Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Ashley Pomeroy on October 26, 2011, 12:31:50 PM
-
Now, there's an old saying that "if it looks right, it'll fly right", and to my eyes the P-40 always looked right. Not just the shark mouth, but the sleek lines and the pointy prop spinner, although I admit the undercarriage could have done with some work. Nonetheless it looked like a modern, high-performance monoplane fighter, but all the way throughout the war its performance lagged behind its contemporaries, less so as time went on but still enough to tarnish its historical reputation. I understand that earlier versions had a limited supercharger that neutralised its high-altitude performance, but even when fitted with Merlin engines and lightened the aircraft always seemed to be a few dozen MPH slower than the competion, a thousand feet per minute less sprightly. Having said that, it's impressive that a design dating back to the days of the Hawker Hurricane was still getting kills in 1945,* and it seems to have defenders, not least because it has always been kicked around like Richard Nixon.
So, was the P-40 doomed by a fundamental, insurmountable design problem - perhaps an aerodynamic deficiency - or was it just limited by a combination of things that individually might have been debugged, but collectively held it back? Was there enough horsepower in Christendom to make it a worldbeater, or could it have been tidied up aerodynamically, a la the Bf-109F? I surmise that the scoop didn't help, but other, faster aircraft also had large chin-mounted scoops (the Typhoon springs to mind, although the Tiffie had considerably more horsepower). The P-40Q turned it into something almost but not quite as good as a contemporary P-51, by essentially replacing everything except the cockpit seat, but by that time the P-51 existed, and so the P-40Q was abandoned.
This intrigues me because, in most other cases, I can see why other early war fighters couldn't keep pace with technological developments. The Zero relied too much on light weight and a big wing for its performance, and when the aircraft was fitted with armour and self-sealing tanks it was no longer lightweight, and the big wing held back its top speed; the Hurricane's frame construction meant that it was just too heavy, with a thick wing; the 109 was too small to contain the equipment it needed to perform a relevant role as the war progressed without modifying the structure to such an extent that it was no longer sleek, which necessitated a larger, heavier, more powerful, torquier engine that taxed the landing gear and the wings, thus creating a kind of negative feedback loop, etc. In contrast the P-40 was at least capable of great speed in 1940, in a dive, and the basic design looked good.
Reading up on its history I get the impression that the earlier YP-37 - a long-nosed P-36 mod based on a turbo-supercharged Allison V-1710 - would have been a wiser long-term choice, but I'm sure they had their reasons for cancelling it, not just the awful cockpit view.
* Which seems to be about a year longer than the Hurricane itself (the last confirmed Hurricane kills I have read about were in 1944).
-
If you look at other designs that were made early and continued into the war, you see actual development, either in shape, wing, or massive bosts in power.
The P-40 simply used the same design. 1930s designs were not very efficient. My personal opinion is the drag. Even when they put more powerful engines with noticably more horsepower and WEP settings, it only gained a small number of mph boost. I think it was just issues with the design. Look at even an "efficient" aerodynamic radial, like a Fw190, and you can add tons of horsepower and only get marginal speed increases.
P.S. The only reason the P-40 served longer than the Hurricane was there was greater need in the PTO than in Europe. The hurricanse could be retired or replaced, but the P-40s (while outclassed by newer designs) simply were the best thing in a given area at a given time. What are they going to do? Not go up? Surely not! So they kept flying even after production was halted. It happens.
-
I'd say that the P-40 lagged behind for two main reasons:
1. The lack of a two stage supercharger in the initial offerings, which casued a perofrmance hit that really screwed with it.
2. The development of the P-51 overtook the need to continue tweaking the P-40.
You mention the P-40Q which really drove the point home I think: You could get great performance out of a P-40 by taking all the best parts of the P-51 and applying them to the airframe. But by then, why bother since you already have P-51's coming off the line?
