Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: DMVIAGRA on May 21, 2011, 09:05:09 AM
-
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.
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2683/4403061297_ab6499e1fa.jpg)
-
What about the p40m?
-
What about the p40m?
There was also N
-
There was also N
there was also the HE177 :) :pray
but + 1 TO ANYNEW P40
-
There was also N
don't forget the k model too... :D
-
+ 1 TO ANYNEW P40
-
post deleted
-
+1 to some later model P-40.
-
Anything for a new P40
+1 :aok
-
Actual performance was mostly the same. Pilots themselves commented you didn't notice much. Top speeds were only 2 to 4 mph off, which is well within factory quality variation for planes off the same factory floor. The 2 guns 200 rpg loadout was often turned back to the standard loadout. This again was tried in the P-40N's first model, but pilots wanted/needed that extra firepower, so most carried 6 guns.
If we had this in AH, you might be surprised how little it changes from what we have. It would look like this (looking at WEP speed only):
http://www.gonzoville.com/ahcharts/index.php?p1=p40e&p2=a6m5
Only the top alt peak for the second curve would only be 18k or so. It would be about 3k above the p-40E but with a dogleg drop in between the supercharger peaks.
You'd be looking at no real practical difference except say above 20k.
I'd like to see a lineup that includes:
P-40B
P-40E
P-40F (long tail, merlin engine)
P-40N (full guns, bomb racks under belly and wings, most common export model, a real ground pounder)
Of that setup, the P-40N is actually the slowest, interstingly enough. I mostly ask for F for splitting up the appropriate skins, but the merlin engine is a good excuse. Otherwise it's not needed and I'd stop at B/E/N.
-
A complete re-model is no doubt in dire need for the beloved P40.
I to vouch for the B, E, and N models. The F would be nice to have as well, but those three listed would be my suggestion. The B for the early war stuff, and the N because it was the most produced and most versatile, and the E for somewhere in between.
-
+1 for a Merlin-powered P-40, and tjhe N :aok
I think the 'K' was the ugliest one of the batch with the tail fillet, but wouldn't mind seeing that one too.
-
While there were about 5000 P-40Ns made, almost all of them that served with the US were state-side trainers. We exported a number as ground attack to the RAAF and RNZAF and some others, and naturally to the Soviet Union.
However, by this time the Soviet Union's own home-grown fighter production had taken off and surpassed much of the lend-lease stuff.
Outside of the allied SEA setup, it really wasn't much of an important plane.
-
When the P-40's are updated it would be cool to get a few more choices.
+1
-
http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=75
-
hmmm...seems the f model was 2 mph faster than the e and 14mph faster than the n, but the ceiling alt jumped from 29,000 (e) to 34,000 and its range was extended to 700mi without a drop tank...the n wasn't as fast as any of its predecessors nor could it fly as high.
i will see your link...
http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=75
and raise you 3 that are better... :D
http://www.acepilots.com/planes/p40_warhawk.html (http://www.acepilots.com/planes/p40_warhawk.html)
http://www.warbirdregistry.org/p40registry/p40registry.html (http://www.warbirdregistry.org/p40registry/p40registry.html)
http://www.historyofwar.org/subject_air_P40.html (http://www.historyofwar.org/subject_air_P40.html)
-
Honestly think I'd rather have the 'L' than the 'F' - think I read somewhere the 'L' was the main MTO version of the Warhawk. It's Merlin-powered with the stretched fuselage.
-
I'll quote myself:
Turns out the performance gap was smaller than I thought. I was expecting less than 10mph, not "2" mph in most cases.
[...]
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.
-
While there were about 5000 P-40Ns made, almost all of them that served with the US were state-side trainers. We exported a number as ground attack to the RAAF and RNZAF and some others, and naturally to the Soviet Union.
However, by this time the Soviet Union's own home-grown fighter production had taken off and surpassed much of the lend-lease stuff.
Outside of the allied SEA setup, it really wasn't much of an important plane.
Go back and check that again Krusty. The N was all over the Pacific and the CBI. I'm thinking you are reading about a different bird. Don Lopez, who flew both the P40N and P51 with the 23rd FG spoke quite highly of his N model and said that at the alts they fought, in some ways he preferred it to the 51B.
