and here is yet another juicy series of anecdotes...
P-40E -vs- P-40N
Lt. Sammy A. Pierce, 49th Fighter Group/5th Air Force
"From a maintenance standpoint, the P40E was a much better built aircraft; the P-40N appeared to be a lightweight, very cheap copy with pretty poor workmanship, poor fittings, clearances and tolerances. The P-40N actually required more maintenance man hours even though it did not have many of the normal components of the P-40E, such as an internal starter, vacuum pumps, and other items. After we received the P-40N, we lost two or three due to material failures before we could correct all the deficiencies. We had to replace the main oil line, which was too light to stand up under engine pressure, and build up the wheel spindles, which were too small and allowed the wheels to wobble, resulting in excessive tire wear and blown tires. After these problems were corrected, the P-40Ns were fairly easy to maintain and keep in commission.
From a performance standpoint, the P40N would outperform the P-40E in many respects, including rate of climb and turning radius. There was not improvement though to try to out turn the Zekes, Oscars or Hamps. The P40N would out turn the Tony, which we began to run into in late '43. I had the utmost confidence in the P40E, and felt that as long as the engine ran, the airplane would stay airborne regardless of the other damage. Several times when flying both numbers 42 and 50, I took some good hits, but it did not hurt the flying characteristics or performance of the P-40E, and at least twice, number 55 was shot up pretty good.
The P-40N, being lighter, had a much better rate of climb and was a little faster on the straight and level, but, on the other hand, from a standing start, we could take off and climb to altitude about as fast with the old P-40E because of the extra time required to hand crank the engine starter on the P-40N. The only thing in the theater that would out dive the P-40E, was the P-47. With either model we could out climb any version of the Zero in a shallow high-speed climb but the advantage was too small to chance it if he was in range, unless you were on the deck and had no other choice. The Tony (Ki 61 Hein) could out run either of the P-40 models. The Hamp was the fastest of the Zeros, but we saw very few of these. I had always felt that I could out run them and out zoom them, but I never got a chance to find out. The Oscar was probably the slowest Japanese fighter in the theater and had very little armament, but it was a performing fool. An experienced pilot in an Oscar was not as much a threat to an experienced P-40 pilot because of the Oscar's lack of guns and the P-40's ability to take it, but he could send you home talking to yourself. The P-40 would have had to rely on mutual support and turning tactics against the Frank and George, but would still have a slight edge in firepower because our .50 caliber machine guns had a little more range than their 12.5mm guns, as well as a faster rate of fire.
The Zero was a good fighter, every version or mark number of it, and I guess I must have encountered six to eight different versions, their only deficiency was in armament. Another problem was the pilots. Until late 1943, they had a number of good, experienced pilots, but thank goodness, they were seldom coordinated in their attacks, otherwise there are probably many of us who wouldn't be around now. Starting in 1944 they just didn't have enough experienced pilots left who knew what they were doing, and things went downhill from that point on.
As far as dive or level bombers were concerned, the Japanese never put anything in the air that was a problem for the P-40s except possibly in altitude. The Betty could operate above you but for some strange reason, except for recon flights, they were usually down around 18,000 to 22,000 feet, and we could stagger up to 25,000 to 26,000 feet. The Betty had twin 20mm cannons in the tail that made the tail an unpopular area of attack, so most of our attacks were either frontal or overhead whenever possible
