- Thread starter
- #1,261
Nice find, thanks. Explains how they were able to pull out in a blackout.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
- Status
Nice find, thanks. Explains how they were able to pull out in a blackout.
- Thread starter
- #1,262
This is wrong, the numbers I posted are from the squadron histories and also the Osprey books.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Once again your stupidity is abound - I've had enough.
"Caiden"? That alone is enough to remove all doubt. You have been an arrogant ass to myself as well as several other members of this forum and we've put up with it long enough. It's time for a time out until you pull your head out of your butt SONNY!!!
michael rauls
Tech Sergeant
- 1,679
- Jul 15, 2016
Verry true. I was thinking in terms of things getting out of hand, mostly with less experienced pilots but this is just conjecture on my part.
I thought the Missouri ANG F-15 crashed because of a faulty longeron that was not manufactured correctly. Cracks began long before the accident.
Maybe I am thinking of a different one?
- Thread starter
- #1,266
Understood, yes aircraft can and did get bent, but that is again one of the things that was good about the P-40 being a little overbuilt. Somewhat less susceptible to that. But both airframes and engines were known to get clapped out. The famous black and red P-40 of 325th FG CO Robert Baseler (which he named 'Stud' and his crewchief kept renaming to 'Mortimer Snerd') was turned into a squadron hack precisely because it had become "war-weary". It was certainly a known phenomenon.
But they had replacements for those planes that did get worn out. Once they ran out of replacement P-40s (F & Ls, and also briefly P-40K in some units) they switched them over to the P-47s and later P-51s.
Also, as I said upthread, presumably if you knew what you were doing, 500 mph was safe, or they wouldn't have gone that fast in the checkout dive.
The factory test pilot I mentioned, Herbert O. Fisher actually went into the field and flew combat missions to help train pilots on how to push the limits on the P-40. This was one of the major problems that the British had with P-40s and other aircraft as well, they didn't do enough transition training and the pilots did not know how far they could push them for example in tight turns / when pulling G's. And presumably, how to safely execute very high speed dives. From the wiki:
"At the request of the commander of the Flying Tigers, Claire Chennault, Chief Engineer Don R. Berlin sent Fisher abroad as the best way to have "imparted his experience on those courageous young fellows over there with knowledge they could not possibility have".[7] During 13 months overseas from 1943 on, despite his being a civilian test pilot, while in the China-Burma-India (CBI) theater, Fisher flew as many as 50 missions to prove the P-40 under combat conditions. He also lectured and conducted P-40 flight demonstrations in almost every fighter base in the CBI, Middle East, North and Central Africa.[5]
So presumably he was teaching those pilots how to safely put a P-40 through it's paces.
As for the diving to 500 mph, this is the quote: "20,000, strain the engine upward, then go inverted, throttle full forward, and nose it over, losing 10,000 feet or more at 500mph+. He knew it was almost impossible to tear a P-40 apart in a dive, which was a HUGE advantage over the Zero. He knew the operating parameters of that airplane and almost every rivet."
Here is one of the now infamous 600 mph dive tests by Curtis Test pilot Bob Fausel.
htthttps://www.criticalpast.com/video/65675039340_P-40C-aircraft_pilot-aboard-the-P-40C_speed-record-with-661-miles-per-hour-drive
The P-40 flight manual was, incidentally, corrected. The maximum dive speed was amended upward several times, from 450 mph, to 460, to 480, to 485. Obviously they knew it could be flown faster than they had originally stated. The main issue was probably pilot training.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #1,267
I would also add, there seemed to be some build quality issues with some of the later model P-40s with things like hatches not staying compeltely closed, panels not fitting properly etc., though these were mostly P-40N I believe. Some of this was mentioned in testing reports.
I don't know which are wrong or which are right, but the numbers I posted also stem from the US Airforce.
- Thread starter
- #1,269
Post a link to your source.
The squadron histories, Osprey books etc. vary by 3 -5 claims, but that is nowhere near the variation you are describing.
