Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
My point exactly. Two or three radios, move however many you need for balance up behind the pilot.View attachment 543000
View attachment 543001
from this website: Aussie P-39 Airacobra – Emergency Defender
What I don't know is what those boxes of electronics are, looks a bit much for just the IFF? And I Don't know if the original radio is still in the tail.
This is about the most "stuff" I have seen over the engine of an Airacobra. and since it was a restoration there is some doubt as to the accuracy of the restoration job when it comes to radio placement. perhaps some licence as taken with radio placement for some reason/s?
Period photos sometimes show nothing under canopy and sometimes boxes/structures that doesn't agree with each other.
View attachment 543002
Large box (?) over the forward part of the engine?
View attachment 543003
Shorter but wider box a bit further back?
View attachment 543004
Same or different?
View attachment 543005
Two boxes over the engine?
Lots of photos with no boxes. But without actually knowing what the radio fit was on each aircraft it gets awful hard to say what could and could not be mounted over the engine.
There are drawings much like the one in post #1451 that show a box over the engine and it is labeled SRC 515 IFF.
Have a look in mxdoc.com, key word aces, but you have to add them up yourself. Lots of info on all fighters, all nations.Anyone got and data on Russian Air to Air Kills?
Not quite, the P40 did operate for a short while in Europe from bases in England but were quickly replaced by the Mustang or the Typhoon. Which may say something.They seldom if ever got to perform side by side in the same arena, so it's a theoretical discussion that lets every one exercise their scholarly research skills and advocate for their preferred interpretation. "Sci-Fi", if you will.
Cheers,
Wes
My point exactly. Two or three radios, move however many you need for balance up behind the pilot.
Yeah, that would the period with Spitfires with top-cover. I'm not saying the US P-40Fs didn't do good and valuable service in the Desert and NA, but they only got going when they already had Spitfires Vs to cover them. By that point the Commonwealth P-40 units had gone a whole year with the Tomahawk and Kittyhawk, and they knew well that the Curtis just didn't have the altitude performance required. Clive Caldwell was one who stated that they did the best with what they had, but he would have given his right arm for some Spitfires instead of the Kittyhawks.…..This corresponds to the phase in of the US merlin-engined P-40 units, starting with the 57th FG in June 1942....
Sorry, nothing to do with the USAAF's arrival. Units like 112Sq were already flying in a section of three pairs, the idea being this meant a section meeting a schwarm would out-number the Germans. Back in the UK, the finger-four had been standard for Fighter Command for over a year, and was already being taught to the RAF pilots arriving in the Med by OTUs in the UK. But, what that has to do with the quality of the P-40 vs the Typhoon is moot - at the time the Typhoon was being used in the ETO as a low-level interceptor and for fighter sweeps. The Duxford Typhoon Wing flew their first Circus on 20th June 1942. In September 1942 the Typhoon was chosen as the best available option for intercepting the tip-and-run Jabos over the Channel. No-one said "Hey, let's ask the Yanks to send some P-40Fs."…..The arrival of the Yanks also coincided with three* important Tactical and Operational changes to DAF missions - first and foremost, to the use of wingmen and "finger four" formations (with assorted variations)….....
And again, nothing to do with the P-40F vs the Typhoon. If the Typhons had been there they would simply have done the escort job better because they were faster and had a better operational ceiling and - at that point in the War - were better armed. In 1942 the RAF units flying Kittyhawks were cursing their Browning .50s for constant jamming under Gs. Even the Hispano II cannon in the Typhoons were operating more reliably. No2 and 5 SAAF pilots even asked if they could go back to their Tomahawks during this period and said they didn't want Kittyhawks, even the Merlin-engined P-40F!…..A lot of Axis aircraft were destroyed by bombers on the ground and a lot of them were shot down as they climbed up from below to engage fighter escorts. This was made more possible by the new bombers brought into the Theater by the Americans - mainly B-25s and B-24s.....
Again, by the time the Yanks got to tangle with them they had Spitfires and P-38s flying top-cover, which took away the Bf109F/G's main advantage. By 1943, RAF units were switching from the Kittyhawks to Spitfire Vs as fast as possible, as were the USAAF units in theatre, because the P-40F wasn't up to the job of air superiority fighter. By 1943 the P-40 was a bomber in the Med and unheard of in the UK. Meanwhile, the RAF was busily equipping more and more UK-based squadrons with Typhoons.…..JG 27 ….JG 77 ….JG 2 …. JG 53....
