P-40s "particularly difficult to handle"?

OldGeezer · Aug 4, 2021

While going through State Department records in connection with something else, I noticed a very strange comment that I thought I'd put out here. On December 19, 1940, the Secretary of State commented on a request by Greece for 30 current-model P-40s: "In as much as all of the P–40 planes now being produced are earmarked for Great Britain..." - really? All of them? I thought maybe they meant all of the ones cleared for export, but from later content it's certainly not just that. The message went on to say that the Brits offered Greece an equivalent number of Defiants if the Greeks would agree to cancel their request for P-40s. The Greeks at first apparently said yes, then wised up and insisted on the original agreement, which led to the oddest comment of all: "...while the American Government has no intention of withdrawing the offer made to Greece, the informed authorities of this Government consider that Greece would be well-advised to accept the British offer for several reasons: (1) the time of delivery and shipment to Greece of the P–40's is uncertain; (2) the P–40 plane is said to be particularly difficult to handle, and partly for this reason our Army is not accepting any further planes of this type..."

I don't recall ever hearing that the P-40 was unusually hard to control, and I certainly never encountered anything saying that the Army quit accepting them for service at that time. Does anyone know anything more about this?

tyrodtom · Aug 4, 2021

They were noted for having a lot of ground looping incidents.

special ed · Aug 4, 2021

As December 19th 1940 was the day I was born, those concerned may have giddy with excitement.

GregP · Aug 4, 2021

In reality, we accepted P-40s for most of the war, the last 80 being accepted in Nov 44. We flew them for the entire war, right up until the last day.

GrauGeist · Aug 4, 2021

I'm wondering if that statement was made in an attempt at discouraging the Greeks' from pursuing their order with Curtiss?

FLYBOYJ · Aug 4, 2021

I've always heard tidbits about the P-40 having a tendency to groundloop. I don't know how much credence we can put into that as there were many used in a training environment.

GregP · Aug 4, 2021

Hi FlyboyJ, From what I've heard, the "long fuselage" airframes, such as the P-40F-5 and onward, were easier to keep straight than the earlier short-fuselage units. But, I've also never heard that either one was particularly difficult to keep pointed down the runway.

Snautzer01 · Aug 4, 2021

FLYBOYJ said:
I've always heard tidbits about the P-40 having a tendency to groundloop. I don't know how much credence we can put into that as there were many used in a training environment.

In my thread about spitfires there are more then a few american ones with nose into the ground. Does that make it a difficult plane or perhaps more of a pilot error? I am sure flying was not the problem nor fighting. I guess it takes a while getting the you know whats about a perticular airframe. Specially landing a high powered airframe with not to many landings to show. Later on in war the fellows should have gotten ample expirience time wise.

Dana Bell · Aug 4, 2021

Hi guys,

The original P-40 (no suffix) was a bitch to land. Of 200 delivered, 50 (25%) were damaged in ground looping accidents. Others (no records of numbers) were destroyed in more serious accidents. The 50 P-40Gs were the damaged P-40s rebuilt with Tomahawk wings, since the original P-40 wings were no longer in production.

The AAF had no plans to continue P-40 production, so the Greek note might have referred to the Tomahawk, which continued in production as the Army awaited the new P-40D. Problems with the shorter Allison gearbox forced the Army to accept more long-nosed aircraft based on the Tomahawk. Note the P-40B and C serials were: all were ordered after the P-40D.

Solutions to the ground looping problem included redesigning the wing fillet, lengthening the tail wheel, training pilots to avoid three-point landings (please land main wheels first), and eventually lengthening the aft fuselage, rudder, and fin strake.

(Didn't anyone read my book?)

Cheers,

Dana

OldGeezer · Aug 4, 2021

GrauGeist said:
I'm wondering if that statement was made in an attempt at discouraging the Greeks' from pursuing their order with Curtiss?

