Lots of good points, gents, good discussion!
bdk wrote:
I wonder how the pilot skills compared?
Commonweath pilots using P-40s in N Africa (before the US) did well overall, building or having combat experience since May 1940. Luftwaffe pilots were probably better overall, certainly more experienced by the time they got there in 109E and Fs, having been fighting for the most part frontline since 1939. The USAAF pilots in N Africa were green in combat flying. Given that, they should get extra respect considering how well the did on arrival.
Where green P-40 pilots encountered the Japanese and Germans, they learned fast or... Against the Italians, it was a clear case (despite wartime propaganda and postwar attitudes) of technical superiority of the P-40 over the Italian's technologically obsolete equipment. Most Italians were better-skilled pilots, but in open cockpit, underarmed and lower performance aircraft.
Quote:
Serious question: Was it ever an equal to the front line German fighters?
The British said not, wouldn't use it in Northern Europe against the cream of the
Luftwaffe. (A few were used in a limited way, briefly.) However it was a critical type available in numbers to 'hold the line' until the better (and nowadays 'more glamorous') types were available in the Pacific, China and N Africa. For that, the P-40 should be given more respect than it usually is, and definitely the pilots who flew them when the enemy had the advantage. No turkey shoots for the P-40. Tough men, tough aircraft, in tough times.
Quote:
Being married to the ALLISON...
Like my mention of the P-40Q, there was a real alternative, which is the P-40 was one of the first types to get a Merlin fitted; but it didn't provide the performance jump it did in the P-51 - which should make us grateful that they did try the P-51 with a Merlin after the 'failure' of the P-40 with it. Interesting alternative history thread there...
Why the Merlin P-40s weren't 'better-enough' is a question I'm still not clear about myself. I think some of it was the limitations of the airframe and radiator design, others to do with the altitude performance of those Merlins. More insight welcome!
All three of the world's current Merlin P-40 pilots I've spoken to say it goes downhill like a devil, but otherwise isn't significantly or notably 'better' than the equivalent Allison P-40 while the Mustang unarguably has an edge. A solid workmanlike aircraft seems to be the conclusion.
Quote:
Besides you ought to hear the current mustang pilots after they go fly a Kittyhawk.You just might be shocked
Yes, absolutely. For warbird display aeros, it has a lot going for it, and is probably the
most underrated fighter in class. Ray and Mark Hanna, who regularly flew four-aircraft formation dissimilar warbird aerobatics (both in the UK and across Europe and in NZ) went on record repeatedly in rating the P-40 very highly, and often preferred to fly it than others - including the Corsair, spitfire and Mustang - in
that regimen, it was competitive. Of course that's not combat, nor combat at altitude.
Good question Muddy, let's have more input...