49th FG had theirs well into the Fall of 44. As for the Merlin P40s. 57th, 33rd, 79th FGs all took them into combat in Tunisia and flew them into 44 in Italy. 99th FS also had Merlin P40s. USAAF Merlin 40s also on Guadacanal. The Free French got Merlin P40s too
If you want to do a best representation P40 line up, it would be a redone P40C and E, a Merlin F or L and an Allison N model. You cover all theaters of war and the skinners could work forever trying to cover the USAAF, RAF, RAAF, RNZAF USSR, French etc P40s that served in combat.
-
P-40L was sometimes nicknamed "Gypsy Rose Lee", after a famous stripper of the era,
EVERYTHING'S COMING UP ROSES, FOR MEEEEEEE!!!
...................Sorry. Immaturity got the better of me.
-
If you want to do a best representation P40 line up, it would be a redone P40B and E, a Merlin F or L and an Allison N model. You cover all theaters of war and the skinners could work forever trying to cover the USAAF, RAF, RAAF, RNZAF USSR, French etc P40s that served in combat.
Woot woot, I like that lineup suggestion. +1
-
Go back and check that again Krusty. The N was all over the Pacific and the CBI. I'm thinking you are reading about a different bird. Don Lopez, who flew both the P40N and P51 with the 23rd FG spoke quite highly of his N model and said that at the alts they fought, in some ways he preferred it to the 51B.
49th FG had theirs well into the Fall of 44. As for the Merlin P40s. 57th, 33rd, 79th FGs all took them into combat in Tunisia and flew them into 44 in Italy.
I haven't seen any US P-40Ns so far that weren't state-side trainers. I suppose it is possible some did (as some went "backwards" to P-39s instead of going to P-47s or P-51s, late in the war). However, all the MTO ones I recall reading about switched from P-40s to P-47s while still flying the F/L/K models.
As for the Merlins: I know they were in use. However, when you compare a P-40F and a P-40E, the FTH change doesn't really make much of a difference because of the dogleg power curve. I never said it wasn't wide-spread, just that if you're looking for a decent lineup it would be redundant, as the F can stand in for the E or the E can stand in for the F. There's no real improvement.
I think it might be nice to split up skins though (long tail vs short, merlin vs allison, etc). I don't really count it as vital, myself.
-
I haven't seen any US P-40Ns so far that weren't state-side trainers. I suppose it is possible some did (as some went "backwards" to P-39s instead of going to P-47s or P-51s, late in the war). However, all the MTO ones I recall reading about switched from P-40s to P-47s while still flying the F/L/K models.
As for the Merlins: I know they were in use. However, when you compare a P-40F and a P-40E, the FTH change doesn't really make much of a difference because of the dogleg power curve. I never said it wasn't wide-spread, just that if you're looking for a decent lineup it would be redundant, as the F can stand in for the E or the E can stand in for the F. There's no real improvement.
I think it might be nice to split up skins though (long tail vs short, merlin vs allison, etc). I don't really count it as vital, myself.
As I said previously the MTO squadrons were Merlin P40s
As for the combat N models. I really think you are confusing it with another version as the N was everywhere. Since a picture is worth a thousand words, here's 8000 words on Combat N models I could from just the books on my shelves post another 30,000 words at least of combat Ns from all over the map :)
49th FG as they arrived, June 43 PTO
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/P40N1.jpg)
49th FG as they finished up, September 44. No this is not a hack, but a frontline bird just before they gave them up. PTO
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/P40N2.jpg)
RAAF P40Ns PTO
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/RAAFNs.jpg)
15th FG P40N in Coral camo. PTO
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/15thN.jpg)
P40N with DT and rocket tubes. CBI
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/CBIN2.jpg)
Line up of 51st FG P40Ns CBI
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/CBINs.jpg)
80th FG P40Ns CBI. The skinners would have a field day with the N model
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/SkullNs.jpg)
Heavily loaded Aussie N flying with the RAF in the MTO
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/MTONRAF.jpg)
-
As I said previously the MTO squadrons were Merlin P40s
As for the combat N models. I really think you are confusing it with another version as the N was everywhere. Since a picture is worth a thousand words, here's 8000 words on Combat N models I could from just the books on my shelves post another 30,000 words at least of combat Ns from all over the map :)
...