No, just amused by the illogic of your arguments for considering the P-40F better than the Typhoon.As an aside, you seem to be a bit eager to engage in some Brit vs. Yank debating.....
The quality of Luftwaffe units peaked during the Battle of Britain. Luftwaffe units had started having problems with crew replacements by August 1940. They had barely recovered in June 1941 when they had to go into the meat-grinder of Russia. Whilst the experten were still very dangerous all War, especially whilst they had superior fighters, the average Luftwaffe pilot declined in quality post-1940. By the time the 57th FG started flying the first USAAF Warhawk operations in the Desert in October 1942, that training problem had already taken a deep bite out of the quality of the Luftwaffe.…..The larger point we are addressing here is your claim that the air opposition was weak and worn out by the time the Americans got involved in the war.....
No, they had to use the P-40 because they simply did not have enough better fighters available. The RAF only originally sent the Tomahawk to the Med in 1941 because they thought they would only being meeting Italian fighters like the Fiat CR42 and G50. They had already decided the P-40 was unsuitable for combat against the Bf109E, let alone the F. They had to upgrade to the Kittyhawk because they had to replace the Tomahawk quickly with something available.…..and they definitely needed the P-40....
Yeah, that would the period with Spitfires with top-cover. I'm not saying the US P-40Fs didn't do good and valuable service in the Desert and NA, but they only got going when they already had Spitfires Vs to cover them.
Sorry, nothing to do with the USAAF's arrival. Units like 112Sq were already flying in a section of three pairs, the idea being this meant a section meeting a schwarm would out-
And again, nothing to do with the P-40F vs the Typhoon. If the Typhons had been there they would simply have done the escort job better because they were faster and had a better operational ceiling and - at that point in the War - were better armed. In 1942 the RAF units flying Kittyhawks were cursing their Browning .50s for constant jamming under Gs. Even the Hispano II cannon in the Typhoons were operating more reliably. No2 and 5 SAAF pilots even asked if they could go back to their Tomahawks during this period and said they didn't want Kittyhawks, even the Merlin-engined P-40F!
Again, by the time the Yanks got to tangle with them they had Spitfires and P-38s flying top-cover, which took away the Bf109F/G's main advantage. By 1943, RAF units were switching
Once again, factually incorrect. The 325th Fighter Group was assigned as escorts to the 320h Bombardment group (B-26s)By 1943 the P-40 was a bomber in the Med and unheard of in the UK. Meanwhile, the RAF was busily equipping more and more UK-based squadrons with Typhoons.
I'm equally amused by the combination of strident assertiveness with lack of awareness of the basic facts on this topic.No, just amused by the illogic of your arguments for considering the P-40F better than the Typhoon.
The quality of Luftwaffe units peaked during the Battle of Britain
They had already decided the P-40 was unsuitable for combat against the Bf109E, let alone the F. They had to upgrade to the Kittyhawk because they had to replace the Tomahawk quickly with something available.
No, just amused by the illogic of your arguments for considering the P-40F better than the Typhoon.
Let's hear it for divergent narratives of the same historical events. Good thing you guys don't frequent the same pub. If you guys were to settle your differences, it would spoil the entertainment value for the rest of us!I'm equally amused by the combination of strident assertiveness with lack of awareness of the basic facts on this topic.
The p38s "providing top cover" you reference ARE a "yank" plane. But really that doesn't matter. Ultimately all the types, the p38, the p40, and the spitfire all had different strengths and weaknesses that complimented each other.Yeah, that would the period with Spitfires with top-cover. I'm not saying the US P-40Fs didn't do good and valuable service in the Desert and NA, but they only got going when they already had Spitfires Vs to cover them. By that point the Commonwealth P-40 units had gone a whole year with the Tomahawk and Kittyhawk, and they knew well that the Curtis just didn't have the altitude performance required. Clive Caldwell was one who stated that they did the best with what they had, but he would have given his right arm for some Spitfires instead of the Kittyhawks.
Sorry, nothing to do with the USAAF's arrival. Units like 112Sq were already flying in a section of three pairs, the idea being this meant a section meeting a schwarm would out-number the Germans. Back in the UK, the finger-four had been standard for Fighter Command for over a year, and was already being taught to the RAF pilots arriving in the Med by OTUs in the UK. But, what that has to do with the quality of the P-40 vs the Typhoon is moot - at the time the Typhoon was being used in the ETO as a low-level interceptor and for fighter sweeps. The Duxford Typhoon Wing flew their first Circus on 20th June 1942. In September 1942 the Typhoon was chosen as the best available option for intercepting the tip-and-run Jabos over the Channel. No-one said "Hey, let's ask the Yanks to send some P-40Fs."
