Author Topic: P-40N?  (Read 934 times)

Offline Stryker

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 128
P-40N?
« on: October 13, 2009, 05:24:26 AM »
lets lose the E and welcome the faster and lighter N model on in(thanks to the show worlds deadliest aircraft that i even know there was a N model made)

ill try and find some info/production #s on it a bit later.. or if anyone has it handy throw it on in here
ok.. i found a bit of info on the N model, not much.. but some


The last production version of the P-40 was designated the P-40N in the summer of 1943. Since the performance of previous P-40 versions left much to be desired, Curtiss decided it was time to make a last ditch effort to improve the performance capabilities.   
Originally, the P-40N was to be fitted with the Merlin engine, however, a shortage of engines caused Curtiss to, instead, use the 1200hp Allison V-1710-81 engine in it's place. (The last 220 planes off the production line used the Allison V-1710-115) Along with the new powerplant, the P-40's frame structure was also lightened. Two of the six wing-mounted guns were removed, smaller and lighter undercarriage wheels were installed, head armor, aluminum radiators and oil coolers were also installed. The resulting reduction in the weight made the P-40N the fastest of the P-40 series, reaching a speed of 380 mph at 10,500 feet. Even though by 1943 standards the Warhawk was rapidly becoming obsolete, the P-40N became the version that was most widely built--5220 examples rolling off the Curtiss lines before production finally ceased.

The P-40N had an unloaded weight of 6000 lbs and a range of 753 miles (1406 with drop tank). Most were made with a fuselage that was 33' 4" in length, although a few used the shorter 31' 4" fuselage that was predominant on earlier P-40 versions.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2009, 05:35:10 AM by Stryker »
Lt Cmdr Gambit
The Aggressor Squadron
65th AGRS, 57th ATG
"Terror In The Skies"

Offline Anaxogoras

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7072
Re: P-40N?
« Reply #1 on: October 13, 2009, 06:14:09 AM »
lets lose the E and welcome the faster and lighter N

Why would you want the E removed from the game? :confused:
gavagai
334th FS


RPS for Aces High!

Offline thndregg

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4053
Re: P-40N?
« Reply #2 on: October 13, 2009, 07:58:41 AM »
lets lose the E and welcome the faster and lighter N model

Nothing wrong with the both P40 models we have in the game. What bothers me is the concept in the game that we need to ditch the slower, less uber, less weaponized, this-that-& the other. Aces High is not an arms race. I hope they keep doing what they are doing and go for as complete of plane set as they can, uber or not. It's great to break out the hangar queens in ANY arena.
Former XO: Birds of Prey (BOPs - AH2)
Former CO: 91st Bomb Group (H)
Current Assignment: Dickweed Heavy Bomber Group

Offline PJ_Godzilla

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2661
Re: P-40N?
« Reply #3 on: October 13, 2009, 08:38:59 AM »
I suspect the P40f - of which 1311 were built - would be the better variant at altitude, though the N has the best speed. The f had the supercharged Merlin.

Never kill a version, though. I happen to really like the E and more=better.

http://www.p40warhawk.com/Variants/P-40F.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtiss_P-40 excerpted here for convenience...


Departing from normal USAAC convention, there was no P-40A. Some records indicate this might have been reserved for a reconnaissance variant that was briefly in development by Curtiss, but quickly discarded.
Revised versions of the P-40 soon followed: the P-40B or Tomahawk IIA had extra .30in in (7.62 mm) U.S., or .303 in (7.7 mm) machine guns in the wings and a partially protected fuel system; the P-40C or Tomahawk IIB added underbelly drop tank and bomb shackles, as well as actual self-sealing fuel tanks and other minor revisions, but the extra weight did have a negative impact on aircraft performance. (All versions of the P-40 had a relatively low power-to-weight ratio compared to contemporary fighters.)
Only a small number of P-40D or Kittyhawk Mk Is were made - less than 50. With a new, larger Allison engine, slightly narrower fuselage, redesigned canopy, and improved cockpit, the P-40D eliminated the nose-mounted .50 in (12.7 mm) guns and instead had a pair of .50 in (12.7 mm) guns in each wing. The distinctive chin airscoop grew larger in order to adequately cool the large Allison engine.
Retrospective designation for a single prototype. The P-40A was a single camera-carrying aircraft.
The P-40E or P-40E-1 was very similar in most respects to the P-40D, except for a slightly more powerful engine and an extra .50 in (12.7 mm) gun in each wing, bringing the total to six. Some aircraft also had small underwing bomb shackles. Supplied to the Commonwealth air forces as the Kittyhawk Mk IA. The P-40E was the variant that bore the brunt of air to air combat by the type in the key period of early to mid 1942, for example with the first US squadrons to replace the AVG in China (the AVG was already transitioning to this type from the P-40B/C), the type used by the Australians at Milne Bay, by the New Zealand squadrons during most of their air to air combat, and by the RAF/Commonwealth in North Africa as the Kittyhawk IA.
 
