Interesting P40 pics

[Professor Brensec]

After receiving a surprise of much 'wonderful' info and pics of the great P40, I thought I'd post a few bits and peices that, at least I, hadn't seen before. (more to follow, I think )

1. Test flight of an XP40-Q, which never went into production (with another great Curtiss plane in the background).

2. The same plane as a civilian racer, after the war.

The 40-Q had a top speed of 422 mph @20,000 (formidable at the time, but was still inferior in some ways to the P51 & 47 (already in production). You can make out the novel 'shallower' chin scoop and relocated radiator intakes in the 'swollen' wing roots (also used in it's predecessor XP40-N (prototype). The 'bubble canopy was also first used on the 'N' series prototype.

There was a 'final' P40 - the P40-R - but that was simply a collection of 300 or so P40F's and L's which had their Packard Merlins replaced by V1710 Allisons because of a shortage of the Merlins (being used in the P51B and later, D).

So, although not the last model designation of the P40, the Q was the last attempt to improve the P40 to keep it in service after serving in 'virtually' every allied airforce in every theatre of the war from 1939 to (the time pictured) and eventually 1945 (and beyond).

What a marvellous 'inferior' aircraft.

[Hagar]

Hi Prof. Good to see you.

Interesting photo & information. You already know my opinion on the P-40 so I won't labour the point. The performance looks good on paper but there's only so much you can do to an existing design to compete with later ones. With hindsight I think it might have been better to try something completely new although this might have interfered with production. In most cases, combat pilots couldn't choose the types they flew but had to make the best of what they were given.

Here's something to ponder on. If you gave the average WWII fighter pilot a choice between the P-40, P-47, P-51, Hurricane & Spitfire I wonder which one he would pick. I suspect that in 1939/40 a lot of young RAF pilots were terribly disappointed when they found out they had to fly the Defiant (or heaven forbid the Fairey Battle) instead of the Hurricane or Spitfire they'd dreamed of. Nevertheless they forgot their disappointment & got on with their job.

[Hagar]

Prof. You might find this discussion interesting. http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=877&highlight=neville+duke
At least one contributor is as passionate as you are about the P-40. Note that it's an old thread so don't go resurrecting it.

I also found this which I believe is the article referred to in one of the replies. http://www.constable.ca/edwards.htm The original link is dead.

[Professor Brensec]

Thanks for the links, mate. I'll take a look.  ;D

As for your hypothetical. I think, from the onset, they would simply choose whatever the 'hot' plane of the moment is (at least most aspiring fighter pilots would have). Of course, as has been said here a million times, for different tasks (interception, ground attack, dog fight etc), they all would have been vastly different in their performance and ability. For attacking ground targets, I certainly would feel much safer and better armed in a P47, as would most - but for a dogfight, I would prefer to be in the P51 (so I could run away if I had to!!... )

I've found, in my readings and study etc, that the 'best' fighter pilots were not always in the so called 'best mount' - some in fact preferred what others might consider an inferior plane, but they had their preferences for one reason or another and were able to do what many could not do in the 'very best' or most well suited plane to the task.

The AVG'S record of kills versus losses is testimony to this (to use a P40 example, of course). Simply recognising the strengths of the P40 and using them against the weaknesses of the Zero resulted in a 'phenomenal' kill/losses rate.

Strange you should mention the Defiant - basically a P51 (except for the engine, of course), but such a dissappointing plane.......

[Hagar]

Of course, as has been said here a million times, for different tasks (interception, ground attack, dog fight etc), they all would have been vastly different in their performance and ability. For attacking ground targets, I certainly would feel much safer and better armed in a P47, as would most - but for a dogfight, I would prefer to be in the P51 (so I could run away if I had to!!...  )

I should have made it clearer that I was thinking of air-to-air combat, specifically interception or short range missions. The range would obviously make a difference for missions like bomber escort. I read an interesting history of the American Eagle squadrons. These were volunteer pilots from the US that served in their own special RAF squadrons during the BoB. The Eagles were originally equipped with Spitfires. When the US entered the war these squadrons were transferred to the USAAC. They retained the Spitfires for a while but these were eventually replaced by US types as they became available. One particular unit was sent the P-47. The pilots objected to this huge clumsy-looking plane at first but soon found out how to use it to their advantage. As you say, you fight with what you have & make the best of it. No point in complaining.