325th and 79th FG are the only two I have access to which get into the lists of actual aircraft claims and losses sortie by sortie, I have already posted the 325th losses here and can fairly easily count up the 79th. But you can find the others too with enough effort. With a lot of effort you could count all the losses in MAW III and IV but you apparently already did that, right?
The normal oft-repeated numbers of 592 or 598 are total claims for the US fighter Groups but typically leave out the 17 claims by the independent 99th FS. Sometimes some or all of these claims by the 99th are added to one of the other groups that they flew with (they were attached to the 33rd, 79th and 324th fighter groups at various points during their history while flying the P-40). And they also briefly flew P-40N though it's unclear if in combat. So this also causes some confusion. In my list above I count their claims separately.
US P-40 units did not fly missions in the ETO so I'm not sure what you mean by that suggestion. They did fly missions in Europe, mainly Sicily, Sardinia, Corsica and several other Mediterranean Islands, and over Italy, Yugoslavia and Southern France, but those regions are typically considered part of the MTO.
Some of the same FG which flew P-40s however that later transitioned to P-47s and then P-51s (like the 325th) did later fly bomber escort missions into Germany and so on, so that may be the source of your confusion.
Finally, while I do distinguish US from Allied P-40F/L claims in the Med, for purposes of this thread it's useful to also look at the latter, as we are comparing the aircraft not the nation. I did not include claims by the 49th FG in the Pacific - simply because I don't have them, but also because Typhoons never fought IJA or IJN aircraft so it's not a "like for like" comparison. I only mentioned that they were also using Merlin P-40s for a little while, they were not part of the total. The US total in the Med, if you include 99th FS, would be 615. The Allied total in the Med would be 665 as I already indicated.
Losses for the 325th FG are very well documented and, again come out to 24 lost to fighters and 43 aircraft total (including operational, engine and "other" losses).
325th was one of the most successful units but that points to a fairly high ratio of claims to losses. Closely examining several of their combat encounters in MAW IV (some of which you can see upthread) shows their claims were fairly accurate too by WW2 standards, with an average of about 67% accuracy by my count. So the real ratio might be something closer to 90 victories for 20-24 losses in the air.
- Thread starter
- #1,271
Interesting. What is your source?
For a comparison you would need to look at RAF losses though as well because they were still using a lot of Kittyhawk I, Ia, and III (P-40D,E,K, and M) in the Med in 1943 and even some Tomahawks still (with additional Kittyhawk IV / N versions coming later in 43 I think) right to 1945. With the exception of 260 RAF and 3 RAAF for the time they had the Kittyhawk IIs, most of the RAF P-40 units in 1943 were flying pretty much exclusively fighter bomber units by around March so they didn't get a lot of claims.
The other thing is, the Luftwaffe probably 'claimed' more P-40s than those listed above because the Luftwaffe often claimed Spitfires or P-39s, or P-46s when encountering late model P-40s.
We would also have to look at Italian claims because they certainly shot down a lot of Allied aircraft including P-40s.
Conversely, the Allied units often claimed Fw 190s when they were actually engaged with late model Bf 109G or MC 202 / 205.
Hello Schweik,
Welcome back.
Regarding the P-40's load lifting capability, it appears that some of the later models were able to carry 1500 pounds or so.
Now keep in mind that by the time those late P-40s were in production, the Merlin P-40 was out of production.
Perhaps the earlier versions of the wing racks did not have the strength of the later ones.
There is also the issue that the P-40F/L were heavier than equivalent Allison P-40s by a fair amount.
If you figure that the Maximum T-O weight is determined by the wings that didn't change and by the engine power at Sea Level, then 387 lbs extra in the airframe (P-40E to P-40F) is going to reduce the useful load by the same amount.
Regarding diving speed limitations: I have no doubt that the P-40 had enough structural strength for normal practical purposes.
My understanding is that in a high speed dive, the P-40 became directionally unstable and that was the real problem. This instability would also be considered a compressibility phenomenon. A very experienced test pilot may feel entirely confident in dealing with reduced stability and be able to re-trim the aircraft to retain as much control as possible but I suspect that the manual was written for keeping the average pilot out of trouble.