Don't forget the 35th FS P-40Ns too. They had the best nose art of any P-40N.
(http://i547.photobucket.com/albums/hh473/cactuskooler/13.jpg)
-
You're just biased, cactus! :lol
Guppy: Discounting the RAAF and 80th FG pics, those 49th and 15th FG pics are the first I've seen it in real use.
I don't quite count the 80th FG as they were based in india barely able to fly over the hump. They escorted the supply lines, but were very removed from the majority of the fighting. I read a description where it sounded like (my interpretation) the planes meant to be used originally, and the planes trained on, disappeared or were reallocated, so they diverted an export shipment of P-40Ns and just dumped the US pilots in them with little or no warning. Interesting story, but to date was the only incident I'd seen of P-40Ns in US active use (although I don't consider that front line use, personally).
Those 15th and 49th FG pics are interesting. Thanks for proving me wrong!
-
I can see I'm going to have to keep the scanner going with more combat Ns. Don't forget the 23rd FG, descendants of the Flying Tigers. I can give ya shark mouthed Ns belonging to them. There are other PTO combat P40N groups as well.
-
+1 for the H-87 :neener:
-
I can see I'm going to have to keep the scanner going with more combat Ns. Don't forget the 23rd FG, descendants of the Flying Tigers. I can give ya shark mouthed Ns belonging to them. There are other PTO combat P40N groups as well.
I take your word for it! Any scans you provide will be thoroughly enjoyed, but you don't have to convince me :)
-
For what it's worth, the 80th FG was much more active in the drive through Burma then you are giving them credit for too. Had to double check first, but they were definately flying combat and lugging bombs in support of the drive into Burma. Those paint jobs would be worth having the N for on their own :)
-
I not saying we shouldn't have more models of the P-40 but I'd rather see out current P-40 re-modeled. I know that P-40E that served in north Africa had bomb racks to carry 6 250lb bombs.
:aok either way I'd be happy more aircraft! :joystick:
-
+1 :aok .
To any upgrade or new P40 variant (one of the most underrated planes in AHII) :devil
:banana: :airplane:
-
p-40 with a merlin engine in it im all for that. :salute
bortas
-
I not saying we shouldn't have more models of the P-40 but I'd rather see out current P-40 re-modeled. I know that P-40E that served in north Africa had bomb racks to carry 6 250lb bombs.
:aok either way I'd be happy more aircraft! :joystick:
absolutely amazing...wonder how they got it to do that? :headscratch:
Specifications P-40E:
Aircraft Type: One Crew Single Engined Fighter Country of Origin: United States of America Engines: 1 x Allison V-1710-39 12 cylinder liquid cooled piston engine rated at 1,150hp at 3,000 rpm Armament: 6 x 0.50 in Colt-Browning M2 machine guns. Plus 1 x 500lb bomb on fuselage centreline and 2 x 100lb bombs under the wings. Dimensions: Wing Span: 11.38m (37ft 4 in). Length: 9.68m (31ft 9in), Height: 3.76m (12ft 4in). Wing Area: 21.92 sq. metres (236 sq. feet) Weights: Empty: 2880kg (6,350lb). Max Takeoff: 4131kg (9,100lb) Performance: Max Speed: 362 mph (582 km/hour) at 15,000ft (4,575m) Max Range: 525 miles (845km) Operators: USAAF, RAF
P-40F
The P-40F, called the Kittyhawk II (also the Goshawk) was a major improvement in handling, although more power was not available. The ones shipped to Russia were equipped with the Packard built 1,300 hp V-1615-1 Rolls-Royce Merlin engine. All others used an Allison engine. This boosted the maximum airspeed to 364 mph (582 km/h). Range was 610 miles (976 km). The Kittyhawks had a major modification in their armaments, with the cowl-mounted machine guns removed and all guns upgraded to six 50 caliber machine guns in the wings. It could also carry a 500 lb bomb or a long-range fuel tank on the center-line, and 250 lbs of bombs under each wing (6 lb and 40 lb anti-personnel bomb clusters were also carried in North Africa).
