Author Topic: a little P-40 speculation (what if?) (Read 660 times)

paulieb · « **on:** November 13, 2002, 09:58:05 PM »

We are all aware of how basically inferior the P-40, even in its later variants, was in WW2. Here's a little "what if?" scenario to ponder; if Curtiss had decided to use a different engine in their later production run, say, a license-built version of the Griffon, would this have brought the plane up to something resembling parity? What do you folks think might have fixed this plane's problems (lack of speed, etc)? Let's open it up... speculation, dream weaving, whatever...what do you guys think?

-tronski- · « **Reply #1 on:** November 13, 2002, 10:43:05 PM »

if my grandmother had wheels, would she be a wheelbarrow?

...And I don't think the P-40 was that inferior...

Tronsky

oboe · « **Reply #2 on:** November 13, 2002, 10:49:17 PM »

Well the P-40F was Merlin-powered, and it still didn't perform
as well as we might have expected or hoped.

I'm not sure what it was- wing design maybe?

Even so, it will always be one of my favorite aircraft.

paulieb · « **Reply #3 on:** November 13, 2002, 11:12:59 PM »

While it is true that the P-40 DID use a Merlin at one point, the later Allison powered versions still had about the same power rating. That's why I suggest the Griffon.... the most power the P-40 ever had was in the 1300 range (I think...don't quote me). I just wonder what the result would have been with a 2000 horsepower Griffon. Maybe this would have cured the P-40s climb rate and speed problems? Here's why I'm asking:
Erik Shilling (AVG Pilot), "The P-40 was a hell of a lot better fighter than those who have never flow it think. If it had had the top speed of a 51 I would take it over any fighter the US had."

It got me to thinking... if the 40 had gotten enough power to let it run with, say a P-51D, would it have been more successful overall? Then THAT got me thinking, without making major changes to the airframe, what else could have fixed the 40s problems? Which is why I posted here.

Innominate · « **Reply #4 on:** November 13, 2002, 11:31:04 PM »

The real question is what would happen to a p38 running on said engines?

paulieb · « **Reply #5 on:** November 13, 2002, 11:33:51 PM »

Ummmm.... there would have been a really tremendously fast twin engine attack fighter with an ungodly climb rate? Just guessing.... ~~Innominate~~

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #6 on:** November 13, 2002, 11:39:26 PM »

Given the same engine power the P51D would always be much faster than any P40, so its a pointless question.

whgates3 · « **Reply #7 on:** November 13, 2002, 11:41:16 PM »

compresibility in level flight?
ever read about the P-38k? bigger props & up to 3750 HP
http://home.att.net/~C.C.Jordan/P-38K.html

...that chin scoop couldnt be helping the P-40...P-40n & P-51a both used Allison V-1710-81 engines. P51 was heavier by > 12%, but was faster by > 3%, so it must be a better airframe - i dont think that was even in doubt

paulieb · « **Reply #8 on:** November 13, 2002, 11:47:37 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Given the same engine power the P51D would always be much faster than any P40, so its a pointless question.

Again, that's why I suggested the Griffon or its comparable Merlin cousins. 2,000 horsepower might have gone a long way towards getting the P-40 to a decent speed, even if it wasn't quite as fast as a 51-D.

Pongo · « **Reply #9 on:** November 13, 2002, 11:52:33 PM »

if the zero had the top speed of the Pony it would be alot better fighter too. Same for the B17.

whgates3 · « **Reply #10 on:** November 14, 2002, 12:06:02 AM »

the zeke & the b-17 both had problems with wings ripping off at very high speeds

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #11 on:** November 14, 2002, 12:08:48 AM »

Again, that's why I suggested the Griffon or its comparable Merlin cousins. 2,000 horsepower might have gone a long way towards getting the P-40 to a decent speed, even if it wasn't quite as fast as a 51-D.

What would be the point then? The P51 is still faster and has much longer range.

M.C.202 · « **Reply #12 on:** November 14, 2002, 12:40:35 AM »

The best performing P-40 was the P-40 Q. Put on a diet, less drag, bubble canopy, more hp with a four blade prop. The final prototype, with a 1,425hp V1710-121, made 422mph at 20,500 feet with a time to 20,000ft in 4.8 min. The prototype had six .50's, but production would have had four 20mm cannon. Early 44 date.
More lift for that climb rate, but more drag to keep top speed down too.
Add the V1710-143 with 1,600 hp for the same weight, you have a damm good under 20,000 ft fighter.

paulieb · « **Reply #13 on:** November 14, 2002, 12:59:31 AM »

I think I've seen pictures of that one on http://www.p-40.com
If memory serves, that was the "Q3" mule. The first time I saw the pic of it, I thought for a second that it was a 51. I agree totally... put a Griffon in THAT one, and you have something that might have even been able to run with a 51D or even (maybe) LA-7.

Angus · « **Reply #14 on:** November 14, 2002, 04:34:18 AM »

Naaa
Why waste a good Griffon on a P40? Well, might move performance from bad to mediocre?
You'd always get a better result with the airframe of a Mustang:D