Author Topic: Commentary by a P-40 ACE  (Read 1591 times)

-towd_

  • Guest
Commentary by a P-40 ACE
« Reply #30 on: February 08, 2001, 03:54:00 PM »
god i love this guy.

Offline M.C.202

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 244
Commentary by a P-40 ACE
« Reply #31 on: February 08, 2001, 05:11:00 PM »
Widewing said:

> quote:Originally posted by Downtown:
> I have an agenda, PLEASE PYRO DO THE "B"

> Your image shows a Curtiss H81A-3. This was not a P-40B, or a P-40C, or even a Tomahawk
> IIA or IIB. It was a unique version cobbled together by Curtiss, using serial numbers first assigned to a British order of Tomahawk
> IIBs.

You, Downtown, and I know that, but it is a "shorthand" to use as by the time you get
"Curtiss H81A-3" out, someone is whining about their poor 190 being undermodled... :-)
Real undermodeling is not even having a version on line :-)

> Want to know more about the oddball Chinese Tomahawks? Let me know and I'll post more
> this evening (no time for it now).

Allways need MORE DATA. If they (AH) do the Curtis fighters, tell um to give the
"Curtiss H81A-3" the higher power (according to Eric Shilling) hand built engines :-)

> My regards,

> Widewing

My best to you,


------------------
M.C.202
Dino in Reno

Offline Jigster

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 107
      • http://www.33rd.org
Commentary by a P-40 ACE
« Reply #32 on: February 08, 2001, 05:39:00 PM »
 
Quote
Originally posted by Torgo:
Actually, I think the issue isn't that the P-40 has been underrated, it's that it's opponents have been overrated.

The overwhelming majority of Flying Tiger fighter kills were obsolete Ki-27 Nates (with fixed landing gear)..they never even saw a Zero, and fairly limited numbers of Ki-43s. And I'm sure many of the P-39 and P-40 kills in other units were Ki-27s.


And (I'll get flamed for this) I think even the Zero is somewhat overrated.  Despite having perhaps the best-trained pilots, across the board, in the world at the beginning of 42 (I'm sure individual LW experten in 42 were better, but not the LW across the board) once you get past the massacre of poorly trained British Buffaloes and assorted Dutch pieces of crap, US kill ratios vs. Zeros in Wildcats and such were pretty good..BEFORE all the good Japanese pilots were killed. And before the Hellcat and P-38 and such show up and make the kill ratios even worse.

This suggests to me that the Zero wasn't the all-conquering early war uberplane it's made out to be.


[This message has been edited by Torgo (edited 02-08-2001).]

Torgo, one only needs to look through the data collected by the several agencies that tested Koga's Zero, the first captured Zero. It could out fly anything the US had it the time, be it climb, acceleration, turn, range, etc.

The most significant problem with the A6M is durability. The best manuverability in the world isn't worth squat if you never get to put them to use. I think history proved this pretty well.

- Bess


Offline Andy Bush

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 153
      • http://www.simhq.com  (Contributing Editor - Air Combat Corner)
Commentary by a P-40 ACE
« Reply #33 on: February 08, 2001, 06:30:00 PM »
As Widewing can tell you, some pilots did very well with the P-40.

Which brings us back to the starting point in any discussion such as this...

It's the pilot, not the plane!

Or as we used to say back in the '70s when the Ego jets were just starting their DACT program...

"A hamburger in a fancy wrapper is still a hamburger."

Andy

Offline Jimdandy

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 46
Commentary by a P-40 ACE
« Reply #34 on: February 08, 2001, 07:01:00 PM »
Andy can't play on the BB. He's got an unfair advantage. Take your F-104 and go down the street and play Andy. LOL   Seriously Andy what do you think. I think it is a combination of both. A great pilot in a great plane against a great pilot in a mediocre plane given that luck doesn't get involved, a big given I know.