- Ivan.
Welcome back.
Regarding the P-40's load lifting capability, it appears that some of the later models were able to carry 1500 pounds or so.
Now keep in mind that by the time those late P-40s were in production, the Merlin P-40 was out of production.
Perhaps the earlier versions of the wing racks did not have the strength of the later ones.
There is also the issue that the P-40F/L were heavier than equivalent Allison P-40s by a fair amount.
If you figure that the Maximum T-O weight is determined by the wings that didn't change and by the engine power at Sea Level, then 387 lbs extra in the airframe (P-40E to P-40F) is going to reduce the useful load by the same amount.
Regarding diving speed limitations: I have no doubt that the P-40 had enough structural strength for normal practical purposes.
My understanding is that in a high speed dive, the P-40 became directionally unstable and that was the real problem. This instability would also be considered a compressibility phenomenon. A very experienced test pilot may feel entirely confident in dealing with reduced stability and be able to re-trim the aircraft to retain as much control as possible but I suspect that the manual was written for keeping the average pilot out of trouble.
- Ivan.
USAF85
The 324th flew P-47's in the ETO and were credited with more than 30 victories, on top of the 58 victories flying P-40's in the MTO that USAF85 grants them.
- Thread starter
- #1,274
Hi Ivan. Always enjoy your posts. Yeah I've been gone a while, day job and certain other obligations (to do with a different period of history and semi-legit / compensation etc.) take me away from this forum sometimes on and off. I do have to drop away abruptly sometimes, and may be again soon for a couple of weeks in early May.
But I really like this forum (when people aren't going nuts) and learn a lot here.
I didn't even catch how this thread got revived I blundered across it somehow. I saw Kevin was under siege and I felt I needed to contribute even though I don't really have the time right now.
Yes but for quite short trips. I believe the RAF worked out that the best 'heavy' load was about 2,000 lbs in the form of one 1,000 lb and two 500 lb bombs. For longer trips they would limit it to two 250 lb bombs and a fuel tank. Other configurations were one 1,000 lb bomb, three 500 lb bombs, one 500 and two 250 lb, or 6 x 250 lbs ... all of which you can see in photos I posted upthread.
Furthermore and this is the bigger thing, my understanding is that the heavier bomb carrying capacity was worked out in the field, initially by the RAF in the Middle East / North Africa, then later by Australian and American units in the Pacific and CBI, and then by American units in the Med and also in Russia. There may have been some kind of bomb racks on there for light bombs, but they seem to have worked out how to put heavier bombs on and securely enough etc. (and much later, rockets).
It's unclear if these were separate discoveries or if there was some kind of sharing of information but I think it was mostly the former at least in the early days of 1941- 1942. Some Australian pilots though did come from action in the Med back to Darwin etc.
Australian 28 victory* Ace Clive Caldwell is alleged to have been the instigator of the first attempts to put bombs on Hurricanes and P-40s back in 1941 due to what he perceived as the heavy risks of escorting Blenheims, which he saw as fairly useless in the bombing role anyway. The fighter bombers did prove to be much more accurate and effective as bombers and CAS planes but it's unclear if the tactic actually saved any fighter pilot lives as both bombing and escorting fighter bombers was quite risky.
Other pilots described the process in their memoirs. Canadian P-40 Ace Eddie Edwards talked about the risky experimental flights with heavy bomb loads. I'll see if I can find the reference.
Field mechanics were surprisingly good in some of these units. The 79th Fighter Group for example rather famously restored multiple captured Axis aircraft to flying condition including a Fw 190, a couple of Bf 109s, a Ju 88 and a SM 79 among others. RAF Units did the same, no easy feat considering the lack of manuals, rarity of spare parts, different fuel, fluids and lubricants etc. These aircraft were used as squadron hacks and - quite helpfully I think- as training tools, what you might call "aggressor" planes to familiarize pilots with enemy A/C. RAF Aces including Nicky Barr and James Edwards mentioned flying these and also flying against them in test flights (they were very impressed).