In essence, I think you pretty much answered your own question :)
-Sik
-
I have to disagree with you on its looks. It does not look like a modern (for 1940) high performance fighter. It looks like something stuck with design methods of the prior generation being forced to into the current generation. The Hurricane and Bf110, to my eyes, share that.
It has a massive, draggy air scoop under the nose, the shape is not clean, the landing gear arrangement is awkward and drag inducing. It looks outdated. Mean and ready to go at it, but outdated.
-
Mean and ready to go at it, but outdated.
Well put. I think that's part of the charm, but I agree that's the flaw in the design. It just came before they learned a lot about aircraft design.
-
The Allison had a two stage supercharger. What it did not have was a two speed supercharger. That is what limits operational altitude range. With a single speed, you have to choose a drive ratio for a particular altitude, which is almost always less than 15,000 feet.
Had the Allison been equipped with a two speed supercharger, it would have maintained sea level horsepower to a much higher altitude.
The other limiting factor would be the Curtiss propeller. The Curtiss propeller was both unreliable and inefficient.
Equip one of the lighter P-40 airframes with one of the late Allison engines, with a two speed supercharger, and add to that a four blade Hamilton Standard high activity paddle prop, and you have an entirely different aircraft.
-
Considering that some P-40 models were Packard Merlin equipped (and some say the Packard version was superior to the RR, but I have no idea), I wonder what might have been if the late war versions had been equipped with a license built version of the Rolls Royce Griffon. The airframe was certainly drag limited in terms of top speed, but just think what that would have done for climb performance and the plane's energy retention. This plane was already formidable when flown to its strengths, as evidenced by the AVG. In game at least, it's a diving fool and has excellent roll rate.
I love the P-40 as much (maybe more) than just about anyone around here, but even I have to say that even a brick will fly if you throw enough power at it.
While it was an essentially obsolete design, I believe that if you threw a 2035 horsepower Griffon 61 at it (like in the Spit XIV) you would have had a very formidable aircraft. It likely would not have excelled at any one thing, but it would have been even more beloved by the pilots that flew it. It still would have had roll rate (albeit in the opposite direction due to the Griffon's reverse rotation) and dive speed, but now with climb rate and ungodly e-building ability. Couple that with the plane's ability to withstand tremendous punishment, and you have a plane that wasn't fabulous at anything, but pretty good at EVERYTHING.
Again, strictly my opinion.... unless anyone has a P-40K and a Griffon 61 and is willing to put the 2 together and test the theory.... :salute
-
The XP-40Q tried to redesign the airframe to be competitive... They changed the wing design, the front scoop aerodynamics, the tail was chopped down and a bubble canopy in place. It was longer, thinner, and basically was nothing like a P-40 at all. It only barely made it up to the range of contemporary fighters already winning the war, so production was never ordered. That to me says that they had to redesign the airframe to get better performance. To me that says it's the drag, the airframe itself, and just the early-era design that limits the P-40s in general.
My opinion.
-
Range.
Could it get to Berlin and back?
Anything else was just gravy.
wrongway
-
Meh.. I don't think range was the issue... It had to be able to kill the enemy *at* that range. Hence the race for speed, alt, climb, etc.
-
I always tended to think of the P40 as the F16 of its day - a fighter designed to US requirements, but something that was also designed for the export market. The P40s were easy to maintain, and could be broken up and shipped out easily for assembly on site. They DID have decent performance and met the requirements they thought they needed pre-war - you got hi 300s speed, decent performance up to 15K or so, in a tough bird that had very few vices. It says a lot that they made 13K+ P40s - it might not be the top fighter performance-wise, but it was easy to make and useful when employed correctly.
-
how come none of you guys mentioned the fact that weight continued to be added with every increase in engine power? in some cases, not all, if additional weight had not been added at the time the engine performance increased, overall aircraft performance wouldn't have been quite so marginal or worse than the previous version.
the performance as an air superiority fighter was dismal, and even worse as an interceptor (except against early japanese aircraft), but for a short range multi-role support airplane it wasn't bad.
