Originally posted by Slash27
How about the P-40N WW, how does she compare with the E. I cant find my good reference book, but since you were here.
The P-40N was an attempt to improve several deficiencies in the earlier models. The P-40K-10 extended tail was carried over to improve stability in the yaw axis (helped a lot with reducing ground loops). Weight was reduced via several methods, including removing two guns, aluminum oil and glycol radiators, magnesium wheels and reduced internal fuel. It received a cut-down fuselage behind the cockpit and a new canopy design to improve outward vision.
Beginning with the P-40N-15, fuel capacity and the full six gun battery was restored. Bomb racks were added under the wings for a total of three 500 lb bombs. It was clear that AAF intended to use the later P-40Ns for ground support and light attack, rather than as a front line fighter.
In the earliest P-40Ns (the -1 and -5) climb was improved, as was speed. However, the improvement wasn't much. the P-40N-20 was slower than the P-40E and didn't climb as well either. This was due to the gradual increase in weight over the N series to well over 11,000 pounds fully loaded. In field use, the P-40N was frequently fitted with a 1,000 lb bomb under the belly and two 500 lb bombs under the wings. This load-out was commonly used by the 12th AF in the MTO.
The P-40 remained in production long after better fighters were available. One reason for this (beyond politics) was that the Curtiss XP-46, XP-60 and XP-62 designs were miserable failures.
Now, to the AH2 P-40E. Our P-40E has WEP. This is unusual, because the real P-40E did not. The AH2 P-40E more closely resembles the short fuselage P-40K-5. It seems that our P-40E is actually an amalgam of several P-40 (H87) models.
My regards,
Widewing