I read a lot of pages of State Department archival material on this, and we were pulling the old bait-and-switch on them. Apparently we'd worded the initial offer to imply that the Greeks would be getting the latest US model fighters that were in production and in service here, i.e. Tomahawks that would be diverted from the British orders, knowing full well that the Brits wouldn't go along with the deal. They (Brits) countered with an offer to substitute Defiants, which the Greeks initially seemed to be OK with until they took a look at exactly what a Defiant was. They then retracted their initial acceptance on the grounds that they didn't need heavy slow-climbing 2-seaters, they needed fast single-seaters and they wanted the Tomahawks that they felt they'd been promised. Things went back and forth for awhile until the Brits offered up a batch of Mohawks. Under Secretary of State Welles told them that "both the Mohawk and Tomahawk planes were of American manufacture and of the latest type. This information seemed to be very welcome to the Minister who apparently had in mind his Government's unwillingness to accept a previous offer of British Defiant planes." Calling P-36s "the latest type" was quite a stretch, but in the end it didn't make any difference; Greece was defeated before any of these were ever delivered.

Snautzer01 · Aug 4, 2021

Dana Bell said:
Hi guys,

The original P-40 (no suffix) was a bitch to land. Of 200 delivered, 50 (25%) were damaged in ground looping accidents. Others (no records of numbers) were destroyed in more serious accidents. The 50 P-40Gs were the damaged P-40s rebuilt with Tomahawk wings, since the original P-40 wings were no longer in production.

The AAF had no plans to continue P-40 production, so the Greek note might have referred to the Tomahawk, which continued in production as the Army awaited the new P-40D. Problems with the shorter Allison gearbox forced the Army to accept more long-nosed aircraft based on the Tomahawk. Note the P-40B and C serials were: all were ordered after the P-40D.

Solutions to the ground looping problem included redesigning the wing fillet, lengthening the tail wheel, training pilots to avoid three-point landings (please land main wheels first), and eventually lengthening the aft fuselage, rudder, and fin strake.

(Didn't anyone read my book?)

Cheers,

Dana

I did not, but a i kinda did get it straight. Its training for a good part.. Like the bf109. Now what book did i miss Dana? I would like to read that one, as 1 or 2 of the others i have from you, that i enjoyed.
Thank you.

Greyman · Aug 4, 2021

One of the top P-40 pilots of the entire war, James Francis "Stocky" Edwards, had this to say (about the Kittyhawk, granted, but I think everything would apply to the Tomahawk as well):

"In my estimation, the Kittyhawk Mk.I was not an easy aircraft to fly properly and, as a result, we lost a good number of pilots while training. Some Hurricane pilots flatly refused to fly it, preferring to go back to Hurricane squadrons. In the first few months after conversion to Kittyhawks, all the squadrons lost heavily to the 109s. It didn't seem to matter whether they were sprogs, sergeant pilots, or Battle of Britain veterans. The 109s still hacked them down.

Our pilots seemed to be at a great disadvantage trying to learn how to fly the aircraft while carrying out operational sorties. I'm certain this is why many of our experienced pilots were shot down. This was coupled with the rapid turnover of COs and Flight Commanders.

I found that one had to have a very strong right arm to control the Kittyhawk I during most manoeuvres ... in dive bombing, the aircraft would pick up speed very quickly in a dive, but it had a great tendency to roll to the right. One could trim this out reasonably well with the left hand, but even then, when one pulled up, it wanted to roll to the left quite violently. So I learned to trim out about half-way in a dive and hold the control stick central by bracing my arm against my leg and the cockpit wall. I found I had more control this way and didn't have to take off so much trim when pulling out and the speed was reduced. It was also distracting to have one's left hand on the trim all the time, when it should be on the throttle.

... in a dog-fight with violent changes in speed, it was all one could do to fly the aircraft. Since the Kittyhawk would fish-tail and skid violently if not flown smoothly, there was little chance of hitting anything, so I had the mercury ball portion of a needle and bank instrument placed right below my gunsight. That way I could see it all the time without staring at it - it took all the guesswork out of flying smoothly. In every aircraft I flew on operations to the end of the war, I had my groundcrew install this instrument below the gunsight.

The Kittyhawk Mk.II (F series) with the Packard-Merlin engine was a definite improvement in lateral stability over the Kitty I."

