P40: The underated underdog, or just behind the times

[evangilder]

Yep, that's the one CC. Did you notice the spray behind them? Looks like they are under attack in that shot.

[Gnomey]

Nice pic CC.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Nice pic, and yes they did that mostly to ferry them I believe.

[TenGunTerror]

I am a lover of under appreciated planes, so obviously I'm a fan of the P-40. It had great maneuverability and compared to the Japanese counter parts, it romped them if flown well (Flying Tigers AVG). It was used in every theater and was great as a fighter bomber. Personally one of my favorites. My vote? Underrated underdog!

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by TenGunTerror

I am a lover of under appreciated planes, so obviously I'm a fan of the P-40. It had great maneuverability and compared to the Japanese counter parts. it romped them if flown well (Flying Tigers AVG). It was used in every theater and was great as a fighter bomber. Personally one of my favorites. My vote? Underrated underdog!

Please go to the library and and do some research. Many of your posts seemed to be based on flight sim propaganda and comic books!

[Watanbe]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

Please go to the library and and do some research. Many of your posts seemed to be based on flight sim propaganda and comic books!

You seem to be TenGunTerror's number 1 fan ...I'm not sure what you like more, his lack of research or nasty habit for resurrecting old threads!

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Watanbe

You seem to be TenGunTerror's number 1 fan ...I'm not sure what you like more, his lack of research or nasty habit for resurrecting old threads!

I had some other members comment to me as well. I think he's now on the straight and narrow.

[Shortround6]

When comparing aircraft it helps to remember size. While the P-40 was rugged this came at a price. Check the weight compared to a Spitfire. While weight does not have quite the same effect on speed that it does on climb it shows that given "equel" engines the P-40 would always climb slower than the Spitfire. It also means that give the same size wing (and they were very close) the Spit should out turn the P-40.
Both planes were larger than the 109 which means that they had the "potential" to be more adaptable than the 109.
We also have to remember that all-metal (or mostly metal) aircraft were in their infancy in the mid 1930s. Most stress analysis was little more than educated guesses and aerodynamics was advancing rapidly. Compare a P-40 to a P-51 using the same engine. North American thought they could do better given the extra 4-5 years of knowledge they had over the P-40 and they were right.
While the P-40 wasn't a "bad" plane it time had come and gone well before WW II was over and no amount of tinkering was going to change that. Putting more modern, higher power engines in the P-40 would improve it. But you would still wind up with an inferior plane compared to putting the same engine in a newer airframe.

[MikeGazdik]

1) The photo of the P-47s' on the carrier deck with the explosions in the water in the background. What about depth charges? The even spacing and "splash" shape makes me think that may be what we are seeing. Depth charges dropped by the Carrier fleet just in case they had a snooper underwater.

2) In order to turn, the plane first has to roll, or at least roll into the turn, right? So a plane that can out roll another will start turning first. Maybe this is the case with the P-40. It rolled quicker than the Spit and the Me109 I think too. Wouldn't the roll into the turn be a very critical aspect of this manuever? This may explain some of the success of the P-47 as well. We know its weight would make it a slower turning aircraft, but it supposedly rolled wonderfully. If I roll into the turn quicker than the other guy, he is then playing catch-up. His plane may eventually begin to gain because in the pure turn he is better. Then I roll again into another turn and he has to catch up to my manuever once again. Thoughts????

[Shortround6]

I believe you are correct about the rolling.

All planes rate of roll varied with speed.
And perhaps with altitude?

From Mr. William's site:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...-rollchart.jpg

[Juha]

Hello
Now according to NACA report No. 868 P-40 E outrolled normal wing Spit at speeds over 250mph IAS under that speed Spit rolled better.
P-47C-1 outrolled normal wing Spit at speed over 290 mph IAS but at lower speeds Spit was clearly better. P-40E rolled clearly better up to 300mph IAS, the max they tested P-40E.

Juha

[Elvis]

That's an interesting picture that Matt posted...



I never realized how much smaller the P-40 was, compared to some of the later aircraft shown.
Although one can't see much of it, it appears the P-40 is about the same size as the Spitfire shown in the pic.
...and notice how much narrower the P-40's wings are, compared to the others.
No wonder it was known for such a good roll rate.

