Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
P-40Q, reasonably better than the K it was modified fromWould it have been feasible for Curtiss to give the P-40 a laminar flow wing and lessen the performance gap to the P-51 which still had the more efficient cooling system.
Bill - the wings on the (X)P-40Q were still the same as on the other P-40s.P-40Q, reasonably better than the K it was modified from
Agreed Tomo - I should have clarified that the improvements did Not include XP-60 Low Drag wingBill - the wings on the (X)P-40Q were still the same as on the other P-40s.
Manufacturing process and quality was One of the 'keys'. NAA Proposed and delivered to Dr. Milliken's multi-point recommendations for High Speed Pursuit (Cal-Tech), published in 1938. Flush rivets, priming/filling/sanding and painting wing from LE to 50% chord top and bottom of wing, development of airframe master lines with second order curves via development of Projective Geometry at NAA by Liming and Weebe, placing the imbedded radiator/oil cooler aft of wing center of pressure, design and improving design for Meredith effect cooling scheme, design for and improvement of exhaust stack to improve exhaust gas thrust - Plus the Low Drag Wing.The key to the P-51 was not its "laminar flow" wing, but in the attention to detail and manufacturing "cleanliness". NA was able to manufacture an airplane with better skin waviness and smaller panel to panel mismatches and gaps. Curtiss and Bell aircraft often look like someone put them together with a big hammer.
Part of that was tooling. I know one company that was still tooling the forward fuselage to an inner mold surface into the 21st century. Added stringers, frames, clips and then external skin, and all the additive tolerances. No one should be surprised how ragged that ended up looking.