The aircraft that outlived their use-by date (1 Viewer)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

why? because he agrees with you? if any pilot would prefer the 40 to the 51 it would have to be a case of either 1) first love syndrome....the first "real" plane you fly and get used to is near and dear to your heart. you will find most all the german pilots who flew the spit and prefer their 109. and visa versa raf pilots who flew the 109 wouldnt trade it for their spit. hell the russian pilots LOVED the p-39...i havent met a us flyer who would have wanted to go to war in one of them. or 2) like was mentioned it served a specific role for which it was suited. i would wager a large amount of money that none of the ww2 pilots that give talks at the place greg works at ( who flew both planes ) feel the same as him and would turn down a even an early B/C model 51 for ANY version of a 40. the biggest joke among pilots of those days was they told the mechanics after running a 51 hard and heavy that they needed to screw in a new set of plugs.....when they ran the 40 like that they told the mechanic they needed to screw in a new engine....
 
I think there were many designs that were kept in use and even in production even though there were more modern and better alternatives around, the reason these older planes kept on being used and produced was because the newer designs were not available in large enough numbers or changing production over to a new design would have lead to a shortage of replacement aircraft. Some old designs were kept in use because there was nothing to replace them with, for example the British had some ridiculous old relics still flying at the start of the war especially in the middle and far east. Other types were found alternative uses which they turned out to be well suited to. I think the swordfish was one of the few and possibly the only one that outlived it's replacement on merit alone though.
 
[/B]Forigen operators still had orders for the aircraft. Did you ever think that many of those late model P-40s went to training units to free up much needed P-51s?

They were going to training units in 1943. The last few hundred built went (for the most part) straight to the breakers yards. For late summer and fall of 1944 that should be pretty telling.

Of course the hash that Curtiss made of P-47 production might have made the PTB rather hesitant to try to convert Curtiss production a second time.
 
Two more designs that spring to mind are the A26 Invader and although not operational in World War 2 the Douglas Skyraider.
 
They were going to training units in 1943. The last few hundred built went (for the most part) straight to the breakers yards. For late summer and fall of 1944 that should be pretty telling.Of course the hash that Curtiss made of P-47 production might have made the PTB rather hesitant to try to convert Curtiss production a second time.
Perhaps - but no one in the procurement end of the DoD really knew when the war was going to end, by contract Curtiss still had to keep pumping out P-40s.

Even in todays world, sometimes its easier to complete a project and break it apart upon delivery than to shut things down in progress, especially if there cancellation fees attached.
 
"the biggest joke among pilots of those days was they told the mechanics after running a 51 hard and heavy that they needed to screw in a new set of plugs.....when they ran the 40 like that they told the mechanic they needed to screw in a new engine" -Bobbysocks

Back up, are you trying to say the P-51 is easier to maintain than a P-40? That was one of the P-40's VERY few technical advantages over the Mustang. I mean seriously that's why it was so good in the Pacific and Africa, you could just stick it on the sand and call it a runway and it'd fly fine. But a P-51 needed a paved runway, a whole team of mechanics, and at least some sort of hangar. It's like an F-22 vs an F-16, an F-22 will win in a dogfight all day long, but the F-16 can be used in Iraq in a forward air base, while you have to keep the F-22s in the US in their air conditioned hangar.
 
That was one of the P-40's VERY few technical advantages over the Mustang. I mean seriously that's why it was so good in the Pacific and Africa, you could just stick it on the sand and call it a runway and it'd fly fine. But a P-51 needed a paved runway, a whole team of mechanics, and at least some sort of hangar.
This is absolutely not true!!! I've been around both aircraft and I can tell you that except for some time limited items and possibly manufacturer's driven inspections BOTH aircraft require about the same amount of skill and manpower to maintain in the field..

BTW, I'm an A&P/ IA and been working in aviation for 35 years.

Mustangs operated from dirt stips during WW2 and Korea and were maintained outside as well.

http://www.cebudanderson.com/viewfromtheline.htm

f891431ec23322c8_large.jpg
 
Last edited:
Oh, I was just basically forwarding what I had read about them. But what about replacement parts? Wouldn't P-40s come by them easier, as they were around for longer?
 
Oh, I was just basically forwarding what I had read about them.
Check your sources and their backgrounds. There are dozens of aviation authors that have never touched a real aircraft but yet they will make statements about maintaining and flying them, often misquoting an interviewee or other source.

But what about replacement parts? Wouldn't P-40s come by them easier, as they were around for longer?

Possibly, especially in the beginning of a deployment..
 
I'll do that Flyboy, also, have you flown them? Just curious (I haven't)
 
"the biggest joke among pilots of those days was they told the mechanics after running a 51 hard and heavy that they needed to screw in a new set of plugs.....when they ran the 40 like that they told the mechanic they needed to screw in a new engine" -Bobbysocks

Back up, are you trying to say the P-51 is easier to maintain than a P-40? That was one of the P-40's VERY few technical advantages over the Mustang. I mean seriously that's why it was so good in the Pacific and Africa, you could just stick it on the sand and call it a runway and it'd fly fine. But a P-51 needed a paved runway, a whole team of mechanics, and at least some sort of hangar. It's like an F-22 vs an F-16, an F-22 will win in a dogfight all day long, but the F-16 can be used in Iraq in a forward air base, while you have to keep the F-22s in the US in their air conditioned hangar.

I am deeply curious about your knowledge base and how you differentiate facts from 'feelings'. The statement above has at least 5 false statements. Can you revisit and perhaps correct them? Your first start ought to be to look up MTO and ETO and PTO and CBI and Korea fighter operations, then look at the TO&E for the Support crew of a 51 and compare against a P-40, P-39, P-47 and see if you can find a difference for all USAAF "S/E Fighter".

As to air conditioned hangers for F-22, come to Nellis and Luke and See My Johnson for other illustrative F-22 abodes..

Share a little of your life's history and how you came about such a vast treasure house of Aviation trivia?
 
I'm a bit of a newbie, sorry for the incorrect info, I admit I was not entirely correct, I have only limited knowledge entirely based on what I have read and seen on TV. So, again, if I annoyed you I'm sorry.
 
I'm only 15 though, so it'd be great if you'd just correct me instead of being mean about it, for example, look at Flyboy's responses. And yes, I exaggerated a bit about the A/C'ed hangars for the Raptor, which is my favorite modern plane.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back