In the vicinity of Moore Field, Texas. The lead ship in a formation of P-40s is peeling off for the "attack" in a practice flight at the Army Air Forces advanced flying school. Selected aviation cadets were given transition training in these fighters before receiving their pilot's wings, 1943.P-40F and P-40L, which both featured Packard V-1650 Merlin engine in place of the normal Allison, and thus did not have the carburetor scoop on top of the nose. Performance for these models at higher altitudes was better than their Allison-engined cousins. The L in some cases also featured a fillet in front of the vertical stabilizer, or a stretched fuselage to compensate for the higher torque. The P-40L was sometimes nicknamed "Gypsy Rose Lee," after a famous stripper of the era, due to its stripped-down condition. Supplied to the Commonwealth air forces under the designation Kittyhawk Mk II, a total of 330 Mk IIs were supplied to the RAF under Lend-Lease. The first 230 aircraft are sometimes known as the Kittyhawk Mk IIA. The P-40F/L was extensively used by U.S. fighter groups operating in the Mediterranian Theater.
P-40G : 43 P-40 aircraft fitted with the wings of the Tomahawk Mk IIA. A total of 16 aircraft were supplied to the Soviet Union, and the rest to the US Army Air Force. It was later redesignated RP-40G.
P-40K, an Allison-engined P-40L, with the nosetop scoop retained and the Allison configured scoop and cowl flaps. Supplied to the Commonwealth air forces as the Kittyhawk Mk III, it was widely used by US units in the CBI.
P-40M, version generally similar to the P-40K, with a stretched fuselage like the P-40L and powered by an Allison V-1710-81 engine giving better performance at altitude (compared to previous Allison versions). It had some detail improvements and it was characterized by two small air scoops just before the exhaust pipes. Most of them were supplied to Allied countries (mainly UK and USSR), while some others remained in the USA for advanced training. It was also supplied to the Commonwealth air forces as the Kittyhawk Mk. III.
P-40N (manufactured 1943-44), the final production model. The P-40N featured a stretched rear fuselage to counter the torque of the larger, late-war Allison engine, and the rear deck of the cockpit behind the pilot was cut down at a moderate slant to improve rearward visibility. A great deal of work was also done to try and eliminate excess weight to improve the Warhawk's climb rate. Early N production blocks dropped a .50 in (12.7 mm) gun from each wing, bringing the total back to four; later production blocks reintroduced it after complaints from units in the field. Supplied to Commonwealth air forces as the Kittyhawk Mk IV. A total of 553 P-40Ns were acquired by the Royal Australian Air Force, making it the variant most commonly used by the RAAF. Subvariants of the P-40N ranged widely in specialization from stripped down four-gun "hot rods" which could reach the highest top speeds of any production variant of the P-40 (up to 380 mph), to overweight types with all the extras intended for fighter-bombing or even training missions.
 
Curtiss P-40N-5-CU "Little Jeanne"
Curtiss P-40N Warhawk "Little Jeanne" in flightP-40P : The designation of 1,500 aircraft ordered with V-1650-1 engines, but actually built as the P-40N with V-1710-81 engines.
XP-40Q with a 4-bladed prop, cut-down rear fuselage and bubble canopy, supercharger, squared-off wingtips and tail surfaces, and improved engine with two-speed supercharger was tested, but its performance was not enough of an improvement to merit production when compared to the contemporary late model P-47Ds and P-51Ds pouring off production lines. The XP-40Q was, however, the fastest of the P-40 series with a top speed of 422 mph (679 km/h) as a result of the introduction of a high-altitude supercharger gear. (No P-40 model with a single-speed supercharger could even approach 400 mph (640 km/h)) With the end of hostilities in Europe, the P-40 came to the end of its front line service.
P-40R : The designation of P-40F and P-40L aircraft, converted into training aircraft in 1944.
RP-40 : Some American P-40s were converted into reconnaissance aircraft.
TP-40 : Some P-40s were converted into two-seat trainers.
Twin P-40 : Probably the most unusual variant, it was a P-40C outfitted in 1942 with a pair of 1,300 hp (969 kW) Packard V-1650-1 Merlin engines mounted atop the wings, over the main landing gear.[62]
Some say revenge is a dish best served cold. I say it's usually best served hot, chunky, and foaming. Eventually, you will all die in my vengeance vomit firestorm.