Offline Widewing

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8801
Commentary by a P-40 ACE
« Reply #35 on: February 08, 2001, 07:29:00 PM »
 
Quote
Originally posted by M.C.202:
Always need MORE DATA. If they (AH) do the Curtis fighters, tell um to give the
"Curtiss H81A-3" the higher power (according to Eric Shilling) hand built engines :-)

Anyone desiring to learn everything to know about the Allison V-1710 should get a copy of Whitney's 'Vees For Victory'. It's expensive at about $60, but worth every dime. Whitney goes into detail about the engines supplied for the Chinese Tomahawks. My copy is with my co-writer, so I'll try and relate the story from memory.

When the Chinese asked the U.S. for assistance, they asked for fighters and bombers. For political reasons, FDR would agree only to fighters, and U.S. law at the time allowed only for cash & carry sales to beligerents. So, a China based corporation was formed to purchase aircraft. However, virtually all U.S. production capacity was allocated for our own build up and existing contracts with friendly nations such as Britain. In order to free up some aircraft for China, the U.S. asked the Brits to exchange later model P-40Ds (Kittyhawk I) for currently ordered Tomahawk IIB fighters.
The Brits agreed and 100 of the contracted Tomahawks were transferred to a Chinese contract. This is where the story gets interesting.....

Curtiss saw an opportunity to utilize stock of enternally sealed fuel tanks that had been used on the Tomahawk IIA. The Brits did not like the external sealing and specified internal sealing for future builds. This left Curtiss with over 100 sets of obsolete fuel tanks. This was their chance to use these, and they had already been written off. This would enhance profits. In addition, the Chinese contract, unlike that with the Brits, did not specify plumbing or shackles for an external fuel tank, so this was deleted from the Chinese aircraft. Again, this simplified production and increased the profit margin. The net result is that even though the 100 fighters carried Tomahawk IIB serial numbers, these fighters were very much like the IIA, except that they had IIB armor. Then there was the engine problem....

Allison was running at 100% capacity. Simply stated, there weren't any extra engines to be had. Every block and cylinder head was already allocated to an existing contract. But, wait a minute, there were plenty of rejected blocks, cylinder heads and such. Allison realized that most of the rejected engine components were usable if the various parts were hand matched and fitted. They set up a production line and began assembling these engines. Individual parts were reworked and carefully matched. The results of this procedure were engines built to very tight tolerances. Essentially, these were 'blueprinted' engines. Dyno tests revealed that they produced as much as 220 hp more than the production line V-1710-33s going into the RAF Tomahawks and USAAF P-40C fighters. Allison had produced some very powerful and very expensive engines. Fortunately they were allowed to bury the extra cost into contracts for U.S. aircraft.
These engines certainly account for the performance of the AVG's Tomahawks. In general terms, the AVG fighters could pull up to 370 mph in level flight, which is reasonable considering that these aircraft had 20% more power and less weight than the British Tomahawk IIB. Another fact not picked up on as significant by historians was the high rate of reduction gear failures in the AVG aircraft. This is easily explained when you realize that the older style reduction gear was rated for no more than 1,100 hp. With as much as 1,250 hp on tap, the reduction gearbox was over-stressed and frequently stripped gears. Later models, with 1,200 hp engines were fitted with a much stronger spur gear design that could handle up to 1,600 hp. This is the major reason that the nose is shorter from the P-40D onward.

Now that the Chinese had airframes and engines, they needed to purchase guns for the fighters. Once again, all production was allocated for existing contracts. Nonetheless, CAMCO (the China based front company) managed to purchase enough .50 caliber Brownings for all 100 Tomahawks. Finding .30 caliber guns (installed in the wings) was more of a problem. Eventually, the 100 Tomahawks arrived at Rangoon with a mixture of guns. Some were fitted with 7.92mm caliber wing guns, others carried British specification guns in .303 caliber. Still others were armed with .30 U.S. caliber Brownings. This complicated logistics somewhat, but all three calibers were readily available, even 7.92mm, which was the standard for the Chinese Army.

