Jump to content

  • Log in with Twitter Log in with Windows Live Log In with Steam Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Photo
- - - - -

Flying Tigers (AVG) and no P-40


  • Please log in to reply
37 replies to this topic

#31 GregP

GregP

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,294 posts
  • Joined 14 Years, 2 Months and 19 Days
  • 224 topics

Posted 15 March 2017 - 07:19 AM

According to Curtiss records, they had a Hawk 81. But, I don't really care either way. After the French order, I have NO record of any designation other than a P-40 followed by a letter and maybe a dash number, or a P-40*/Tomahawk/Kittyhawk. The Tomahawk and Kittyhawk are followd by Mk. plus a Roman numeral and sometimes a letter, but no H-X or Hawk-X after the French build.

 

And all contracts seem to be accounded for.

 

I mis-typed the 75 instead of the 75P. 

 

That's funny, I never mis-typed before! Ha ha ...

 

I am NOT digging for this, I just found some data by accident the other weekend while looking for something else. You can rest easy as I'm not in a competition here, at all. I care MUCH more about the engines and props than the airframes. Airframes are easy to modify! Add or subtract sheet metal! Simple.

 

You should see all the changes on "Strega" or "Voodoo!" Ain't much "Mustang" left! Superficial resemblance only. Almost NO surface is stock! Control surface or other surface.

 

Engines need a bit more thought. Props even MORE, if you want them to be GOOD. If you don't, what's the point in changing one? :-)



#32 CORSNING

CORSNING

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,647 posts
  • Joined 4 Years, 4 Months
  • 185 topics
  • LocationClyde, Ohio, USA

Posted 15 March 2017 - 01:04 PM

Hi Greg,

     I apologize sir. I changed my original statement. Just because I couldn't

remember the P-40 being call a 'Hawk' by the company doesn't mean it

didn't exist. ^_^  ;)

     I wonder if the 'Hawk' name was mentioned in the official papers of the

French order? I do remember for sure that the French did not use the name

'Hawk' officially for any of their Curtiss fighters. A simple H75 was used, and

I (assumed) H81 was also used.


  • GregP likes this

#33 Wuzak

Wuzak

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,935 posts
  • Joined 12 Years, 6 Months and 19 Days
  • 159 topics

Posted 15 March 2017 - 02:46 PM

Curtiss P-40 Fact I:

     The early P-40's maneuverability was likened to the Supermarine Spitfire.

The early "Tomahawks" could out roll the early Spitfires at 300 mph. and above.

At 360 mph., or around the maximum speeds of these two fighters the early

Spitfire's roll rate was 56 degrees / second. The P-40s was 135 degrees /

second. The early P-40s inherited the P-36s ability to turn well and far exceeded

its rolling ability at speeds over 185 mph.

 

The problem for the P-40 is that it arrived too late for the British to seriously consider it as a replacement for the Spitfire.

 

The contemporary Spitfire for the P-40 was the V. Which had the 2 x 20mm cannon, making it a harder hitting aircraft.

 

The V used an engine whose FTH was ~5-6,000ft above that of the P-40's.

 

The early P-40s also lacked the equipment that the British required in a combat aircraft - such as self sealing fuel tanks.

 

And the roll speeds noted there are IAS. The top speeds are TAS. At 20,000ft there is a difference. An indicated airspeed of 300mph is ~420mph TAS at 20,000ft.


  • GregP and CORSNING like this

#34 CORSNING

CORSNING

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,647 posts
  • Joined 4 Years, 4 Months
  • 185 topics
  • LocationClyde, Ohio, USA

Posted 15 March 2017 - 04:27 PM

Wuzak, where you been. It is always great to hear from you. :)

     I agree with most. By the time the Spitfire V was operational in February 1941

the P-40 was ladened with armor, armament and all the USAAF equipment. It had

become a heavy, low / medium altitude offensive attack fighter. The Spitfire was

still a fairly light weight interceptor. An apples to oranges type of comparison.

     Just an FYI, the Spitfire V in quantity production to operational service did not

receive its 20 mm cannons until somewhere in mid-1941. If you look at the Spitfire

Timeline I have posted on the AIRCRAFT PERFORMANCE section of this site, you

will notice that it is evident that I do not have a clear picture on the Spitfire Vb's

exact operational debut.

     Mid-1940 made the Spitfire Vb a contemporary of the P-40D/E Kittyhawk not

the earlier, much more maneuverable and lighter Tomahawk.

 

PS: No fair mentioning the limited run Spitfire Ib used in 19 sqdn, June 1940.


  • GregP likes this

#35 GregP

GregP

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,294 posts
  • Joined 14 Years, 2 Months and 19 Days
  • 224 topics

Posted 16 March 2017 - 08:40 AM

Hi both Corsning and Wuzak,

 

Love the old P-40, but it DID need some updating. I wish they had built the P-40Q, because it would have been a very GOOD fighter. at lest MUCH better than the stock P-40 in service.

 

But, history has been written and the real-world P-40 was our early soldier that soldiered on past it's prime. It did OK , with a good overall war record, but was no world-beater. COULD have been MUCH better, but wasn't.

 

I bet you could make that case for most any mediocre fighter built in WWII, right down to the French MS.406 or the Bloch. If they had the Doflug D-3803 when the MS.406 came out, things might have been different ... just as they also might have been if the early P-40s were P-40Qs instead.

 

Of course, it my aunt were a man, she'd be my uncle ... but she wasn't.

 

Makes a good fiction story, though, doesn't it?



#36 Rick65

Rick65

    Registered Member

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPip
  • 143 posts
  • Joined 5 Years, 10 Months and 29 Days
  • 1 topics
  • LocationPerth, Western Australia

Posted 17 March 2017 - 03:54 AM

As an Australian I share the appreciation of the P-40 as it was our main fighter in the middle east and especially against the Japanese in the hard times.

The problem with the P-40Q was timing. The Q-1 didn't fly until June 1943, the Q-2 Nov 1943.

Given that the P-40 had been in combat since mid 1941 Curtis were just too slow in updating it.

The British managed to get the Spitfire IX into service in mid/late 1942 and this is when the P-40Q might have been invaluable.

Such a shame that the last survivor died air racing.



#37 GregP

GregP

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,294 posts
  • Joined 14 Years, 2 Months and 19 Days
  • 224 topics

Posted 17 March 2017 - 06:59 AM

Yes it is, but at least it died while flying ... beats corroding away slowly as an abandoned relic.


  • Stony likes this

#38 Rick65

Rick65

    Registered Member

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPip
  • 143 posts
  • Joined 5 Years, 10 Months and 29 Days
  • 1 topics
  • LocationPerth, Western Australia

Posted 17 March 2017 - 07:58 AM

It didn't die while flying, It died while ceasing to fly!

There are more options than the two outlined, witness all the loved planes at any airshow that a) haven't been crashed beyond realistic rebuild or b ) been left to corrode as abandoned relics.


Edited by Rick65, 17 March 2017 - 07:59 AM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users