MacArther,

Look up an Aussie pilot by the name of Billy Gibbs.
He flew the P-40 for the RAAF and has flown the Me-109, too.
He was a fan of both planes and noted once that the P-40 can dogfight with the 109, if flown properly.


Elvis

[mm-2]

In my humble opinion, the reason the P-40 would never be a great fighter was because it was draggy. Giant bulbous fairings over the open-wheeled gear wells, bulky, sturdy, but thick and draggy wings, giant front intake (from E onwards) and a high abrupt cockpit.

The fact that P-40 pilots didn't notice hardly any difference between Allison-powered and Merlin-powered P-40s tells you the power supply wasn't the problem. It was the underlying design. It worked. It simply stopped working any better after a point.

I love the shape of the P-40s, though. One of those classic, nay, iconic, airplanes that lends to childrens' imaginations!


You don't get that with F-22s' looks, or F-35s. So folks look to the past designs to daydream about (myself included).

[fibus]

There are interesting tidbits.
The allison engine was put in the P 36 airframe for an increase in level speed. But that sacrificed to some extent the agility of the basic airframe. The P 36 had better harmonized controls than either the contemporary Hurricane or the spitfire and would turn inside both.
Further at an altitude below 10,000 feet any model P 40 would turn inside a Mustang. Remember the Tomahawk would turn inside any German fighter at low altitude.
We could go on with advantages on one fighter to another but the name of the game is you don't fight the other guys fight.

[Elvis]

Originally Posted by mm-2

In my humble opinion, the reason the P-40 would never be a great fighter was because it was draggy. Giant bulbous fairings over the open-wheeled gear wells, bulky, sturdy, but thick and draggy wings, giant front intake (from E onwards) and a high abrupt cockpit.

The fact that P-40 pilots didn't notice hardly any difference between Allison-powered and Merlin-powered P-40s tells you the power supply wasn't the problem. It was the underlying design. It worked. It simply stopped working any better after a point.

I love the shape of the P-40s, though. One of those classic, nay, iconic, airplanes that lends to childrens' imaginations!


You don't get that with F-22s' looks, or F-35s. So folks look to the past designs to daydream about (myself included).

The "giant intake" is actullay the oil cooler and it has a very large exhaust opening at the point where it blends back into the body (I know, kinda hard to see sometimes).
As fibus mentioned, the P-40 is actually the streamlined version of the H75 airframe and thus, the modification allowed for the frame to have its own designation - H81 (later improved with the H87).
The Allison was used because it gave more power in a more streamlined package, compared to the H75, or "P-36" as we know it, and from whence the P-40 originated.
I believe the calculation commonly cited is "more power per square inch of frontal area".
However, what you are citing is the "deficiency" of an older design.
At the outbreak of WWII, we only really had 3 fighter planes that could even hope to be a match for the fighters in the Axis arsenal - the Wildcat, the Buffalo and the Warhawk.
All 3 designs are based more on experiences gained during WWI, with some updated engineering to further streamline the airplanes.
Later experience would show that we needed to move in a different direction with our designs, and that yielded some planes that are remembered as some of the best of the war - the P-51 and the F6F, just to name a couple.
However, without that data to fall back on, the planes we used early in the war was as good as it got for us.
Its just an older design, but even so, the P-40 is actually a very good example of a later pre-war design.
The reason Performance didn't change much with the change to the Merlin was because that Merlin was setup similarly to the Allison, i.e., single stage/single speed supercharger.
This limited the capability of the Merlin, almost to the point to where it was indistinguishable from the Allison, from the pilot's perspective.
Had Allison and the USAAF worked closer with the British and tried harder to adapt their two-speed/two-stage supercharger to the V-1710, the P-40 would have probably performed much better.
As a matter of fact, Allison did realize the benefits of the improved supercharging system and did try to develop one for their engine, but it was an inferior design, basing itself off the existing supercharger, so performance never achieved the levels it did with the Merlin.
Our own "Clay Allison" has struck upon a novel idea, which is to replace the Allison, not wth the Merlin, but with the even more powerful Griffon engine.
Even if an early version were used (which would be similar to how the Allison was set up), it would still put out superior HP numbers and may have given the plane the capability it should have exhibited.


Elvis