These three all 79th FG
RAF Bf 109
Again, I don't have the citations in front of me but my understanding is the heavy bomb loads were worked out in the field by the RAF as far back as 1941 or early 1942, using Kittyhawk I and Ia fighters initially (P-40D and E) and later with Kittyhawk III (P-40K and M) and only after that did Curtiss add heavier 'stock' bomb racks to the Kittyhawk IV (P-40N).
This also depends on things like how much fuel is carried and so on. P-40L with the 4 wing guns and no reserve tank, radiator armor removed, one radio etc. etc., is lighter than a normally loaded P-40E
P-40L-10 empty weight is 6,340 lbs, "loaded weight" is 8,020 lbs (4 guns)
P-40E-1 empty weight is 6,005 lbs, "loaded weight" is 8,280 lbs (6 guns and more fuel)
You may have missed it, but upthread on the last page Grayman posted the procedure required for high speed diving in a P-40 - a little bit of elevator trim and 4 steps of rudder trim plus some right leg strength. If you read the report it actually describes pretty benign characteristics including a dive quite easy to pull out of (just quit pushing the stick forward), and no actual compressibility issues. The requirement to use heavy right rudder in a steep dive (and also during takeoff) was so commonly encountered and well known among P-40 pilots, (who as several here have pointed out already routinely mentioned diving at over 500 mph in memoirs, interviews and personal accounts), that there was a running joke during the war about P-40 pilots having an oversized right leg. This goes back to 1941. Diving was as mentioned many times already, the standard escape maneuver in the Pacific and CBI. In the Med the Split S and dive was also used though without the same guarantee, however due to the torque on the Bf 109 which apparently couldn't be trimmed out, Allied pilots would roll left in the dive and then pull out, which worked to escape a pursuer though not always their wingman.
However, as I have mentioned before - 500 mph going down is risky, regardless of the aircraft, and if you have to remember to adjust trim it's not a good idea for a beginner. You reach pull out level in just a few seconds, after something like 20 seconds it's too late. Some experienced pilots basically considered having to adjust trim in a very high speed dive a nuisance and a distraction, but nothing that would actually prevent their doing it - to the contrary they had to do it all the time. One of the problems incidentally which is not mentioned in that report is that you had to quickly dial the trim the other way after pulling out of the dive. James Edwards complained about this a lot and noted that the problem was largely alleviated by the longer tail of the Kittyhawk II and III.
German pilots also mentioned the risks of diving against or with a P-40, which is why their normal preferred escape maneuver was a high speed climbing turn to the right. Since the Bf 109 accelerated much better than the P-40 under normal conditions, presumably the issue with diving was the latter's dive speed and comparatively superior high speed controllability .
I do agree with you that the manual was written for keeping the average pilot out of trouble, especially while that pilot was still in training (i.e. before deploying to a combat area) after which local commander and fellow pilots would be giving instructions and advice which would supercede the manual or any standing orders.
S
* Caldwell scored 22 of his 28 victories in P-40s. He was also by coincidence friends with that test pilot Herbert O Fisher who I mentioned several times - the two of them got stuck in a demo flight of a C-46 when the landing gear wouldn't go down. After the difficult flight Fisher marked Caldwell as 'checked out' on the C-46.
Last edited:
From the link I poster earlier.
Hello Schweik,
You got me on the bad math thing. 1000+500+500 = 2000 pounds, not 1500 pounds!
Your lightened P-40L would be just past the 10,000 pound maximum T-O weight (for the late P-40) with a 2,000 pound bomb load but under the right field conditions, it sounds plausible.
The diving issue and trim that I was describing wasn't a matter of just reducing control force. It was a being aware that the aircraft may go sideways very quickly and break up. There needs to be some rudder control remaining to counteract the yaw tendency BEFORE the aircraft goes sideways.
I actually had not missed Grayman's post regarding procedures and dive speed limitations.
Please observe that what is listed in the table is max permissible dive speeds and they are not at full throttle.
