Best ETO fighter from 1939-1942

[Gnomey]

That is going to hurt!

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by MacArther

if it was as bad as you say, then why did America produce it even when its successors were in large enough numbers to take its place?

Upon America's entry into WW2, the P40 and P39 were the only two fighters in mass production (I'm not talking about naval aircraft either). Since you have to go to war with what you have, the P40 was thrust into the front lines. In the Pacific, the P40 performed decently because of the nature of the war. In Europe, it was different. The 109/190/Spit could outperform it under nearly all conditions.

Once the P38 and P47 were under production, the P40 was pushed aside. But, as many people understand with weapons manufacturing, once a plane is in full scale production, its hard to "just" stop it.

[MacArther]

So maybe I'm a bit biased. I personally believe that not enough credit is given to the P40, and that the last prototype model could have given the P51 a run for its money, if not beat it.

[Glider]

Be fair everyone. The 190 with 2x20, 2x30 and 2x15 wasn't 1942 and being so loaded, is probably the one 190 that the P40 could take on.

As long as the P40 didn't wander in front of it.

[syscom3]

I didnt think the P40's could fly up to 30,000 ft, let alone fight it out up there.

[MacArther]

They couldn't, but the Fw-190 was used in the raider role early on, so the P40 would have a chance to nail 'em at the lower altitudes where the P40 held the marginal advantage.

P.S. Thanks for the go between Glider

[Glider]

Intersting point, but could a 190 lugging that lot? B17's cruised at 25,000ft and P40 could make 30,000, just.

That said you missed the point of my posting.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by MacArther

if it was as bad as you say, then why did America produce it even when its successors were in large enough numbers to take its place? My theory is that the P40 had proven itself as a tough machine, and only the increasing speed of arial combat forced it to be phased out.

Yeah the P-40 was a good aircraft at the beginning of the war, however a Spitfire or Bf-109 would outperform or outfight a P-40 anyday and anytime of the war. An Fw-190 would outperform a Bf-109 and would out arm a Bf-109 so it certainly would outtfly and outfight a P-40. The P-40 is not even in the same class as a Fw-190, Spitfire, or Bf-109. You can be biased all you want but facts are facts.

[MacArther]

Some one look up the XP-40Q, that is the model that I think would have given the P51 a run for its money.
P.S. If you could post the stats or pictures (cause I cant find any aside from kotfsc.com) that would be helpful and really nice.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by MacArther

Some one look up the XP-40Q, that is the model that I think would have given the P51 a run for its money.
P.S. If you could post the stats or pictures (cause I cant find any aside from kotfsc.com) that would be helpful and really nice.

Don't think so!

It only had 4 .50 guns, was slower and not as maneuvable. Here's some other info...

"The XP-40Q Was elvulated by the USAAF But the end of the war led to cancellation of development of the Warhawk and the second XP-40Q prototype ended its carrer as a postwar air racer.

On October 1945,a Curtiss XP-40Q suffered an engine failure during a test flight near Muroc,California and belly landed in a sweet patato field.The pilot was not injured.

XP-40Q Max Speed was 422 mph at 20,500 ft.
Service Ceiling was 39,000 ft. "

http://www.pioneeraero.co.nz/xp-40q_version.htm

Not a bad plane, it wasn't close to the P-51.

[wmaxt]

The Fw-190A was very effective below 20,000ft and better than the P-40. The Me-109E/F was better at altitudes of 20,000ft and over, by 15,000ft and below the P-40 was a decent match performance wise had heaver armment and was both tougher and more versatile. After the 109G and later planes came out a gap in relative performance P-40 vrs Me-109 showed the 109 had a more adaptable airframe.

wmaxt

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by MacArther

Some one look up the XP-40Q, that is the model that I think would have given the P51 a run for its money.

I dont think the P-40 anything would have given the P-51 a run for its money. The P-40 was outclassed by aircraft on all sides of the war by 1942.

[Jabberwocky]

In terms of speed the best P-40 was the P-40F/L with a Packard Merlin V-1650-1. It could get to about 365 mph at 20,000 feet. Most of the 1300 produced were sent to Russia as Lend-Lease, but about 120 served with the RAF, RAAF and SAAF.

The P-40L was a lightened version intended for short-ranged interception. They stripped out most of the armour, some fuel tanks and deleted the out two wing-guns. The result was a modest increase in climb and level speed.

If you look at speed, climb and time to height the P-40 was never really competitive. Still, it could outroll anything short of a 190 or a clipped Spitfire and was decently manouevrable below 15,000 feet. It also had a good reputation as a fighter bomber, begause it was rugged and nice to fly at low altitudes.

Against a 190A any P-40 is outclassed in terms of speed, accleration, roll, climb and armament. The Allison and Packard Merlins thst it used were probably more susecptibale to damage than the radial BMW of the Focke-Wulf.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I personally think it was outclassed by the Fw-190, Bf-109, Spitfire, P-38, P-51 and I htink most people will agree.

[wmaxt]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

I personally think it was outclassed by the Fw-190, Bf-109, Spitfire, P-38, P-51 and I htink most people will agree.

After '42 no doubt it was as developed as it could be. Prior to that it was fairly compettitive with the 109 and early Spits at lower altitudes. It was always better than the P-51 at ground attack - same armament less vulnerability.

wmaxt