Offline JunkyII

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8428
Re: P-40N?
« Reply #4 on: October 13, 2009, 08:49:07 AM »
Nothing wrong with the both P40 models we have in the game. What bothers me is the concept in the game that we need to ditch the slower, less uber, less weaponized, this-that-& the other. Aces High is not an arms race. I hope they keep doing what they are doing and go for as complete of plane set as they can, uber or not. It's great to break out the hangar queens in ANY arena.
what 4 of the last 5 fighter aircraft were all early/mid war planes. Dont know why 1 dudes post bothers you seems HTC is on same page as you.
DFC Member
Proud Member of Pigs on the Wing
"Yikes"

Offline RaptorL

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 292
Re: P-40N?
« Reply #5 on: October 13, 2009, 01:17:10 PM »
 :aok Give us a new P-40 to the list.

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Re: P-40N?
« Reply #6 on: October 13, 2009, 02:18:08 PM »
Only reason for a P-40N would be for ground-attack ord capabilities, in which case it's even slower than the P-40E model. Don't get me wrong I think it might be nice, but it was not uber in any way.

A little comparison:

P-40B top speed was 352mph (with 1040hp Allison)
P-40E top speed was 362mph (with 1150hp Allison)
P-40F top speed was 364mph (with 1300hp Merlin 28)
P-40K top speed was 362mph (with 1325hp Allison)
P-40L top speed was 368mph (with 1300hp Merlin 28) *
P-40M was a P-40K but went back to Allison engines (Merlins scarce)
P-40N-1 top speed was 378mph (with 1200hp Allison) **
P-40N-5 top speed was 350mph (with 1200hp Allison) ***
P-40N-15 top speed was 343mph (with 1200hp Allison)

Note the Merlins FTH alt was 19k or so, and the Allison alt was 16k or so. The curves wouldn't be too different, just shifted up. Going from 1100 to 1300hp seems to have almost no effect on this airframe. It was draggy IMO, and couldn't get much faster no matter what engine you put into it.

* = The L was a stripped down version. They removed 250lbs of fuel, ammo, and guns, but all this only netted "a mere 4 mph faster" than the previous version. Other wise identical to P-40F-5 Merlin model.

** = The P-40N-1 had a lightened structure, 31 gallons less fuel, only 4 guns, and only 200 rounds per gun. 400 were built like this. It was only about 10mph faster, yet was the fastest production model P-40.

*** = The P-40N-5 put the guns and ammo back, as pilots complained it couldn't get the job done. It added bomb racks and could carry underwing bombs as well as drop tanks. The extra weight not only dropped the speed back down, but it actually was slower than previous models! This model was exported heavily (1000 to the VVS, and a number to RAAF/RNZAF/etc units). It was used for ground attack and bomber escort missions, but in US service it was only used as a trainer according to a couple of things I've read.

EDIT: P.S. I think the P-40N saw little to no service with the US in combat. The majority of them were used for state-side advanced trainers. They did see combat with other nations, notably the Soviet Union and the Royal New Zealand Air Force and the Royal Australian Air Force
« Last Edit: October 13, 2009, 02:21:11 PM by Krusty »

Offline PJ_Godzilla

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2661
Re: P-40N?
« Reply #7 on: October 13, 2009, 03:20:23 PM »
Only reason for a P-40N would be for ground-attack ord capabilities, in which case it's even slower than the P-40E model. Don't get me wrong I think it might be nice, but it was not uber in any way.

A little comparison:

P-40B top speed was 352mph (with 1040hp Allison)
P-40E top speed was 362mph (with 1150hp Allison)
P-40F top speed was 364mph (with 1300hp Merlin 28)
P-40K top speed was 362mph (with 1325hp Allison)
P-40L top speed was 368mph (with 1300hp Merlin 28) *
P-40M was a P-40K but went back to Allison engines (Merlins scarce)
P-40N-1 top speed was 378mph (with 1200hp Allison) **
P-40N-5 top speed was 350mph (with 1200hp Allison) ***
P-40N-15 top speed was 343mph (with 1200hp Allison)

Note the Merlins FTH alt was 19k or so, and the Allison alt was 16k or so. The curves wouldn't be too different, just shifted up. Going from 1100 to 1300hp seems to have almost no effect on this airframe. It was draggy IMO, and couldn't get much faster no matter what engine you put into it.

* = The L was a stripped down version. They removed 250lbs of fuel, ammo, and guns, but all this only netted "a mere 4 mph faster" than the previous version. Other wise identical to P-40F-5 Merlin model.

** = The P-40N-1 had a lightened structure, 31 gallons less fuel, only 4 guns, and only 200 rounds per gun. 400 were built like this. It was only about 10mph faster, yet was the fastest production model P-40.

*** = The P-40N-5 put the guns and ammo back, as pilots complained it couldn't get the job done. It added bomb racks and could carry underwing bombs as well as drop tanks. The extra weight not only dropped the speed back down, but it actually was slower than previous models! This model was exported heavily (1000 to the VVS, and a number to RAAF/RNZAF/etc units). It was used for ground attack and bomber escort missions, but in US service it was only used as a trainer according to a couple of things I've read.