Manifold pressure is not stated, but engine speed is only 2600 RPM.
Just for comparison's sake, note that the A6M3 has a maximum diving speed of 410 MPH and the A6M5 has a 460 MPH maximum and these were some of the lightweights that the P-40 fought.
- Ivan.
You got me on the bad math thing. 1000+500+500 = 2000 pounds, not 1500 pounds!
Your lightened P-40L would be just past the 10,000 pound maximum T-O weight (for the late P-40) with a 2,000 pound bomb load but under the right field conditions, it sounds plausible.
The diving issue and trim that I was describing wasn't a matter of just reducing control force. It was a being aware that the aircraft may go sideways very quickly and break up. There needs to be some rudder control remaining to counteract the yaw tendency BEFORE the aircraft goes sideways.
I actually had not missed Grayman's post regarding procedures and dive speed limitations.
Please observe that what is listed in the table is max permissible dive speeds and they are not at full throttle.
Manifold pressure is not stated, but engine speed is only 2600 RPM.
Just for comparison's sake, note that the A6M3 has a maximum diving speed of 410 MPH and the A6M5 has a 460 MPH maximum and these were some of the lightweights that the P-40 fought.
- Ivan.
- Thread starter
- #1,277
And everyone knows the P-40 could easily outdive the A6M3 or A6M5 by a wide margin, so 460 mph seems a bit low for the P-40, or even 480.
From what I understand the main risk was of going into a spin, which did happen fairly often. I guess planes did also break up but nobody lived to tell about it. However as soon as force on the stick was relaxed the plane would come out of the dive and could lose speed rapidly in a zoom climb.
From what I understand the main risk was of going into a spin, which did happen fairly often. I guess planes did also break up but nobody lived to tell about it. However as soon as force on the stick was relaxed the plane would come out of the dive and could lose speed rapidly in a zoom climb.
You are thinking of the correct incident. It was one of the most over G'd F15s in the fleet and did have an improperly machined longeron. With modern tools and equipment, unlike what was used on WW2 aircraft... Which had been excessively over stressed, and the cracks propagated over time (war weary?) resulting in Mr. Toads wild ride for one unlucky guy.
Routinely exceeding limitations is not a good business practice with planes. It will bite you in the arse eventually, or worse the guy who flies it last. Your attitude towards what you think the limits of the aircraft should be based on what one guy did with a brand new airplane would not for a long combat career make.
Airspeed installation error, out diving the enemy (Zeros in your one example - does not mean they dove to their max speed every time) is not as convincing to me as it is to you. From knowing what I do about Zeros I would not be anxious to get one fast in a shooting match as I would feel like I was running around with my skirt up asking to get spanked. Terrible roll rate and very stiff stick is not it's forte, so when a P40 rolled over and took the elevator down I would let it go (which would further reinforce the speed in dive advantage) but doesn't mean the Allied pilot was doing 500+.
Cheers,
Biff
Oh, agreed completely. We actually use monitoring software to let us know when an aircraft has exceeded limitations. If one gets a ping, we take it out of service for inspection. Too far out of limits and we get the manufacturer involved.
Hello Schweik,
This is one of those cases where I believe what "Everyone knows" might be a little exaggerated. The diving speed of the A6M2 was quite a bit lower and the reputation may have been based on that comparison.
From the description posted by Greyman (and other descriptions), it appears that the P-40 had a tendency to get tail heavy as speed increased. The solution for better control in a dive was to trim out those control forces because if this was not done, the pilot simply could not apply enough elevator or rudder control to keep the nose down and keep the plane from yawing to the right.
This is with the P-40 already trimmed for level flight at full throttle which presumably means maximum speed considering the altitude at the start of the dive. Imagine if it were trimmed for slower speeds.
The third condition listed was for trimming the P-40 for the dive. Note that forward stick pressure is still required and the rudder trim is not set at its maximum. Why would the instructions call for this? Why NOT use maximum trim?
Note also the last sentence about less tendency for recovery to be "too rapid". Does this mean overstressing the aircraft?
- Ivan.
- Status