-
how come none of you guys mentioned the fact that weight continued to be added with every increase in engine power? in some cases, not all, if additional weight had not been added at the time the engine performance increased, overall aircraft performance wouldn't have been quite so marginal or worse than the previous version.
Gyrene, even the most stripped down and weight-shaved P-40, the P-40L where they removed 30 gallons of fuel 2 guns and 1/3 the ammo from the remaining guns (200rpg only), gained a mere 4mph. And then it was so ineffective in that configuration at what it did they ended up putting all that back on for most of the airframes!! Weight was not the issue with the P-40. Or, perhaps it's better to say weight savings was not the solution.
The 109G-6 was a better machine than the G-2, for example, even though it was heavier. better radio, better guns, etc, made it a better killer.
-
Meh.. I don't think range was the issue... It had to be able to kill the enemy *at* that range. Hence the race for speed, alt, climb, etc.
If it can't get there, performance doesn't really matter.
wrongway
-
Beyond the differences in simple form drag of the fuselage and the engine/cowling/cooling system, and the ability of the P-51 cooling system to actually generate *thrust*, there were also the airfoils. The P-40 warhawk used a semi-symmetrical 1930's airfoil, while the P-51 Mustang had an early example of a laminar-flow airfoil...
P-40
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:NACA_2215.svg (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:NACA_2215.svg)
P-51
(http://images.rcuniverse.com/forum/upfiles/203754/Ca81247.jpg)
-
Ashley, it is an interesting post, and thought provoking.
-
Gyrene, even the most stripped down and weight-shaved P-40, the P-40L where they removed 30 gallons of fuel 2 guns and 1/3 the ammo from the remaining guns (200rpg only), gained a mere 4mph. And then it was so ineffective in that configuration at what it did they ended up putting all that back on for most of the airframes!! Weight was not the issue with the P-40. Or, perhaps it's better to say weight savings was not the solution.
The 109G-6 was a better machine than the G-2, for example, even though it was heavier. better radio, better guns, etc, made it a better killer.
i don't fully buy that krusty. aerodynamic deficiencies that limited it's potential aside, the added weight effectively decreased the potential performance gains that could have been seen with added horsepower...power to weigh ratio.
the p-40b with 6 guns had a 7,360lbs normal combat weight with a v-1710-33 @1040 peak hp, same as the P-40 which only had a combat weight of 6,787lbs...573lbs difference and the p-40b was 5mph slower.
the p-40e had the .30 cal guns replaced with .50 cal, combat weight 8,280lbs with a more powerful v-1710-39 1150hp engine, gain of only 90hp with an additional 920lbs...only 5mph faster than the p-40 and 10mph faster than the p-40b. if the more powerful engine had been added without the extra weight, the max speed would have been much higher.
jump to the p-40n-1-cu (first production run) with 4 .50 cal guns, v-1710-81 @1200hp, combat weight of only 7400lbs...50hp gain, 880lbs lighter and 33mph faster than the p-40e at 10000 feet. not outstanding by any means but still it shows what happens when you remove weight and add horsepower. then with the p-40n-5-cu they added 2 .50 cal guns and under wing racks and the combat weight jumped to 8,350lbs...an increase of 950lbs with no increase in hp and the top speed dropped 28mph.
the 109g-2 used the db-605a-1 1475hp peak and the 109g-6 used the db-605am 1800hp peak...
-
Induced drag from lift (weight) is only a minor factor in total drag at high speed. Parasitic drag is far more important. The 109G-2 and G-6 have the exact same engine, delivering the same power. Only MW-50 equipped G-6's (G-14 in game) could produce 1800 PS. A good example is the La-5 and La-7. They cleaned up the La-5's airframe a bit and the result was the much faster La-7. As an experiment you can up a P-51 with 25% fuel and one with 100% fuel. Is one faster than the other?
