s were used in the CBI though.

In the MTO, where P-39s were available in some numbers and for a comparatively long time, US units equipped with that fighter only claimed 25 victories, vs. 592 for P-40 equipped units. If you add Commonwealth units equipped with P-40s that goes up to 1042.

The total number of victory claims for US P-40 units in WW2 was 2225, making it 5th for all US fighter types, abvoe the F43U and the F4F. The total for the P-39 was 320.5, making it 10th, just above the SBD Dauntless. Source

There was also only one pilot who made Ace in the US military who flew P-39s, vs. at least 86 for the P-40. Not counting another 46 British Commonwealth pilots who became Ace while flying the P-40.

Now of course we know overclaiming was a thing, and I'm sure actual victories were far lower than 2225, but there is no reason I can think of to assume that that units equipped with P-40s, recruited from the same pool of pilots as the units equipped with the P-39s, would have been overclaiming at a higher rate.

In the Med, the P-39 was considered so ineffective in combat that they were relegated for a long time to 'Coastal Patrol' operations. At the same time the P-40 equipped units were bearing the brunt of combat with the Luftwaffe and Regia Aeronautica. Only later when improved models became available were P-39s used for CAS and bombing strikes, though they were limited in this role by their short range.

The P-39 proved it's merit in Russian hands, but with the Western Allies it was a major disappointment and when it came time to face the enemy, they failed in the litmus test, underperforming, whereas the P-40 tended to overperform vs. expectations, paticularly in the mid-war period. P-39s were tricky to fly and accidents also cost the lives of some very talented pilots flying for the Italian Co-Belligerent Air Force and the Free French. The Soviets may have been uniquely qualified to use it, or maybe the Americans just didn't give it the propepr work up it needed. The bott

How the P-39 and P-40 were deployed is a debate for another time. And there were quite a few Russian aces in the P-39.

No P-40 was as fast or climbed as well as any contemporary P-39. The P-40 was a 340mph airplane, barely faster than a Zero. The ultimate P-40, an N-5 model, topped out at 350mph when the P-39N would do right at 400mph. The only advantage the P-40 had was only slightly in maneuverability. Many AAF aces started their score in P-39s.

While neither the P-40 nor P-39 were developed to their potential with a two stage engine, the P-39 outperformed the P-40 in virtually every respect. This is obvious since the P-40 weighed 8400# and the P-39 weighed 7650#. 750# makes a big difference in performance when both planes had the same engine.

 

[Shortround6]

P-40 wasn't quite as bad as you make out. The P-40N-5 at 8300lb had 157 gallons of internal fuel and the test that showed 350mph top speed was done with both the belly tank rack/braces and a rack/braces for a 500lb bomb under each wing. The racks/braces were empty but were present. also the 350mph speed was done at military power, the test of the N-5 did not include the use of WEP.
By this time most P-40s were being used as tactical bombers, range tests were done with various combinations of drop tanks and bombs, like a 75 gallon tank under the fuselage and a 500lb under each wing. they even ran a test with a 170 gallon tank under the fuselage and a pair of 500lb bombs. The P-39 may have been a better air to air fighter but the P-40s were being switched to a different role in late 1943 and early 1944

 

[GregP]

Steve Appleton was CEO of Micron in Boise, ID. He had two Hawker Hunters when I lived in Boise (around 2005). One was a single-seat model, but the jewel was a two-seat Hunter trainer with an uprated engine and a complete glass panel. I'm pretty sure it would have gone supersonic, but that was never in the cards as a priority unless he took it out over the ocean and did it. Unfortunately, Steve was killed in a Lancair IV turboprop in 2012.

 

[Schweik]

You are again low-balling, and talking about low power settings. Just like with a lot of British aircraft, P-40 performance improved as the boost levels increased. The P-40K was 360 + mph even at the lower engine settings. The stripped down "interceptor" variant of the P-40N made 378 mph, the P-40F made 370 mph. according to one of the fairly strict British tests. In general they weren't as fast as P-39s - I would tend to agree with that - though in the field the P-39 seemed to lag behind theoretical paper performance particularly in the PTO. And P-40s were potentially heavier - they carried a lot more fuel for one thing. But they also had a bigger wing, and seemed to be more controllable at higher speeds. P-39 pilots complained about instability and the tendancy to go into spins, especially the dreaded flat spin. As you are no doubt aware they earned the nickname "iron dog" in the Pacific, largely for that reason.

Bottom line is again, in comparison with the A6M - P-40 units like the 49th FG, 23rd FG etc. more than held their own and shot down large numbers of Japanese aircraft and had dozens of aces. You can't say the same for P-39 equipped units unfortunately.

I think the P-39 did have potential to be a good fighter in certain circumstances. Russian pilots who had trained on notoriously 'twitchy' planes like the I-16 and the MiG-3 were able to handle the Airacobra. But there is no denying the P-40 had a much better record with the Western Allies, and I suspect, overall for the entire war effort, as it did pretty well for the Russians too, as they had a large number of P-40 Aces and numerous double aces or better, multiple HSU etc. Their main issue with it was maintenance related. For some reason P-39 seemed to do a lot better in the Winter conditions.

 

[gordonm1]

I haven't seen this in writing but it seems to me the P40 became able to do a fair amount of damage when they got the six .50 cal wing guns working and employed the run and gun tactics. They were then much more able to take out a plane or seriously damage vehicles up to light armor in a single pass(enough to take on the Japanese). For strict air to air, dropping to four wing guns helped performance and/or allowed more rounds per gun for longer firing time. The mid engine design of the P39 made it more difficult to upgrade and it was small and short ranged. I'm not sure of the P39 bomb loadings if any. The P40 might have ended up looking like a Typhoon/Tempest by the time a Griffon was added.

I was hoping that thread about P40 losses and kills was going to continue from last winter.

 

[Schweik]

Yeah I want to get around to that but I have really not had the time. Too many other irons in the fire. I will one day though. Or somebody else can.