Strange you should mention the Defiant - basically a P51 (except for the engine, of course), but such a dissappointing plane.......

I've always thought the Defiant was more like the Hurricane. In fact the Luftwaffe pilots mistook it for the Hurricane during their first encounters which gave a false impression of its worth. They soon found out their mistake & attacked from the front where it was completely defenceless. I've often wondered why they didn't convert it into a conventional single-seat fighter as it wasn't a bad looking plane & more modern than the Hurri. The Defiant did have some success as a nightfighter.

[C]

I've often wondered why they didn't convert it into a conventional single-seat fighter as it wasn't a bad looking plane & more modern than the Hurri. The Defiant did have some success as a nightfighter.

They did...

The P94, which was basically a single seat Defiant...

[Hagar]

They did...

The P94, which was basically a single seat Defiant...

Ah, caught out again. How come I missed that? To be honest I can't say I'd ever heard of it. You chaps are too knowledgeable for me.

Not sure it was ever built though. That's my excuse & I'm sticking to it. While I was punting around I found a CFS2 version of it. You learn something new every day.

Interesting history of the Defiant here. http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/types/uk/boulton_paul/defiant/Defiant.htm

[C]

I think a Defiant lost its turret to become the one and only P.94

There's one for FS/CFS out there...

[Hagar]

Here's the CFS2 P.94. http://www.pavaservices.com/cfs/P94.htm#Downloads

Apparently it's still a beta version. This is copied from the file description.

History: With fighter production seen to be critically low in the near future Boulton Paul proposed a single seat version of the Defiant, with forward firing guns, as a stop gap addition to the Hurricane and Spitire. The prototype Defiant K8310, now a MKII, was re-converted to it's original single seat layout. By 16th August 1940 flight tests had indicated that a Merlin XX powered version with twelve 0.303" guns would have a top speed of 364 mph at 23,500 ft.

This version was given the project number P94 and more radically armed alternatives were envisaged. One proposal saw it armed with four 0.303" guns and four 20mm canons, the latter being able to aimed downward by 17 degrees whilst in flight to aid ground straffing.

The P94 shared many components with the P82 Defiant and could have been assembled on the same production lines. However in the end production of the Hurricane and Spitfire was always able to keep up with the losses and there was no need for the P94 or indeed the Miles M20.

From what I can make out from the other site I mentioned the first protype Defiant had the turret removed & the fuselage faired over. This brought it back to the condition it was when it was first tested. Being pedantic I would say that it was more of a P.82 than a P.94.

[Professor Brensec]

I think the Defiant looks more like a P39 - Certainly in the Pacific, I could see it being VERY mistaken for an Aerocobra.

[Hagar]

I think the Defiant looks more like a P39 - Certainly in the Pacific, I could see it being VERY mistaken for an Aerocobra.

Sorry Prof. I see no resemblance to the P-39 or P-51. Still looks like a Hurricane to me.

PS.

[Felix/FFDS]

Doug - I'll have to dig up my Air Enthusiast references, but there was serious study given to a single seater Defiant variant to serve as a carrier fighter ...  but I think the Fulmar won out.

[Hagar]

Thanks Felix. I would be very interested in seeing that.

[Professor Brensec]

Sorry, Hagar. The first (P51) was a misprint (I always meant P39).

Your telling me that you can't see the shape of a P39?????

Maybe I'm going mad, but I can..............:)

[Felix/FFDS]

Sorry, Hagar. The first (P51) was a misprint (I always meant P39).

Your telling me that you can't see the shape of a P39?????

Maybe I'm going mad, but I can..............:)

I can't see the P-39, but I can see the XFL-1 Airabonita ... sort of the same plane with the cockpit/engine swpaping places ..

http://www.daveswarbirds.com/usplanes/a ... bonita.htm