And again, nothing to do with the P-40F vs the Typhoon. If the Typhons had been there they would simply have done the escort job better because they were faster and had a better operational ceiling and - at that point in the War - were better armed. In 1942 the RAF units flying Kittyhawks were cursing their Browning .50s for constant jamming under Gs. Even the Hispano II cannon in the Typhoons were operating more reliably. No2 and 5 SAAF pilots even asked if they could go back to their Tomahawks during this period and said they didn't want Kittyhawks, even the Merlin-engined P-40F!
Again, by the time the Yanks got to tangle with them they had Spitfires and P-38s flying top-cover, which took away the Bf109F/G's main advantage. By 1943, RAF units were switching from the Kittyhawks to Spitfire Vs as fast as possible, as were the USAAF units in theatre, because the P-40F wasn't up to the job of air superiority fighter. By 1943 the P-40 was a bomber in the Med and unheard of in the UK. Meanwhile, the RAF was busily equipping more and more UK-based squadrons with Typhoons.
No, just amused by the illogic of your arguments for considering the P-40F better than the Typhoon.
The quality of Luftwaffe units peaked during the Battle of Britain. Luftwaffe units had started having problems with crew replacements by August 1940. They had barely recovered in June 1941 when they had to go into the meat-grinder of Russia. Whilst the experten were still very dangerous all War, especially whilst they had superior fighters, the average Luftwaffe pilot declined in quality post-1940. By the time the 57th FG started flying the first USAAF Warhawk operations in the Desert in October 1942, that training problem had already taken a deep bite out of the quality of the Luftwaffe.
No, they had to use the P-40 because they simply did not have enough better fighters available. The RAF only originally sent the Tomahawk to the Med in 1941 because they thought they would only being meeting Italian fighters like the Fiat CR42 and G50. They had already decided the P-40 was unsuitable for combat against the Bf109E, let alone the F. They had to upgrade to the Kittyhawk because they had to replace the Tomahawk quickly with something available.
The biggest problem with the P-40F was it was little more than a P-36 with a Merlin 28, just as the P-40B/C was just a P-36 with an Allison V-1710. The P-36 was already falling behind European fighters like the Spitfire and ME109 when the XP-40 first flew in 1938. This was recognised by North American Aviation when they were asked to make P-40s by the British Overseas Purchasing Commission in 1940. NAA came up with the Mustang instead. The tragedy is that Ford had turned down the opportunity to make Rolls-Royce Merlins, which meant the first Packard V-1650s weren't available when the NA-73x (which became the P-51A) first flew in 1940. If the Mustang had been built from the start with the Packard Merlin, then the Commonwealth units could have switched from Tomahawks to P-51Bs in 1942. Now, I'd accept an argument that the P-51B was a better fighter than the Typhoon, and definitely far better than a P-40F.
[QUOTE ="Schweik, post: 1485083, member: 73921"]As an aside, you seem to be a bit eager to engage in some Brit vs. Yank debating, but that is not the goal of this thread
The tragedy is that Ford had turned down the opportunity to make Rolls-Royce Merlins, which meant the first Packard V-1650s weren't available when the NA-73x (which became the P-51A) first flew in 1940.
Interesting...The RAF only originally sent the Tomahawk to the Med in 1941 because they thought they would only being meeting Italian fighters like the Fiat CR42 and G50
Interesting...
MC.200AS was first operated by 374° Squadriglia, starting April '41.
MC.202 was first operated by 4° Stormo, starting July 1941.
Re.2001 was first operated by 2° (6° Stormo), starting summer 1941.
The RAF wasn't stupid and knew of the types I listed, considering that they had already tangled with these types in various places in the Med prior to the North African campaign.
So that would be the air bases with Bf109s and Macchi 202s? You did pause to check the range limitations of both those types, right? Oh, no you didn't. The Bf109F/Gs had to be kept close to the battlefront because they were just as short-legged as the Spitfire. The Macchis were actually pulled back because more were destroyed on the ground by the LRDG and SAS than in the air. And hitting the Axis airbases had been a standard tactic looooooooooong before the P-40F arrived in theatre. Ernest "Imshi" Mason became an ace doing exactly that kind of raid on Italian airfields in a Hurricane in 1940-41. Mason died trying the same in a Kittyhawk . The SAAF in particular were doing such raids in Marylands and then Baltimores before the USAAF's arrival.This sounds nice and logical but is just not factually true. Spitfires, when available, did indeed provide top cover over Allied bases. But there are two problems in the real world with your theory: First, they did not have the range to cover strike missions except to very close targets - this was the main role played by the P-40F in fact - second, there were never enough of them to cover the whole battlefield, which is why again the later model Kittyhawks were used.