-
The Allison had a two stage supercharger. What it did not have was a two speed supercharger. That is what limits operational altitude range. With a single speed, you have to choose a drive ratio for a particular altitude, which is almost always less than 15,000 feet.
Had the Allison been equipped with a two speed supercharger, it would have maintained sea level horsepower to a much higher altitude.
The other limiting factor would be the Curtiss propeller. The Curtiss propeller was both unreliable and inefficient.
Equip one of the lighter P-40 airframes with one of the late Allison engines, with a two speed supercharger, and add to that a four blade Hamilton Standard high activity paddle prop, and you have an entirely different aircraft.
I do not recall any two stage centrifugal supercharged allisons other than the P-63. The P-63 a single speed engine stage supercharger, and variable speed aux supercharger. The P-38 was two stage, but of course the second stage was a turbocharger.
Which Allisons had two stage blowers?
-
Also the P-40 had a very thick cord wing, it was good for high lift but for speed it was not a good wing. There was not much in the way of changes in the actual wing through the development of the P-40 series. If you throw a bigger engine on a plane it does make changes but to improve the speed characteristics you must change the overall design. Hence if you throw a 150HP engine on a Cessna 150 you do not change the speed of the plane that much, what you do is increase the takeoff weight, and decrease the take off distance, it is still a little over 100 Kts airplane. If you remove the nose gear, put a tailwheel on the same 150, fundamental design changes, change the prop from a climb to a cruise prop, you add somewhere around 25 Kts. Yu have to do changes to the actual fundaments of the aircraft, that is what didn't happen in the P-40 series.
-
Drag is a quadratic equation - if you want to go twice as fast you need 4x the horsepower. Little gains inHP don't do much if you don't lessen the drag
-
I do not recall any two stage centrifugal supercharged allisons other than the P-63. The P-63 a single speed engine stage supercharger, and variable speed aux supercharger. The P-38 was two stage, but of course the second stage was a turbocharger.
Which Allisons had two stage blowers?
No Allison used in WWII combat aircraft had two stage superchargers.
All P-39s and P-40s fitted with Allison engines were fitted with single stage, single speed superchargers. The P-40F's Packard Merlin had a single stage, two speed supercharger.
-
No Allison used in WWII combat aircraft had two stage superchargers.
All P-39s and P-40s fitted with Allison engines were fitted with single stage, single speed superchargers. The P-40F's Packard Merlin had a single stage, two speed supercharger.
Do you mean no "other" than the P-63? or is that a "combat" jab? :P
:salute
-
No Allison used in WWII combat aircraft had two stage superchargers.
All P-39s and P-40s fitted with Allison engines were fitted with single stage, single speed superchargers. The P-40F's Packard Merlin had a single stage, two speed supercharger.
i understand the idea of two stage superchargers...high/low boost but, what's the deal with a two speed supercharger?
-
i understand the idea of two stage superchargers...high/low boost but, what's the deal with a two speed supercharger?
A two stage supercharger compresses the air/fuel mixture twice via a main compressor and an aux compressor. There is always an after-cooler (sometimes called and inter-cooler) in between stages to reduce reduce the temperature of the mixture. A two speed supercharger has two separate gear sets and clutches (as well as neutral) for neutral blower, low blower and high blower.
-
Do you mean no "other" than the P-63? or is that a "combat" jab? :P
:salute
:) The P-63 had two completely separate superchargers, rather than a two stage unit... It was unique to the type, although the Republic XP-72 also employed a fluid coupling supercharger in place of the turbo in the preceding P-47s.
-
A two stage supercharger compresses the air/fuel mixture twice via a main compressor and an aux compressor. There is always an after-cooler (sometimes called and inter-cooler) in between stages to reduce reduce the temperature of the mixture. A two speed supercharger has two separate gear sets and clutches (as well as neutral) for neutral blower, low blower and high blower.
oh ok...that's easier to understand. thanks.