Within the context of this knowledge, we can understand that the AVG fighters were a unique model. For that reason, Curtiss gave them their own special designation. Originally contracted for as the Curtiss H81-2A, these fighters were designated as the H81-3A. Many historians and authors have confused the various Curtiss designations, or figured that these were Tomahawk IIB aircraft based upon the serial numbers. We now know that these were a special model. It should also be noted that the serial numbers were assigned months before actual manufacturing began.

So, a unique group of fighter pilots flew an equally unique version of the Curtiss H81/Tomahawk/P-40.

Now you know the 'untold story'. :0


My regards,

Widewing

YGBSM. Retired Member of Aces High Trainer Corps, Past President of the DFC, retired from flying as Tredlite.

Offline M.C.202

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 244
Commentary by a P-40 ACE
« Reply #36 on: February 08, 2001, 11:46:00 PM »
Widewing said


In order to free up some aircraft for China,
the U.S. asked the Brits to exchange later
model P-40Ds (Kittyhawk I) for currently
ordered Tomahawk IIB fighters.
The Brits agreed and 100 of the contracted
Tomahawks were transferred to a Chinese
contract. This is where the story gets
interesting.....

I'm ready to see this aircraft in the game... production built, saw action, well known,
and think of the perk bonus...


PYRO?  With the hotrod engine?
He he, can we pick which popguns we get, ie .303, 7.92, 30-06 wing guns?


------------------
M.C.202
Dino in Reno

[This message has been edited by M.C.202 (edited 02-08-2001).]

Offline Vermillion

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4012
Commentary by a P-40 ACE
« Reply #37 on: February 09, 2001, 09:17:00 AM »
Nice story Widewing, thanks  

------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure

Offline Eagler

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18710
Commentary by a P-40 ACE
« Reply #38 on: February 09, 2001, 09:34:00 AM »
Just got my Matchbox Collectible 1:72 scale in the mail yesterday. This month it was a P-40E Flying Tiger  

Anyone else getting these?

Eagler
"Masters of the Air" Scenario - JG27


Intel Core i7-13700KF | GIGABYTE Z790 AORUS Elite AX | 64GB G.Skill DDR5 | 16GB GIGABYTE RTX 4070 Ti Super | 850 watt ps | pimax Crystal Light | Warthog stick | TM1600 throttle | VKB Mk.V Rudder

Offline Torgo

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 23
Commentary by a P-40 ACE
« Reply #39 on: February 09, 2001, 10:01:00 AM »
 
Quote
Originally posted by Jigster:
Torgo, one only needs to look through the data collected by the several agencies that tested Koga's Zero, the first captured Zero. It could out fly anything the US had it the time, be it climb, acceleration, turn, range, etc.


It was better in a lot of areas that turn out not to really matter in terms of head-to-head kill ratios.

I remember Zeros consistently getting thrashed by 39s, 40s, and Wildcats in the big Warbirds scenarios like Solomons, etc. (Of course there are a tremendous number of factors going into that..whether the FMs and gun modeling are in fact accurate, pilot quality, MA experience in similar type planes, etc.)

And of course the main point is, most of what P-40s and P-39s faced wasn't Zeros.

And the Japanese had a real problem with letting production lines for obsolete AC run too long. Would be interesting to see kill stats of USAAF units in 42 and 43 to see how long they were killing a lot of Nates, Whether much beyond the Ki-43 was being faced in any numbers, etc.




[This message has been edited by Torgo (edited 02-09-2001).]

Offline AKDejaVu

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5049
      • http://www.dbstaines.com
Commentary by a P-40 ACE
« Reply #40 on: February 21, 2001, 03:42:00 PM »
Shameless bump of a really good P40 discussion.

AKDejaVu
No demands HTC.. just suggestions

Wulf09

  • Guest
Commentary by a P-40 ACE
« Reply #41 on: February 22, 2001, 11:28:00 AM »
Hello folks.

 Some of you are fogetting that in A2A combat (at least that in real life) it was the MAN NOT THE MACHINE that won the battle   The Finnish pilots are a great example of this   So Kieren don't bet about who's gonna win the duel. It mainly depends on who's at the controls. Remeber this  

 Have fun people!

 Wulf