Bobby Gibbes explained that the altitude advantage of the P-40F lasted exactly one mission. The Bf109s were surprised to find Kittyhawks over 25,000 feet, but the next day they just flew 2000 feet higher and the Kittyhawk IIs could do nothing about it. Given that the Typhoon also had much better range than the Spitfire the point is moot. The Typhoon would have done the escort job just as well if not better than the P-40F, especially as it was faster.This is all fairly easy to verify now as we have books like Shores MAW series which lists the aircraft used, and what they were used for, on each given day. Within the DAF late model Kittyhawks (Mk II, IIa and III) were used to fly cover for older Kittyhawk Mk I and Ia, and for Hurricanes.
But Typhoons were used as fighters in the Channel Theatre when the P-40F was rejected for that theatre. I have pointed this out numerous times and you are still avoiding that point. You seem to be under the misconception that the P-40F was used in the Desert instead of the Typhoon by choice, whereas history shows the P-40F was replaced as soon as it could be by better aircraft, either Spitfires or Thunderbolts.How well the Typhoon theoretically would have done is speculation since they weren't used.
See above. Wasn't a new strategy and the 109s' bases were inside the range of Spitfires.Once again, factually incorrect. The Spitfires simply did not have the range to fly escort in most of the strike missions over German and Italian airbases which was the new strategy used by the DAF after mid 1942.
Try reading more widely.I'm equally amused by the combination of strident assertiveness with lack of awareness of the basic facts on this topic.
No, I just pointed out that the quality of the average replacement pilot had dropped by 1942. I actually said the experten were deadly all War, especially when they could take advantage of the superior altitude performance of the 109, as they did against the P-40F. You could start here, and do remember that Allied fighter pilots on average had 300-360 hours of flying training before they went operational, even in 1942.Ok so you are saying that after 1940 the Luftwaffe was a push-over and victory claims by Allied pilots in the Med were "easy" and should be taken with a grain of salt, is that right?
Which is not to say the Typhoon could have done a better job. Considering it was faster, had just as good range, had heavier armament, was as tough if not tougher, and could out-climb the P-40F, I'd say it is patently obvious that the Typhoon would have done a better job.And yet even the lowly old Tomahawk could apparently shoot down Bf 109F-4s in fairly large numbers...
True, but it amuses me that, of all the fighters available, it was the P-40 that got given the Packard-Merlin 28. Maybe a North American Mustang I with a Merlin 28 wouldn't have quite been a P-51B (the P-51B got the Merlin 60-series), but I suspect it would have been a lot better than a P-40F. Heck, I'd even have preferred a P-39D/P-400 with a Merlin 28 over a P-40F!This gets brought up a lot but Ford was not a magician. Packard was being talked to about replacing Ford in just a few weeks. The formal contract may not have been signed until Sept of 1940 but Packard had been in possession of most of the drawings that Ford had plus the sample engine for a number of weeks before the formal contract was signed.
So that would be the air bases with Bf109s and Macchi 202s? You did pause to check the range limitations of both those types, right? Oh, no you didn't. The Bf109F/Gs had to be kept close to the battlefront because they were just as short-legged as the Spitfire.
Bobby Gibbes explained that the altitude advantage of the P-40F lasted exactly one mission. The Bf109s were surprised to find Kittyhawks over 25,000 feet, but the next day they just flew 2000 feet higher and the Kittyhawk IIs could do nothing about it. Given that the Typhoon also had much better range than the Spitfire the point is moot. The Typhoon would have done the escort job just as well if not better than the P-40F, especially as it was faster.
But Typhoons were used as fighters in the Channel Theatre when the P-40F was rejected for that theatre. I have pointed this out numerous times and you are still avoiding that point. You seem to be under the misconception that the P-40F was used in the Desert instead of the Typhoon by choice, whereas history shows the P-40F was replaced as soon as it could be by better aircraft, either Spitfires or Thunderbolts.
See above. Wasn't a new strategy and the 109s' bases were inside the range of Spitfires.
Try reading more widely.
Which is not to say the Typhoon could have done a better job. Considering it was faster, had just as good range, had heavier armament, was as tough if not tougher, and could out-climb the P-40F, I'd say it is patently obvious that the Typhoon would have done a better job.