-
Just some comments on the original post.
The Hurricane was both lighter than the P-40 (@ 800 lbs) comparing a Hurricane II to a P-40E and had a better climb rate. It also had a lower wing loading and could out turn it. The P-40 series was faster in level flight which was its main advantage to the Hurricane if you are comparing the two. The P-40 was the later design. The P-40B came into USAAC service in the summer of 1940 some 3 years after the Hurricane entered service with the RAF in pre war 1937.
The reason that combat planes lasted longer in service depended on a number of factors. Each country was different. Its not just a case of saying one plane lasted longer ergo it was somehow better or worse (or the same). The A6M Zeke series was still in combat in August of 1945 but I would not use that as an example of its superiority over other types.
In the case of the British they made the decision to replace the Hurricane as a front line fighter in 1941 and replace it with the Spitfire and other types they were working on like the Typhoon. In the USA, the decision was made in 1942 to replace the USAAF P-40 with the P-47 and P-38, and later the P-51B/D. Like the British it would take time for that to happen and in the meantime the factories were still producing Hurricanes and P-40s. It takes time for industry to catch up to the demands of wartime.
Both fighters soldiered on in the China/Burma/India (CBI) theater fighting the Japanese untill 1945. In the case of the Hurricane the Mk.IIc it was being phased out in favor of Spitfires but not completely replaced the last WW2 air combats of any great note taking place in the Arakan region of Burma in 1943. The RAF flew it in some fighter-bomber units right untill wars end in the CBI where it did see sparodic air combat from time to time. In the case of the P-40 it was largely phased out by the end of 1944 with the P-40N being the last variant to see combat scoring its last kills in January 1945 in China. The last US Warhawk unit in China converted to Mustangs in June 1945 a few months before the war ended. In both cases they ended up fighting in a theater that gradually had very little air combat as Japanese fortunes declined. "Last kills" were more a function of luck than anything else in the waning days of Japanese airpower in the region.
-
Beyond the differences in simple form drag of the fuselage and the engine/cowling/cooling system, and the ability of the P-51 cooling system to actually generate *thrust*, there were also the airfoils.
The P-40 warhawk used a semi-symmetrical 1930's airfoil, while the P-51 Mustang had an early example of a laminar-flow airfoil...
P-40
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:NACA_2215.svg (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:NACA_2215.svg)
P-51
(http://images.rcuniverse.com/forum/upfiles/203754/Ca81247.jpg)
There must be much more than that, there are many '30s designs that had considerable performance boosts as the war progressed. The first one that comes to mind is the 109s. They had many bulges (g6.g14) etc.. yet tacking on an even bigger engine enabled them to keep the planes mph competitive.
109s had y-clark airfoils (another '30s trend) where the 190s had a 2300 series airfoil, so laminar flow isn't the whole story. I'd even venture to say, laminar flow enabled the p51 to have great range as it was less draggy, but both the 190s and 109s had similar speeds (late war variants), and neither had laminar flow (they also didn't have the range as they had larger, more gas hungry engines and smaller fuel tanks).
-
I'd say that the P-40 lagged behind for two main reasons:
1. The lack of a two stage supercharger in the initial offerings, which casued a perofrmance hit that really screwed with it.
2. The development of the P-51 overtook the need to continue tweaking the P-40.
This ^
Sometimes you realize that the mistakes made in a design are so fundamental that you need to rebuild from scratch. The Mustang was a more modern design and showed more promise. There's no point in beating a dead horse. The Mustang was very much living up to its name at the time though it took a lot of development before it came to life in the successful and most widely known P51 iteration.
