Packard P40

[Shortround6]

.If you can't wrap your head around that simple fact, then read the flight reports. Nothing whatsoever bad to say. It would not have taken any Merlin engines or Hamilton-Standard props and would not have affected the P-51's in any way. But, it didn't happen.

So ... you can lay camoflague and denigrate it all you want and it doesn't change the fact the the XP-4Q with the Allison V-1710 was a MUCH better airplane than the P-40N. That was my point and it is true in any real alternate history. Doesn't mean it would be better than anything else, only that it was MUCH better than a P-40N.

Let me see if I can wrap my head around around the fact that the XP-40Q was much better than the P-40N. Yep, I think I can do that. It was much better than a plane that was being used as an advanced trainer because it wasn't considered suitable for combat use. But that isn't saying a whole lot is it?

Then you have the fact that you have a prototype flying in Nov 1943 (performance not given) at a weight about 150lbs less than a P-40N loaded and clean while using an engine about 300lb heavier and a heavier prop. What wasn't in the test aircraft? Add the fact the high performance engine doesn't show up until Feb/March of 1944. (plane gains 800lbs even though the two engines are supposed to weight the same). Production aircraft were supposed to add 50-100% to the armament weight. (an extra 290-300lbs for the six .50s. Weight for four 20mm????).

It is not a question of if the XP-40Q performed better than a P-40N or if a "Q" was fun to fly or handled well. It is a question of if the "Q" would have been an effective warplane relative to the choices available at the time (planes that were in a similar point in development or a similar time frame from deployment) and/or a an effective use of resources (manpower, raw materials, transportation needs, including shipment to war theaters as deck cargo).

While not as bad the "Q" is a bit like sticking a Merlin 66 in a Hurricane. Yes the "Hurricane 66" will be faster and climb better than a regular Hurricane but it really isn't a good use of the Merlin and the "Hurricane 66" would not have been a first class warplane in 1943/44.

 

[drgondog]

Yah, we know what happened. The XP-40Q was flying in 1943 ... the pilot test I saw was dated 2 Nov 1943 - at ww2aircraftperformance, so we KNOW it was flying before that time. And I have my own opinion of what it would have been competing against.

Just to set the record straight, the very first P-51H-1-NA was flown by Bob Chilton on 3 Feb 1945. I don't think that if Curtiss has been given the go ahead for the P-40Q that was flying in 1943, they'd have wasted over a year waiting around for the P-51H to become a reality before proceeding. Had the P-40Q been ordered into production, it would have been competing squarely with the P-51D. The H was a gleam in someone's eye in 1944 when the P-40Q's could have been in service.

The further align the record with my comments...

The XP-51F NA-105 CONTRACT was let Jan 2 1943 just a little over a month from first XP-51B test flight on November 30, 1942.
The first test flight of the XP-51F was February 14, 1944
The NA-126 Contract for the P-51H was two weeks later, February 26, 1944. Most of the preliminary design was complete in order to build the XP-51F - only the Detail Design changes to incorporate XP-51F flight test recommended changes remained as well as the Production Tooling
The P-51D was rolling off the Inglewood assembly lines in early March 1944 and operational in ETO in late May 1944. So when do you 'timeline' P-40Q number One to be produced?

The XP-40Q had a completely new wing and 'plumbing' internally and most of the airframe was new and ALL the lofting was new. Even with some common parts all the airframe jigs and tooling would be new.

Are you saying that the XP-40Q goes to Production P-40Q in three months (to compete with a P-51D under the HUGE assumption that AAF issues a Production contract on the first of November, 1943). I say they had approximately the same 'work' as NAA to take the XP-51F to P-51H. If you say different, please explain.

You may correctly assume that the difference between a couple of prototype XP-40Q in hand and a production P-40Q future production run will be pretty close to the same span between the XP-51F in February 1944 and production P-51F in February 1944.

As I stated before, we know they weren't, but hey, at least call the timeframe correctly so you can assess the correct competition.

Uh, yes - please do..

