Warhawk question...

muddyboots · **Posted:** Wed Dec 02, 2009 12:41 am

why did it fall by the wayside? Couldn't it have been continually upgraded to keep up with German fighters?

JDK · **Posted:** Wed Dec 02, 2009 3:01 am

muddyboots wrote:

why did it fall by the wayside? Couldn't it have been continually upgraded to keep up with German fighters?

No. Very simply, it was obsolete technology - aerodynamically unable to be improved to be competitive. They tried, have a look at the P-40Q, but it wasn't on.

Some aircraft - most famously the Spitfire had accidentally built in 'performance stretch' in the Spitfire's case the wing design and a fine (aerodynamically speaking) fuselage. The 109 and Zero exibited similar potential, in each case unplanned for development was possible, but of the three the Spitfire was the one that remained able to take the improvements most effectively. The 'new' (1940 or so) Griffith effect radiator ducting and laminar flow wing (as seen on the P-51 most famously) were a bigger performance step forward than is often realised.

Regards,

The Inspector · **Posted:** Wed Dec 02, 2009 3:20 am

Because of the P-40, and Dutch Kindelberger telling a British purchasing mission that N.A. could design and build a far superior airframe in the same amount of time as it would take to setup P-40 lines in Inglewood, we have the P-51.
Saddly, the P-40 was the last sucessful design to come from Curtiss

rreis · **Joined:** Tue Aug 04, 2009 4:42 pm **Posts:** 441

JDK wrote:

Griffith effect radiator ducting

First time I cross this (unless I've got a memory dump), could you get a bit deeper JDK?

many thanks,

JDK · **Posted:** Wed Dec 02, 2009 3:45 am

Um, wrong guy, that's why! :oops:

Quote:

The P-51 used a radiator layout which employed what was known as the ‘Meredith’ effect. F.W. Meredith had worked at the RAE (Royal Aircraft Establishment at Farnborough) and in 1935 had shown that the momentum loss in the cooling system could be largely restored when the excess cooling air was forced through the radiator at high speed. This involved closing the air exit enough to create a substantial back pressure behind the radiator. To use approximate figures the propeller thrust at full power was about 1000 pounds (455 kg), the radiator drag was about 400 pounds (205 kg) with the momentum recovery being about 350 pounds (159 kg).

http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:Hc ... =firefox-a

The Spitfire and 109's radiators had lower efficiency versions, while the CAC CA-15 and Martin Baker MB-5 are 'post-Mustang' users of the principle.

More betterer here:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/pao/History/SP-445/ch5-5.htm

Griffith was involved with jets. Tsk.

JDK · **Posted:** Wed Dec 02, 2009 3:47 am

Actually I think the first ref I've grabbed is technically wrong, but as my dinner is calling, with the right name (Meredith) you may find better yourself this time! :drinkers:

rreis · **Joined:** Tue Aug 04, 2009 4:42 pm **Posts:** 441

eheh, thanks! I was current with the P51 radiator "propulsion system" but didn't knew it's name or that is was originated at the RAE. One more nugget of knowledge for the bag

JDK · **Posted:** Wed Dec 02, 2009 7:20 am

rreis wrote:

eheh, thanks! I was current with the P51 radiator "propulsion system" but didn't knew it's name or that is was originated at the RAE. One more nugget of knowledge for the bag

Find a cross section of the Spitfire radiator set up (not the early oil cooler) and the 109 version.

Another was the development of the 'ejector' exhaust for inline engines, over the 1930s 'kidney' or slot type.

bdk · **Joined:** Sun May 02, 2004 1:16 am **Posts:** 11319

muddyboots wrote:

why did it fall by the wayside? Couldn't it have been continually upgraded to keep up with German fighters?

Serious question: Was it ever an equal to the front line German fighters?

If it was behind from the beginning maybe it was more important to get sufficient numbers in service where the alternative was nothing while the more capable aircraft were being tooled up to go into production.

If I'm not mistaken the P-40Q came quite late and was no better than what was already being made at the time.

The Inspector · **Posted:** Wed Dec 02, 2009 2:34 pm

EXACTLY! The P-40 was kept in production because it was in series production and it was 'good enough' to hand out by the ship load to our allies fighting secondary campaigns like Alaska, Africa, CBI, and the early SWP as well as the Russians who were so starved for aircaft they probably would have taken just about anything this side of a Keystone bomber.
The fighter was 'good enough' to distract and keep the enemy on their toes and fighting while other campaigns were prioritized and fought. AS the various theaters came higher on the scale of importance, everything going to that theater got expotentially better from canteens to fighters and logistics and supply status.

Being married to the ALLISON (as I've said before, one of my favorites because of it's ability to continue going despite horrid conditions)was one of it's biggest problems. The ALLISON used the low volume gear type blower and was out of gas above 15000 feet. Interestingly enough BELL installed a turbo supercharger on an early P-39 to show the Brass the advantages and performance improvements. The USAAF was less than lukewarm to the idea, passed on the oportunity to improve the P-39 (and maybe the P-40) but continued to pile stuff onto the AIRACOBRA making it heavier and less maneuverable and all the while bitching about what a P.O.S. the P-39 had become, and had that improvement put on the P38 instead. Imagine what might have been if all P-38's were like the LIGHTNING Mk1 orderd by the British without turbos 'every time I open the throttles this thing oinks like a pig'

flyboyj · **Joined:** Sat Oct 10, 2009 1:01 pm **Posts:** 157

The P-40 was able to "compete" with some models of the Bf 109 and did show a fair account of itself in North Africa and the Mediterranean. From Wikipedia

The 325th FG (also known as the "Checkertail Clan"), also flew P-40s in the MTO. The 325th was credited with at least 133 air-to-air kills in April-October 1943, of which 95 were Bf 109s and 26 were Macchi C.202s, for the loss of only 17 P-40s in combat. An anecdote concerning the 325th FG, indicates what could happen if Bf 109 pilots made the mistake of trying to out-turn the P-40. According to 325th FG historian Carol Cathcart: "on 30 July, 20 P-40s of the 317th [Fighter Squadron] ... took off on a fighter sweep ... over Sardinia. As they turned to fly south over the west part of the island, they were attacked near Sassari... The attacking force consisted of 25 to 30 Bf 109s and Macchi C.202s... In the brief, intense battle that occurred ... [the 317th claimed] 21 enemy aircraft." Cathcart states that Lt. Robert Sederberg who assisted a comrade being attacked by five Bf 109s, destroyed at least one German aircraft, and may have shot down as many as five. Sederberg was shot down in the dogfight and became a prisoner of war.

Although some of the claims were exaggerated, it is evident the P-40 could hold its own.

bdk · **Joined:** Sun May 02, 2004 1:16 am **Posts:** 11319

I wonder how the pilot skills compared?

JohnTerrell · **Posted:** Wed Dec 02, 2009 4:38 pm

I recall reading from his son, that Herschel "Herky" Green, of the famed "Checkertail Clan", would purposely use an old P-40 that the squadron had, in mock dogfights, to teach new comers/replacements that even if they had a brand new P-51 at their disposal, it wouldn't be any better use unless they had the right combat flying skills.

flyboyj · **Joined:** Sat Oct 10, 2009 1:01 pm **Posts:** 157

bdk wrote:

I wonder how the pilot skills compared?

That would also come into play with this story.

hang the expense · **Posted:** Thu Dec 03, 2009 2:00 am

More than a few axis pilots got a really nasty surprise tangling with the tommy pilots down low over the desert.Besides you ought to hear the current mustang pilots after they go fly a Kittyhawk.You just might be shocked. :lol:

Warbird Information Exchange

Warhawk question...

Who is online