EDIT: P.S. I think the P-40N saw little to no service with the US in combat. The majority of them were used for state-side advanced trainers. They did see combat with other nations, notably the Soviet Union and the Royal New Zealand Air Force and the Royal Australian Air Force

Good comparison, Oh Krusted One. That was my read as well - the Merlin F model is probably better since fully armed yet still faster and with a better operational ceiling and climb. BTW, the only time I saw you in the MA, you were flying a P40 of some type.

And I agree on the dragginess issue. I think that rad - and I'm virtually certain North American, Messerschmitt, and Supermarine would all agree - is placed in the WORST possible spot.

My understanding of the wind tunnel testing on the P-51 was that they took data on various rad inlet locations and settled where they did as a far better location. This and the laminar flow wing combined to get the counts down.

Some say revenge is a dish best served cold. I say it's usually best served hot, chunky, and foaming. Eventually, you will all die in my vengeance vomit firestorm.

Offline Plazus

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2868
Re: P-40N?
« Reply #8 on: October 13, 2009, 03:31:58 PM »
I fully support for adding another P40! But I would first like to see a remodeled version of the current P40s in game. Once those are remodled, then that would be a good time for adding the N.
Plazus
80th FS "Headhunters"

Axis vs Allies

Offline PJ_Godzilla

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2661
Re: P-40N?
« Reply #9 on: October 13, 2009, 04:07:25 PM »


Note the Merlins FTH alt was 19k or so, and the Allison alt was 16k or so. The curves wouldn't be too different, just shifted up. Going from 1100 to 1300hp seems to have almost no effect on this airframe. It was draggy IMO, and couldn't get much faster no matter what engine you put into it.



I should add, O Bucket o' Krust, that you can calculate a constant given the speed and power numbers and then use that constant and a linearity assumption to calc the expected speed for a postulated power level.

I used the F model power and top speed (you've gotta cube it since D= .5 rho v^3 S at DV = Max Power) to back out .5 rho S CD - I then divided a power level of 1800hp by that value and got 405 mph.

That's probably the best case scenario IF you had an 1800 hp engine you could package into the P40 airframe.

So, no speed demon, this one... Still, I sort of love the idea of a 405 mph shark nosed '40 (P-40O!). I'll have to go dive one to see what the handling would be like -though doubtless there'd need to be a fuse extension to go with it - and the attendant weight.
Some say revenge is a dish best served cold. I say it's usually best served hot, chunky, and foaming. Eventually, you will all die in my vengeance vomit firestorm.

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Re: P-40N?
« Reply #10 on: October 13, 2009, 05:21:16 PM »
Even the Merlin powered airframes never approached anywhere near that horsepower or speed.


EDIT: P.S. I believe the early prototypes had a low-slung cooler under the belly, which was moved forward on the B/C models. Much more streamlined.

Why they went with a huge intake on the later models, I don't know. Would be interesting to read what their thinking was (or if they said "screw it, stick the thing right in front!!").

Offline ACE

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5569
Re: P-40N?
« Reply #11 on: October 13, 2009, 09:15:10 PM »
<still think we should have the B-38H!!  :D
Sixth Tri-Annual Dueling Bracket Champion

The Few

-Spek

Offline Saxman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9155
Re: P-40N?
« Reply #12 on: October 13, 2009, 09:25:23 PM »
Even the Merlin powered airframes never approached anywhere near that horsepower or speed.


EDIT: P.S. I believe the early prototypes had a low-slung cooler under the belly, which was moved forward on the B/C models. Much more streamlined.

Why they went with a huge intake on the later models, I don't know. Would be interesting to read what their thinking was (or if they said "screw it, stick the thing right in front!!").

Maybe because of the ACTUAL problem the belly-mounted radiator later caused the Mustang (IE: susceptibility to ground fire)?
Ron White says you can't fix stupid. I beg to differ. Stupid will usually sort itself out, it's just a matter of making sure you're not close enough to become collateral damage.

Offline StokesAk

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3665
Re: P-40N?
« Reply #13 on: October 13, 2009, 09:27:11 PM »
+1

Quick make a skin for it!!!! we might get it.
Strokes

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Re: P-40N?
« Reply #14 on: October 13, 2009, 09:28:37 PM »
Belly mounted, chin mounted, I think they're still both very vulnerable.

The only difference is the P-40 chin radiator was a small unit, where the P-51 radiator had a large interior radiator (the scoop expanded greatly inside, slowing the air down, a large radiator heated the air up, and forced it out the back for additional thrust). Maybe that extra size on the pony was its downfall, but I've seen pictures of the P-40 without the cowling in place. It's super small. They could have got away with a much much smaller profile, I think.

EDIT: Or put them in the wing roots like corsairs, or p39s, etc.