This is not an attempt to glorify the ZP-40Q, just to set the record and timeframe straight.

And how did that work out?

Go to the aircraft performance site (WWII Aircraft Performance), scroll down about 1/5 of the way and click on "P-40 performance tests - major update," scroll down all the way and click on "Memorandum Report on P-40Q, AAF No. 429987: Pilot's Comments." Check the date on the report. It's 2 Nov 1943. The plane FLEW well befoire that date.

Given that the prototype XP-40Q flew three months before the prototype XP-51F.. what moron in AAF procurement would contemplate a production P-40Q when a three month delay yields production P-51H's?.. and further, does not meet the same overall capability, specifically range and speed, of an existing airframe already in combat ops.

Second point - there is no source that I have found that indicates AAF were remotely interested in the P-40Q when they were looking at Republic XP-47J and NAA XP-51F (G/J and H same basic airframe but different engines). Given that such future extensions were far superior in every way to the 'production' P-40Q, and that the existing NAA and Republic production models were superior, can you find even one reason why anybody would care?

 

[Glider]

Given that such future extensions were far superior in every way to the 'production' P-40Q, and that the existing NAA and Republic production models were superior, can you find even one reason why anybody would care?

Shareholders

 

[GregP]

It doesn't matter in the slightest when the contract for any P-51 was let. The P-51H didn't fly until early 1945 and certinly didn't make it into combat until well after that time. The XP-40Q was flying before 2 November 1943, not in design ... flying. That's 1 1/4 years or more before any P-51H flew. Could it have made it into production sometime in early 1944? I say yes, particularly in light if the fact that most of the tooling was already in place. The wings were P-40 and so was a large portion of the fuselage. The engine was ready and so was the prop. 90%+ of the tooling was already in place and that's why it cxould have happened MUCH faster than anything the P-51 production line could have achieved with a new design.

Methinks you are somewhat overstating the time frame required since the production line was already in place. But since it's a "what if," I'll just say it could have been made to happen if anyone had really wanted it to happen. That they didn't cannot be argued, we all know that. And the P-40Q would certainly have been a much more effective warplane than any production P-40. The rate of climb doesn't compare unfavorably with late 1943 - 1944 Spirfires, the rate of roll is better than any other US fighter, the speed isn't bad. Yes ... it would have been effective.

That is ... it would have been so in my "what if." Perhaps in your it would have failed miserably. Since it is a "what if," it really makes no difference if I'm right or you are right or neither of us is. We can banter back and forth but it is a wasted effort for a "what if."

I can see we'll never agree on what a plane that never made production was worth. I can live with that. It's sort of a broken cookie in the breadbox of life.

 

[Shortround6]

Shareholders had more to bet on the keeping the P-36 (yes P-36) tooling busy.

I think I once counted 12 or 13 programs going on at Curtiss during WW II. Granted a number of them crapped out but C-46 production? Helldiver Production? less said about the Seamew the better? but the Seahawk?

From Wiki: "During World War II, Curtiss-Wright produced 142,840 aircraft engines, 146,468 electric propellers and 29,269 airplanes.[2] Curtiss-Wright employed 180,000 workers, and ranked second among United States corporations in the value of wartime production contracts (behind only General Motors)"

about 14,000 of the aircraft were P-40s and any management personnel or shareholders who thought they could keep selling a 1935 airframe in 1944/45 had an IQ about equal to belly button lint. The whole thrust of the aero industry was developing new products.
The 109 and Spitfire continued on but how many other 1935 aircraft continued in production in 1945 or after?

Even the DC-3 went out of production at the end of WW II and an attempt to revive it didn't get very far, conversions were popular due to the cheapness of surplus airframes but hauling people or cargo on the cheap is a very different thing than air combat.

 

[tomo pauk]

We want the Curtiss to produce more of the really useful fighters? They better sort out the P-47 production, for what they have a license to produce from early 1942 (late 1941?).
A two stage V-1710 in an useful fighter? Forget the P-75 Eagle saga, Fisher can produce the P-51 with that engine. GM was the 100% owner of Allison, Aeroproducts, and of 30% of NAA shares from 1930s to well after the ww2.

 

[varsity07840]

It doesn't matter in the slightest when the contract for any P-51 was let. The P-51H didn't fly until early 1945 and certinly didn't make it into combat until well after that time. The XP-40Q was flying before 2 November 1943, not in design ... flying. That's 1 1/4 years or more before any P-51H flew. Could it have made it into production sometime in early 1944? I say yes, particularly in light if the fact that most of the tooling was already in place. The wings were P-40 and so was a large portion of the fuselage. The engine was ready and so was the prop. 90%+ of the tooling was already in place and that's why it cxould have happened MUCH faster than anything the P-51 production line could have achieved with a new design.

Methinks you are somewhat overstating the time frame required since the production line was already in place. But since it's a "what if," I'll just say it could have been made to happen if anyone had really wanted it to happen. That they didn't cannot be argued, we all know that. And the P-40Q would certainly have been a much more effective warplane than any production P-40. The rate of climb doesn't compare unfavorably with late 1943 - 1944 Spirfires, the rate of roll is better than any other US fighter, the speed isn't bad. Yes ... it would have been effective.

That is ... it would have been so in my "what if." Perhaps in your it would have failed miserably. Since it is a "what if," it really makes no difference if I'm right or you are right or neither of us is. We can banter back and forth but it is a wasted effort for a "what if."

I can see we'll never agree on what a plane that never made production was worth. I can live with that. It's sort of a broken cookie in the breadbox of life.

The P-51H never saw combat.

Duane

 

[wuzak]

We want the Curtiss to produce more of the really useful fighters? They better sort out the P-47 production, for what they have a license to produce from early 1942 (late 1941?).
A two stage V-1710 in an useful fighter? Forget the P-75 Eagle saga, Fisher can produce the P-51 with that engine. GM was the 100% owner of Allison, Aeroproducts, and of 30% of NAA shares from 1930s to well after the ww2.

The P-75 was an emergency response to the requirement for a long range fighter. Before the AAF were convinced that the P-51 was the right tool for the job.

The P-75 used the V-3420, which itself was underdeveloped.

 

[GregP]

I believe the P-51H made it into the war and actually flew combat air patrols for about 2 weeks or so before the war ended. In that time I do not think it encountered any airborne Japanese opposition. So while it had no effect on the outcome of thw ar, it did actually make it into the war at the very end ... rendering it a WWII aircraft, if only just.


Hi Wuzak,

I intended to say that if they could make the P-75 from what it started out as into the last of the breed, I'm pretty sure they could have made a 2-stage, Merlin-powered P-40 had the desire to do so been there. I really hadn't intended to bring the P-75 into this thread ... only to point out the enormous effort that went into developing the P-75. Had they expended the same amount of effort on the P-40, the 2-stage, Merlin powered unti could have been developed. The problem of developing it certainly wasn't insoluable, it apparently just wasn't pursued past a certain point. Think of the effort that went into the XP-46, XP-53, and the entire family of XP-60 planes, not to mention the XP-55 Ascender (Ass-Ender). I don't believe the XP-46 or XP-53 ever had the performance of the XP-40Q.

They actually DID put a Merlin 61 into a Curtiss airframe of P-40 family tree ... it was one of the XP-60 family. It had a V-1650-3 engine and crashed on 6 May 1943. Since it wasn't pursued, I surmise the performance was short of the desired goal or they would have made another one and continued testing, at minimum. On the whole it looks to me like the effort expended to improve the P-40 was simply terminated despite the promise of the XP-40Q. In the face of so much effort expended for what generally was so little gain, I'm not altogether surprised and would not have been surprised if it had been terminated sooner, even if the XP-40Q DID show some great potential.

Someone apparently thought "enough is enough" and I can't say they were wrong though I might have taken a closer look at the XP-4Q. Hard data isn't all that easy to come by on the XP-40Q project, and it is possible they made the right decision. To effectively argue over it 75 years later I'd have to have some hard evidence it was the wrong choice. While I think there was potentially something there, it's also possible they DID look at it on its merits and made the deliberate choice to cease the project.

The XP-40Q is certainly the best-looking P-40 and is a good candidate for the best-looking fighter we made. Just goes to show that good looking doesn't always mean successful.

 

[wuzak]

The XP-53 never flew. The IV-1430 intended for it only flew in the XP-49 and XP-67, AFAIK. In those it was well down on the supposed rated power when they flew.

The XP-60 managed 387mph using the single stage Merlin 28, which apparently wasn't delivering full power. No mention of the performance of the P-60D with V-1650-3.

I have no data for the XP-60D. The XP-60B used the V-1710 with turbo (the XP-60A did also, but a different turbo). Vees for Victory may have some data on the performance of that.

 

[varsity07840]

believe the P-51H made it into the war and actually flew combat air patrols for about 2 weeks or so before the war ended. In that time I do not think it encountered any airborne Japanese opposition. So while it had no effect on the outcome of thw ar, it did actually make it into the war at the very end ... rendering it a WWII aircraft, if only just.


Would you mind providing some back up for that? What Air Force/Group/Squadron? Why would a long range escort fighter be delegated to CAP missions?

Duane

 

[nuuumannn]

And the P-40Q would certainly have been a much more effective warplane than any production P-40. The rate of climb doesn't compare unfavorably with late 1943 - 1944 Spirfires, the rate of roll is better than any other US fighter, the speed isn't bad. Yes ... it would have been effective.

That's arguable, Greg. Like Drgondog stated, time wise, what does the P-40Q give you compared to what else is around by late 44, early 45? The P-40Q was three modified prototypes, each one different to the last. By the time production issues were sorted and a final configuration settled on, you've added weight and standardisation - a production model would have been slower and less manoeuvrable than the prototypes. Would it really have been competitve? I doubt it.

 

[GregP]

Hi varisty,

From Joe Baugher's website: "The P-51H was too late to see action in the war in Europe. By the late summer of 1945, some P-51Hs had been issued to a few operational units. These units were in the process of working up to operational status when the war in the Pacific ended with the Japanese surrender. None had the opportunity to see any combat. At the time of V-J Day, 555 P-51Hs had rolled off the Inglewood production lines. With the coming of peace, orders for 1445 more P-51Hs were cancelled, along with the entirety of the order for the Dallas-built P-51Ms after only one example (45-11743) had been completed."

The notion they flew a few sorties and CAP's comes from guys who were there. We have an event at the Planes of Fame the first Saturday of every month (our next event is in 2 days ... everyone is welcome), and we have a minimum of two P-51's flying at the museum almost all the time. So we've had quite a few former P-51 pilots give talks there during our events and STeve Hinton is a great source on P-51 knowledge. Several people who flew them have mentioned flying the early H models in the PTO as the war ended. We have had one P-51H come to the museum as a visitor in the past.

If you are really interested, you can probably find the proof out there. I'm not much interested since the P-51H, while a great fighter and I'd love to work on one, didn't affect WWII in the slightest manner. My area of interest is mostly WWII aviation.



I suppose nuuumannn, that in your "what if" scenario, the XP-40Q wouldn't make the grade. In mine it doesn't necessarily, either, but I'm open to some hard data that says otherwise. This isn't something I'd like to pursue unless it's a discussion and not an argument. To me there is not enough information available one way or the other to make an informed choice at this time, but I won't shoot down a plane just because it isn't a P-51.

If we had the data plus some comparative tests against other fighters, we'd have something to argue. As it is, we don't have any other planes that were flown during the XP-40Q tests doing mock combat or comparative handling or speed tests. It isn't worth much of an effort since the data just isn't there. It might be worth pursuing except they didn't build any P-40Q's in production so the effort would be somewhat of a "so what?"

I like the XP-40Q just for it's looks alone. Too bad one hasn't survived. We (Planes of Fame ... not me personally) have the only flying Seversky AT-12, the only surviving and flying Northrop N9M-B Flying Wing, the only Mitsubishi A6M5 Zero flying on the original engine and prop, the only Bell YP-59A Airacomet that SHOULD flying sometime in the near future, the only surviving Ryan Fireball (static ... but can be made flyable), the only surviving Mitrsubishi J2M REaiden, and one of only two Yokosuka D4Y's existing.

A flying XP-40Q would be a great addition if there were one out there somewhere.

 

[Shortround6]

The XP-40Qs not only were different from each other, they also didn't all stay in the "as made" configuration as the -2 was fitted with two rather different engines.

Curtiss probably could have switched production fairly easily, at least easier than switching from the P-51D to the P-51H. The problem may have been Allison might not have been ready to supply production engines instead of prototype engines.

Even "Vees for Victory" is a bit confusing and the engines used in the P-63 are not direct equivalents (the first two engines used the P-63 had the carb on the auxiliary supercharger while the last ones had the carb between the supercharger stages like the engines used in the XP-40Q.)
However it took Allison until Dec of 1943 to sort out the engine used the P-63A and get it to pass it's type test. They had started back in the Spring. This engine is rated pretty close to the first engine used the XP-40Q-2 with 1325hp for take-off, 3000rpm and 1150hp Military at 22,400ft. Production P-63s with these engines flew under restrictions until the type test was passed. Please note that with this power level the XP-40Q was unlikely to exceed 400mph above 20,000ft. Engine was good for over 1800hp at sea level with water injection though.
It just didn't hold the power at altitude very well, falling to 1500hp at just 6,000ft.
The P-63C used an intermediate engine but that doesn't show up in production until Dec of 1944 and the P-63s with engines rated the SAME (although there may have been more differences than just the remote gear box) as the 2nd engine used in the XP-40Q-2 (the March 1944 tests) are the D/E models (one D made) and production "E"s don't show up until May of 1945.
Now maybe Allison could have gotten the lead out and built the 1425hp take-off, 3200rpm, 1100hp at 28,000ft (Military power) engine some what sooner but in order for the P-40Q to be viable project you need production engines about one year quicker than they did show up.

 

[GregP]

Nice info there Shortround. I have Vees for Vistory as well as Allied Aircraft Piston Engines of WWII and the data are good but scattered about, with a very occasional mistake ... and sometimes they aren't all that obvious.

I never DID like the Allison auxiliary supercharger, but nobody would fund an integral 2-stage unit.

As for the XP-40Q, the performance was pretty decent as originally built, at least better in my book than the P-40's rolling off the lines by a large amount. I'd have either closed the P-40 line or switched to P-40Q's as rapidly as possible. Without more information, it would be tough to say which would be the better choice, and it's a bit obvious we probably wouldn't often make the same choices ... maybe unless we both had the same information.

In fact, I got somehwat of an education a couple of days ago when I visited Joe Yancey's shop. He was rebuilding a P-63 remote gearbox and had just installed new bearings on the propshaft. He had to make all the tooling because none still exists, but at least he HAS the tooling now as well as a second P-63 remote gearbox to rebuild. Good news for a couple of P-63's anyway. At least SOMEONE can rebuild them and can get parts.

All the P-63's had a minimum of 1,325 Hp for takeoff (except for the "pinball" planes) and were rated at 1,100 to 1,150 HP at anywhere from 21,400 feet to 27,500 feet. All had WEP except the RP-63A, the RP-63C, and the RP-63G in which the ADI was disconnected, but it was limited to low altitudes. They built 1,725 P-63A's between Oct 1943 and Dec 1944, so the engines HAD to be available ... since they were delivered and were flying. The P-63A's had 1,150 HP available at 22,400 feet in stock form, and were operated beyond the 3,000 rpm normal limits when required.

See: http://www.p63kingcobra.com/p-63_kingcobra_history.html

So, I think the engines WERE avialable for potential P-40Q's ... had anyone in a position to make a difference been so inclined. In the event, they weren't so inclined.

 

[wuzak]

According to Vees for Victory, the P-60A was to have the V-1710 with GE B-series turbo. The original installation was thought to be a fire hazard, so it never flew in that configuration, but it did so later. The performance was max speed 420mph @ 29,000ft, time to 25,000ft in 12.4 minutes, service ceiling 34,600ft. Empty weight was 7,806lbs.

The P-60A first flew in November 1942, but without the turbo.

This performance is line ball with the later P-40Q.

Also, the original XP-53/XP-60 project was to use, as one of its options, the 2 stage V-1710. But this wasn't ready in time.

 

[GregP]

Hi Wuzak,

When you take what is basically a 360 mph airplane and turn it into a 420 mph airplane, you have a quantum jump in performance. However the sketchy top speed data don't tell us how the plane handled. Generally the P-40 was a good-handline, fast-rolling aircraft ... pleasant to fly. If the P-60A retained these characteristics, then there would be a question of why it fell short of the desired goals. If the handling deterioriated, then the question is maybe answered.

Everything I have read to date suggests the P-60 series of planes simply didn't meet the goals, but the "explanations" are usually rather short ... one sentence. That suggest5s to me the authors maybe didn't really know and are quoting a brief memo of rejection or some such "official" document, but I have yet to uncover a primary source reason why they were abandoned. Lacking such primary proof, I can only fall back on the fact that the program was terminated and assume that most times, when a plane is terminated, there is ample reason for it. In the case of the P-60, they made about 4 or 5 variants, and none seem to have been wanted. One was barely even flown.

From the always relaible Wiki:

"On 27 January 1943, the XP-60C flew for the first time, powered by an R-2800-53 engine with contra-rotating propellers. The aircraft's flying characteristics were found to be generally satisfactory. The first flight of the XP-60E with the four-bladed propeller was delayed until 26 May 1943 after it was found that due to its lighter weight, the engine installation had to be moved 10 inches forward compared to the XP-60C.

In April 1943, the US Army Air Force decided to conduct an evaluation of the various fighter aircraft in development and use, in order to eliminate the least desirable models. Curtiss was requested to have the XP-60E participate. As the XP-60E was not available, the company hurriedly prepared the XP-60C for the evaluation at Patterson Field. In the event, due to various issues, the XP-60C performed poorly, resulting in reduction of the production run of 500 aircraft to two aircraft.

In January 1944, the XP-60E was flown to Eglin Field for official trials, where Army Air Force pilots found that it did not compare favorably to contemporary aircraft designs. When Curtiss expressed the desire to abandon further work on the P-60 series, the Army Air Force insisted upon completion of one of the two aircraft in production. The aircraft when originally ordered was designated YP-60A-1-CU and was redesignated YP-60E. This aircraft flew on 13 July 1944 and was subsequently delivered to Wright Field. The YP-60E differed mainly from the XP-60E by being powered by a 2,100 hp (1,566 kW) R-2800-18 engine as well as the fitting of an all-around vision bubble canopy.

With the development contracts cancelled in June 1943, the program ended ignobly when the last prototype was scrapped on 22 December 1944. To replace the P-60, Curtiss built 354 Republic P-47Gs instead for the USAAF. The XP-60E survived to be sold as an entry for the 1947 National Air Races, but crashed during a qualifying flight before the competition was held."

So, according to Wiki, Curtiss asked to terminate the program! Considering the length of time in development, perhaps it was a blessing they DID reject the P-60 series. Though the XP-40Q seems like one of the best all-around performers of the series, maybe it really wan't up to the standards of the time. Wish I could see more evidence of that.

At least they didn't put THIS into production:

The one and only Twin P-40! Thank the stars for us not being saddled with that at least. It looks uglier than a Blackburn Roc and the visibility to the sides and down make one wonder what the hell they were thinking. Perhaps if the engines had been underslung ... but on TOP of the wing? Makes me wonder how the pilot could even see enough to stay in formation!

 

[nuuumannn]

I suppose nuuumannn, that in your "what if" scenario, the XP-40Q wouldn't make the grade. In mine it doesn't necessarily, either, but I'm open to some hard data that says otherwise. This isn't something I'd like to pursue unless it's a discussion and not an argument. To me there is not enough information available one way or the other to make an informed choice at this time, but I won't shoot down a plane just because it isn't a P-51.

That's a bit of a sweeping generalisation, Greg and certainly doesn't apply to me. The fact was, the right choice was made in selecting the P-51. You can argue till the cows come home that the P-40Q might have been a capable fighter, but by when and against what is the point I'm making. It wasn't available for service in 1943, '44, but the P-51 was. If it was put into production, by the time it entered service the Allies would have had aircraft with better performance than it in the squadrons at any rate, so why do it in the first place? This isn't a fantastically concocted 'what if', but application of a sensible timeline based on knowledge of the situation that any of us contributing to this thread can access, either on the net or from our own libraries. You don't have to be an expert on this aircraft to see that.

 

[GregP]

Hi Nuuumann,

I wasn't pointing anything at you about the P-51 remark and the post sure didn't seem "sweeping" to me, but I can see why you might think that. The intent was to say I would not dismiss an aircraft's qualities out of hand. Nothing more. Really. I have not seen much good press for any US fighter other than the P-51, and that's too bad. They all had some good qualities or they would not have won a contract.

I never said selection of the P-51 was an incorrect decision or implied it. In fact, it was one of our better decisions, aircraft wise. What I said is that I said the P-40Q could have been built without affecting any aircraft using Merlin engines. That leaves out the P-51 ... this is a P-40 thread. I was responding to apparent asseretions that the XP-40Q would be competing against the P-51H, which it wouldn't since the P-51H wasn't flying at the time, wouldn't for another year and 3 or 4 months, and wouldn't be competing against any US fighter ... it would be competing against enemy fighters.

The P-39 and P-40 were winding down and the P-38, P-47, and P-51 were doing hust fine and the P-51 was begining to show it's mettle. Building the P-40Q would not have detracted anything from these aircraft at all, and Curtiss' subsequent production of a few P-47G's would never have been missed. The P-40Q very certainly could have been available in 1944.

Apparently we differ on what a sensible timeline might be, and that's OK. We also seem to have different opinions of what the performance on planes in service in 1944 was, on average. That's OK, too. If we all agreed, it would be a dull forum.

Cheers to you, really.

What makes this really frustrating is that I have attempted several times to stick to the topic, that they COULD have built a 2-stage, Merlin-powered P-40 ... and have consistently been dragged back into the P-40Q subject. If it is possible, why don't we let it die here ... we already HAD a P-40Q thread. The simple fact is that I don't agree that it was a bad plane and won't. There isn't enough evidence for me to conclude that. If there's enough for you, or even all the rest of you, then OK ... you disagree and it is clear to all ... it's OK ... we don't have to agree and emphatically don't.

It won't change anything either way, so everyone is safe in their opinion.

 

[nuuumannn]

What makes this really frustrating is that I have attempted several times to stick to the topic, that they COULD have built a 2-stage, Merlin-powered P-40...

Greg, no worries and no hard feelings. I agree, they could have, but again, you have to ask, what would it achieve? Was the P-40 competitive in 1942 when the two-speed two-stage Merlin was put into production in Britain - another year before it went into production in the States? Not really. the 60 series Merlin (V-1650-3 included here) offered a big leap in performance for the aircraft it was fitted to and really, the Spitfire and Mustang airframes could and did offer more advantage over contemporary enemy types as hosts of the new engine than retro fitting it to the P-40. Like Shortround said, fitting a Griffon to a Hurricane was feasible and there were plans to do so, but was it the right and sensible choice based on what the enemy were doing and what advances in technology were over what the Hurricane offered? Not really. Historically, fitting a two-speed two-stage Griffon to the Spitfire produced the Spit XIV; it'd be a waste to fit one to a Hurricane and you can guarantee that everything the Spit XIV was the Griffon Hurri would not be, and so the same would be with the 60 series Merlin P-40. It'd be a waste of a good engine, frankly.