-
Ah yes Gyrene I missed you to! :rofl
But the P-40E was fielded modded with bomb racks. This field mod was the reason that the P-40F could carry 6 bombs is at least what I read. :aok
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7b/P03372.011_kittybomber.jpg
-
sadly, field mods are not accepted into the game.
-
Ah yes Gyrene I missed you to! :rofl
But the P-40E was fielded modded with bomb racks. This field mod was the reason that the P-40F could carry 6 bombs is at least what I read. :aok
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7b/P03372.011_kittybomber.jpg
come on demonfox...look what you wrote...P-40e carried 6 250lbs bombs in africa...didn't happen. now you're saying the p-40f was the culprit, according to wikipedia.
you need to stay away from wikipedia...if you had done a little more research, you would have found that those are either 60 lbs or 100 lbs bombs...not 250lbs bombs...the odd circular fin stabilizer rings almost make them look like practice bombs.
-
No, they really were used that way in the SEA. RAAF or RNZAAF used them like that. In Africa and other areas they stuck to the standard setup of 2 wing shackles and a centerline.
Here's one I think is 112 Squadron in/around Italy (late model, most likely a P-40M with allison engine and longer tail, maybe a P-40N?)
(http://raf-112-squadron.org/images/p-40_bombladen.jpg)
-
I actually didn't get my info from wiki only the picture. I got the info from a book I have about WWII in north Africa. And the reason they have the strange circle stabilizer is because it's British. If you go look all British 500lb and 250lb are that way. And yes I'm almost posative it's a Echo model. Could be the November model Krusty said that has bomb racks installed on the wings and center line.
-
Believe that is a pic of a P-40N - the unusual slanted base of the lower canopy frame is an N characteristic.
-
Believe that is a pic of a P-40N - the unusual slanted base of the lower canopy frame is an N characteristic.
The picture is too over-exposed to make out that area. What you are seeing could very well be a light reflection, glare, etc. I discounted that when trying to ID the plane. N does make most sense, but I didn't think we exported many of those to the Brits, eh?
-
To clarify, I'm talking about the lower frame of the sliding section of the canopy, not the area under the canopy behind the pilot's head (though that was unusual in the 'N' as well).
-
Ahhh, good call. I think that cinches it, for sure!
-
Most definately a P40N :)
I'd posted a photo of another RAF P40N with that bombload up thread a bit.
-
Most definately a P40N :)
I'd posted a photo of another RAF P40N with that bombload up thread a bit.
where guppy? i only see the 250s on the wings and 500 on the centerline...one has 3 tube rocket launchers on the wings
-
where guppy? i only see the 250s on the wings and 500 on the centerline...one has 3 tube rocket launchers on the wings
I was referring to the RAF P40N photo with the 500 pounder and 250 pounders under the wings taking off, and the one I posted of the same loadout I posted.
In terms of the six bombs on the wings of a P40. Photo evidence of this on 79th FG P40F, also on a CBI P40E. They were listed as either 20 or 30 pound bombs. They carried a 500 pounder on the centerline
There are also photos of PTO P40Ns with the 3 pylon bomb loads, both RAAF and USAAF
-
oh thanks for clearing that up guppy...
ya know, looking real closely at the bombs on those N models, the ones on the wings are 250 lbs, centerline is definately 500...
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/MTONRAF.jpg)
comparing the dimensions, these are not 250s...
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7b/P03372.011_kittybomber.jpg)
-
I am too lazy to look it up but I think the P-40E did not have wep like the P-40E here in AH? If so our P-40E is already beefed up. I would like to see the Merlin engine version in the game. The P-40 is a tough bird and can take a lot of hits so a more competitive ungraded model may prove to be much fun.