-
Hello guys, it's been a few years since I logged in on these boards. Hope some of you still remember me. :D
I'm kind of surprised that nobody has mentioned the fact that the P-40 wasn't designed from scratch to be an inline engine fighter. It's a direct offshoot of the P-36, which was a radial-engined fighter. When the Army Air Corps realized that the P-36, which had outstanding handling qualities and maneuverability, could not stand up to the new high-performance inline engine fighters emerging in Europe, they pressured Curtiss to produce a fighter that could compete with these more modern designs.
Curtiss' answer to this request was to cobble together the P-36's fuselage with an Allison inline engine. Sometimes such a mating of disparate factors can yield a superior aircraft, but such was not the case with the P-40. As some have said, the chin scoop was not properly designed for drag reduction and the lack of a two-stage two-speed supercharger made the P-40 a dog at altitudes above 15,000 feet.
Some have suggested that the only reason it was kept in production throughout the war was because of the pull that Curtiss had with those in charge of procurement, and because it filled a "niche" in our wartime needs. The first of these reasons is entirely probable, but the second I find hard to accept, for there were more than enough superior aircraft being produced by other manufacturers to fill the P-40's "niche".
Regards, Shuckins
-
Surprising that it didn't occur to CW and the airforce to really make a world class P36 decedent. They might have eventually come up with some interesting aircraft.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4e/Curtiss_XP-60E_061024-F-1234P-019.jpg)
-
Wasn't there a radial powered Mustang somewhere in between all testbeds too?
-
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4e/Curtiss_XP-60E_061024-F-1234P-019.jpg)
..I just threw up in my mouth a little....
-
Surprising that it didn't occur to CW and the airforce to really make a world class P36 decedent. They might have eventually come up with some interesting aircraft.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4e/Curtiss_XP-60E_061024-F-1234P-019.jpg)
"The Floppy Fish." :neener:
-
Surprising that it didn't occur to CW and the airforce to really make a world class P36 decedent. They might have eventually come up with some interesting aircraft.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4e/Curtiss_XP-60E_061024-F-1234P-019.jpg)
There were so many issues with the XP-60 series that the USAAF had no interest when the YP-60E was delivered. Curtiss demonstrated little interest as well, having flown the aircraft only twice. There was no need for this fighter, and its limited range made it unsuitable for escort work. Performance was good, however. The single prototype was powered by the same R2800-18 that was installed in the Vought F4U-4. During its second and last test flight, the YP-60E managed a climb rate of over 4,100 fpm in MIL power. WEP was never used during either of the two test flights. Curtiss estimated a maximum speed of 434 mph @ 27,500 feet, and 424 mph at 22,000 feet, both using combat power. 406 mph @ 24,500 feet at MIL power. No estimate is known for climb using combat power, but some experts have stated that 4,500 fpm was within reason.
(http://en.valka.cz/files/curt-yp60e_490.jpg)
(http://ww2drawings.jexiste.fr/Images/2-Airplanes/Allies/1-USA/1-Fighters/YP-60E/p1.jpg)
(http://www.the-blueprints.com/blueprints-depot-restricted/ww2planes/ww2-curtiss/curtiss_yp_60e_1944-36369.jpg)
-
just answering the OPs question, since no one else seemed to know.
-
Now, there's an old saying that "if it looks right, it'll fly right", and to my eyes the P-40 always looked right. Not just the shark mouth, but the sleek lines and the pointy prop spinner, although I admit the undercarriage could have done with some work. Nonetheless it looked like a modern, high-performance monoplane fighter, but all the way throughout the war its performance lagged behind its contemporaries, less so as time went on but still enough to tarnish its historical reputation. I understand that earlier versions had a limited supercharger that neutralised its high-altitude performance, but even when fitted with Merlin engines and lightened the aircraft always seemed to be a few dozen MPH slower than the competion, a thousand feet per minute less sprightly. Having said that, it's impressive that a design dating back to the days of the Hawker Hurricane was still getting kills in 1945,* and it seems to have defenders, not least because it has always been kicked around like Richard Nixon.