FLYBOYJ · Aug 4, 2021

Dana Bell said:
Hi guys,

The original P-40 (no suffix) was a bitch to land. Of 200 delivered, 50 (25%) were damaged in ground looping accidents. Others (no records of numbers) were destroyed in more serious accidents. The 50 P-40Gs were the damaged P-40s rebuilt with Tomahawk wings, since the original P-40 wings were no longer in production.

The AAF had no plans to continue P-40 production, so the Greek note might have referred to the Tomahawk, which continued in production as the Army awaited the new P-40D. Problems with the shorter Allison gearbox forced the Army to accept more long-nosed aircraft based on the Tomahawk. Note the P-40B and C serials were: all were ordered after the P-40D.

Solutions to the ground looping problem included redesigning the wing fillet, lengthening the tail wheel, training pilots to avoid three-point landings (please land main wheels first), and eventually lengthening the aft fuselage, rudder, and fin strake.

(Didn't anyone read my book?)

Cheers,

Dana

Hi Dana -

Great info! Avoiding 3 point landings are usually SOP on high performance taildraggers, even in the bug smashing world. I've flown 180hp Supercubs that could bite you very quickly in the 3-point, I always preferred a wheels landing, especially with any bit of crosswind.

I know Thom Richard from American Airpower Museum, he's actively flying a P-40, I'll hit him up and get his present day take.

Shortround6 · Aug 4, 2021

Sometimes you can read between the lines.

In the 1943 Pilots manual when they had pretty much decided to phase out the P-40 the introduction tells the pilot (student?) not to disappointed they have to spend a few weeks flying P-40s before going on to P-47s or P-5s. The introduction tells them that if the can fly a P-40 they can fly anything.

Greg Boeser · Aug 4, 2021

Dana Bell said:
Hi guys,

The original P-40 (no suffix) was a bitch to land. Of 200 delivered, 50 (25%) were damaged in ground looping accidents. Others (no records of numbers) were destroyed in more serious accidents. The 50 P-40Gs were the damaged P-40s rebuilt with Tomahawk wings, since the original P-40 wings were no longer in production.

The AAF had no plans to continue P-40 production, so the Greek note might have referred to the Tomahawk, which continued in production as the Army awaited the new P-40D. Problems with the shorter Allison gearbox forced the Army to accept more long-nosed aircraft based on the Tomahawk. Note the P-40B and C serials were: all were ordered after the P-40D.

Solutions to the ground looping problem included redesigning the wing fillet, lengthening the tail wheel, training pilots to avoid three-point landings (please land main wheels first), and eventually lengthening the aft fuselage, rudder, and fin strake.

(Didn't anyone read my book?)

Cheers,

Dana

I would gladly accept a free copy to proofread.

BiffF15 · Aug 4, 2021

Shortround6 said:
Sometimes you can read between the lines.

In the 1943 Pilots manual when they had pretty much decided to phase out the P-40 the introduction tells the pilot (student?) not to disappointed they have to spend a few weeks flying P-40s before going on to P-47s or P-5s. The introduction tells them that if the can fly a P-40 they can fly anything.

Does it say the same in the P-39 manual?

FLYBOYJ · Aug 4, 2021

So this is what I got from Thom, very surprised!

nuuumannn · Aug 4, 2021

I can't say for certain about the P-40 and its handling, I'll leave that to the experts, but it's worth mentioning that the most modern fighter the Hellenic air Force had at the time was the PZL P-24, which was quite a different machine to a P-40 in terms of performance envelope and available engine power. The Defiant decision is an odd one, not heard of that before and peculiar given its role; were the British attempting to foister the type onto the Greeks after it didn't work out as a day fighter, or did the Brits want to protect their stock of Spits and Hurris?

GrauGeist · Aug 5, 2021

Well, the RAF did unload their unwanted Airacobras on the Soviets...

So it would make sense to try and sell the Daffys and recoup some money spent.

Greg Boeser · Aug 5, 2021

They also politely returned many P-400s to the Americans.

P-40s "particularly difficult to handle"?

Airman 1st Class

Senior Master Sergeant

2nd Lieutenant

Major

Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Major

Honourably banned

Senior Airman

Airman 1st Class

Honourably banned

Tech Sergeant

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Major General

1st Sergeant

Tech Sergeant

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Major

Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung

1st Sergeant

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads