We haven't had a discussion Shortround. You said engines weren't available and I said they delivered engines in P-63's right when the XP-40Q was being flown, so there definitely WERE engines available for the program. The only diffrence between an E-series Allison and an F-series Allison was the nosecase.
You are quite right, this is getting tiresome. I gave you a time line of the relevant P-63 engines but you seem to ignore it. The production two stage Allison for the majority of 1944 offered 1325hp for take-off and not 1425hp and had a FTL quite a bit lower than the engine used in the March 1944 tests of the XP-40Q.
You are trashing the XP-40Q with almost no information on which to base your case other than it is related to the P-40 aircraft line.
Hmmm, related? The XP-40Q-2 (and the -1) were modified P-40K airframes. Wings were clipped, Not changed in airfoil. fuselage was lengthened and the turtle deck cut down and a bubble top put on.
P-40Q bore about the same "relation" to the the P-40 line as this aircraft did to the rest of the Spitfire line.
Or this
BTW another P-40K modified to represent a P-40N (stripper) managed to hit 378mph at 10,550ft on 1480hp. The "Q" did about 10mph slower using 90-100hp less or 28mph (?) faster using 285hp more so it sure doesn't look kike the drag changed all that much.
As I said above, there is ONE pilot notes report and ONE brief flight test where the aircraft was given pretty high praise by one pilot. There were zero mock combat flyoff tests and no comparative testing of any sort ... and you think you have enough information to come to a correct conclusion about the aircraft? Maybe you do.
Maybe I don't have enough information but "best P-40 Yet" doesn't exactly mean the plane is the best USAAF fighter or even in the top 3 does does it?
It might have #1 in a dog fight at altitudes below 20,000ft, I don't know, but it was not what the USAAF was looking for at the time, was it? Granted the test plane seemed to have some trouble in that the engine used in the March test missed its "book" FTL by over 5,000ft so a
production version might have actually gone a whole lot faster at higher altitudes.
But that still doesn't solve the armament problem or the range problem. Good short ranged low-mid altitude dog fighter wasn't what the USAAF was looking for ( and if it was they had the P-63).
From a report on the 'Operational SUITABILITY OF P-40N-1 AIRPLANE" June of 1943
"The fire power of four (4) present slow firing .50 caliber machine guns is considered insufficient for the majority of combat missions where heavily armored enemy aircraft are encountered, or for most ground strafing missions."
Now we could argue about if this was in fact true but it speaks to what the USAAF wanted or
believed to be true at the time. They might (and did) take planes with four .50 cal guns into service but they were not what was
wanted and given a choice they were going to go with heavier armed planes.
From the same report "While the P-40N-1 is the superior in performance of the P-40 series, it is generally inferior to all other current types of fighters tested at this station."
Granted this is in June of 1943 and by March 1944 the XP-40Q is demonstrating much better performance but then so are most of the other US fighters.
And " The P-40N-1 is of a design which is believed to have reached its limit in performance unless major changes in control surface design, wing form, structure and horsepower are made."
The "Q" certainly addressed the horsepower issue but clipping about 1 foot from each wing tip is not really changing the wing form all that much. It does seem that some minor tweaks were done to the control surfaces or that a bit different CG and/or airflow pattern helped a bit.
This report also details a few more of the "tricks" used to get the weight of the N-1 down. Some of the things left out include the "Gyro compass, artificial horizon, climb indicator, suction gauge and carburetor temperature gauge."
Now we can pick and choose quotes from different reports and wonder which were the most "true" but is sure seems like the USAAF was about done with the P-40 in Mid 1943 and it would take a minor miracle to get them to change their minds. The XP-40Q may have been good but by March 1944 it may not have been good enough (and production would have been how far off?) considering their other choices.
Of the 5 major USAAF fighters the P-40Q would have been 4th for range. Doesn't matter how good you can roll or turn if you can't reach the enemy at all.