So, was the P-40 doomed by a fundamental, insurmountable design problem - perhaps an aerodynamic deficiency - or was it just limited by a combination of things that individually might have been debugged, but collectively held it back? Was there enough horsepower in Christendom to make it a worldbeater, or could it have been tidied up aerodynamically, a la the Bf-109F? I surmise that the scoop didn't help, but other, faster aircraft also had large chin-mounted scoops (the Typhoon springs to mind, although the Tiffie had considerably more horsepower). The P-40Q turned it into something almost but not quite as good as a contemporary P-51, by essentially replacing everything except the cockpit seat, but by that time the P-51 existed, and so the P-40Q was abandoned.
This intrigues me because, in most other cases, I can see why other early war fighters couldn't keep pace with technological developments. The Zero relied too much on light weight and a big wing for its performance, and when the aircraft was fitted with armour and self-sealing tanks it was no longer lightweight, and the big wing held back its top speed; the Hurricane's frame construction meant that it was just too heavy, with a thick wing; the 109 was too small to contain the equipment it needed to perform a relevant role as the war progressed without modifying the structure to such an extent that it was no longer sleek, which necessitated a larger, heavier, more powerful, torquier engine that taxed the landing gear and the wings, thus creating a kind of negative feedback loop, etc. In contrast the P-40 was at least capable of great speed in 1940, in a dive, and the basic design looked good.
Reading up on its history I get the impression that the earlier YP-37 - a long-nosed P-36 mod based on a turbo-supercharged Allison V-1710 - would have been a wiser long-term choice, but I'm sure they had their reasons for cancelling it, not just the awful cockpit view.
* Which seems to be about a year longer than the Hurricane itself (the last confirmed Hurricane kills I have read about were in 1944).
I've seen this before here, to Aces High.
In reality, real life, most aircraft involved, is what is the application? What is the enemy aircraft it is fighting against? And then the engineering mods to that end.
Chenault's pilots did very well with the P-40 at the time of what and who they were fighting against in the early war time period. That was before Pearl Harbor?
The military usually does it about right. Like sending the winter time, mountaineering, ski troops of the 10th Mountaineering Division to Italy in the summer time and as to my own experience, lots of other examples exist. Wonder if it has changed much in later wars?
-
Chenault's pilots did very well with the P-40 at the time of what and who they were fighting against in the early war time period. That was before Pearl Harbor?
The AVG didn't see any combat before Pearl Harbor. I believe their first combat was on December 20, 1941.
-
The AVG didn't see any combat before Pearl Harbor. I believe their first combat was on December 20, 1941.
(Personal thanks to Widewing for teaching me CV landings, way back when.) It is funny watching how most guys here try to land on a CV.
Eastern Long Island---Gruman?
-
For me the P-40 does not look like a modern fighter compared to other planes of it's era. Remove the shark mouth paint job and it's down right ugly. I've been to air shows where they have operational P-40's and it looks like a poorly designed early war fighter. In fact, most of the American planes, other than the P-51D, are down right ugly when compared to a Spitfire, 109 or 190. It reminds me of the old muscle car days of the late 60's & early 70's when American cars were big & bulky and designed to go straight and fast, whereas European cars were sleek and maneuverable. I liken the P-51D to the American Corvette. They were both fast and looked great but neither one could do much more than go straight.
-
In terms of beauty, I think that the P-51, Spitfire, FW 190, Typhoon, and the P-38 are nice looking. I don't think that the 109 is all that attractive (canopy detracts until later versions, and then the later versions have too many odd-looking bumps and protrusions). I like the plane, but I don't think it's pretty. The P-40, to me, is not at all ugly but a decent-looking plane.
Assuming that HTC got the modelling of the P-40 right (which is what I always assume, since they do a lot of research on planes and use lots of actual flight-test data), the P-40 is quite a good plane against Japanese aircraft. It is better in scenario situations than Hurricanes, Brewsters, and Zeros in my opinion.