-
Hhmmm Im not so sure Gyrene that kinda looks like a 1000lb bomb with 500lb on the wings but that's just me. Meaning if I'm right that means those are 250lb. And I don't think the British 100lb look like that
-
Hhmmm Im not so sure Gyrene that kinda looks like a 1000lb bomb with 500lb on the wings but that's just me. Meaning if I'm right that means those are 250lb. And I don't think the British 100lb look like that
:rofl :lol :rofl :lol keep trying demon...keep trying. :aok
oh if you have a lot of time today...take a look at the manuals available (have to register), interesting reading
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/other-mechanical-systems-tech/p-40-flight-manual-7478.html (http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/other-mechanical-systems-tech/p-40-flight-manual-7478.html)
-
I am too lazy to look it up but I think the P-40E did not have wep like the P-40E here in AH? If so our P-40E is already beefed up.
You should look it up. Ours hits the specs for a standard P-40E. Whether it had WEP or not, that just means we should be running WEP all the time (like the P-39D) instead of having it for 5 minutes :D
However, I think somebody came forth and provided some explanation. I don't recall what it was at the moment.
-
I'd like to see the P40L/N models, I believe in the L because of higher alt capabilities would be more interesting for all campaigns 43+
Biggest problem with these aircraft is the lack of speed/alt for the Late war Main Arena which poses a problem, I don't believe this will be high on the
list for being added any time soon in my opinion, I would rather have other aircraft looked into first.
-
OK having dug through all the P40 stuff on the shelves, here's what I've come up with. I do think the photo up thread of the 6 bombs, 2-2-2 set up is just a test set up. That bird looks way too clean for a 40 in the field :)
It appears the early birds such as the E and the Merling F and L could carry anti-personnel bombs on the wings. Pictures of an E from the CBI and F/Ls from the MTO with the same set up. Sounds like it was a factory design, not always installed, but available. Not a field mod. Most definately not 250 pounders too :) Thinking those are the 30-40 pound anti-personnel bombs.
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/E1.jpg)
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/F1.jpg)
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/L1.jpg)
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/L2.jpg)
The P40N-20 was the fighter bomber, set up to carry a DT and 2 500 pounders, or 3 500 pounders. First pick just showing the underside and the bomb racks. The other photo showing a DT and 2 500 pounder set up. There have been other photos upthread of the 3 bomb set up on the N. I'm guessing the one photo shows a 1000 pounder and 2 500 pounders. They did tend to push the factory limits in the field. Mustangs for example say right on the pylon that it's stressed for 500 pound bombs, but they carried 1000 pounders late in the game too.
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/N21.jpg)
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/N20.jpg)
-
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.
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2683/4403061297_ab6499e1fa.jpg)
spits are sissy looking planes.
now this...this is how a real mans plane looks.
-
So in an ideal AH world the P40 line up would end up looking like this:
P40C-DT capable. Subs for the P40B so it can cover the AVG, USAAF, RAF, SAAF, USSR. Covers PTO, CBI, MTO, Eastern Front Time frame roughly 1940-42
P40E-DT capable. Covers USAAF, RAF, RAAF, RNZAF, USSR. PTO, CBI, MTO, Eastern Front. Time frame 1940-43
P40L-DT and bomb carrying capable on centerline. Covers USAAF, RAF. MTO, PTO. Time frame 1942-44
P40N-20-DT capable and with wing racks allowing up to 3 500 pounders carried. Covers USAAF, RAF, RAAF, RNZAF(?) Covers PTO, CBI, MTO. Time frame 1943-45
Skinners could be busy forever with all the different paint schemes. Opens the door for all kinds of Scenario, FSO, Snapshot options. Enough performance differences to find use in the MAs
Yeah I know it's wishful thinking, but this is the wishlist forum :)
-
the P-40 is IMO the toughest, baddest, looking bird of all the WW2 birds.
she just looks mean....especially the flying tigers shark tooth grin
(http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w246/fieldsofink/1247600327BG3wKfP.jpg)
-
the P-40 is IMO the toughest, baddest, looking bird of all the WW2 birds.
she just looks mean....especially the flying tigers shark tooth grin
(http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w246/fieldsofink/1247600327BG3wKfP.jpg)
Problem is the wartime P40Ns didn't sport them much :)
The warbird guys who own P40Ns seem to like to paint them in AVG P40B markings for some reason. It's been getting better lately with more accurate paint jobs on newer restorations, but I guess folks think P40 they think AVG and want to see that shark mouth
-
Problem is the wartime P40Ns didn't sport them much :)
The warbird guys who own P40Ns seem to like to paint them in AVG P40B markings for some reason. It's been getting better lately with more accurate paint jobs on newer restorations, but I guess folks think P40 they think AVG and want to see that shark mouth
true...did any N's have it?
as far as I knew that was just the earliest P40's
-
Problem is the wartime P40Ns didn't sport them much :)
The warbird guys who own P40Ns seem to like to paint them in AVG P40B markings for some reason. It's been getting better lately with more accurate paint jobs on newer restorations, but I guess folks think P40 they think AVG and want to see that shark mouth
This man would like a word with HTC about not adding the other P40s by now ->
(http://www.moviestore.com/library/photos/170/170155.jpg)
-
Guppy, the 3x loadout looks to me like the wing ones are rather slim... I wouldn't rule out 2x 250 and 1x center 500lb.
As for the proposed loadout, the P-40C doesn't help anything early in CBI. We really need a P-40B modeled to the AVG specs, IMO. Also subs for VVS as they reportedly ran their engines hot until they failed then just scrapped them or dumped in another engine (disposable planes to them)
I'd agree to the L with the caveat that it's the least important as long as you already have the E model. 4 mph difference in top speed, and would be great for skins but overall not so different that the E couldn't sub for it in every occasion.
For the P-40N, could you not also carry 2 wing DTs, and a centerline bomb? Possibly 3 DTs? Were the wings plumbed or just racked?
INK: Some did. Guppy posted one, I posted another.
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/N21.jpg)
(http://raf-112-squadron.org/images/p-40_bombladen.jpg)
-
Guppy, the 3x loadout looks to me like the wing ones are rather slim... I wouldn't rule out 2x 250 and 1x center 500lb.
As for the proposed loadout, the P-40C doesn't help anything early in CBI. We really need a P-40B modeled to the AVG specs, IMO. Also subs for VVS as they reportedly ran their engines hot until they failed then just scrapped them or dumped in another engine (disposable planes to them)
I'd agree to the L with the caveat that it's the least important as long as you already have the E model. 4 mph difference in top speed, and would be great for skins but overall not so different that the E couldn't sub for it in every occasion.
For the P-40N, could you not also carry 2 wing DTs, and a centerline bomb? Possibly 3 DTs? Were the wings plumbed or just racked?
INK: Some did. Guppy posted one, I posted another.
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/N21.jpg)
(http://raf-112-squadron.org/images/p-40_bombladen.jpg)
I figure the P40C is the trade off to get the most 'bang for the buck' so to speak without breaking the bank asking for variants.
The N20 I posted with the sharkmouth is a stateside bird. I just used it to show the underwing racks.
112 squadron would be appropriate as they started the shark mouth P40s anyway before the AVG :)
There were 23rd FG shark mouth N models too as they were the successors to the AVG
-
Guppy, the 3x loadout looks to me like the wing ones are rather slim... I wouldn't rule out 2x 250 and 1x center 500lb.
As for the proposed loadout, the P-40C doesn't help anything early in CBI. We really need a P-40B modeled to the AVG specs, IMO. Also subs for VVS as they reportedly ran their engines hot until they failed then just scrapped them or dumped in another engine (disposable planes to them)
I'd agree to the L with the caveat that it's the least important as long as you already have the E model. 4 mph difference in top speed, and would be great for skins but overall not so different that the E couldn't sub for it in every occasion.
For the P-40N, could you not also carry 2 wing DTs, and a centerline bomb? Possibly 3 DTs? Were the wings plumbed or just racked?
INK: Some did. Guppy posted one, I posted another.
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/N21.jpg)
(http://raf-112-squadron.org/images/p-40_bombladen.jpg)
thanx
very nice "looking" birds I wish they flew like a KI :cry
I would never get out of it...yes I know it can be a tough bird, it just does not suit me and my flying style.