Warbird Information Exchange

Depends on how you count them! There's the Salerno, Italy example, as you mention, Judy's 'F', the companion aircraft to Judy's is being fitted with an Allison by the RNZAF Museum, so won't be the 'F' it was built as, and there's another under rebuild in Wangaratta, Vic, Aus for Stephen Grey's Fighter Collection - but I've never seen an id given for that one.

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

The one in Italy displayed as found is a merlin powered P40L, there were two recovered when Judy's was recovered in the Pacific, the other one unfortunately was swapped to the RNZAF Museum and is having an Alison fitted to represent a P40E.

I have heard or read of a "new" one being built for a customer in the UK as a P40F, or at least with a merlin in place of the Alison, so I guess the total will be 4 eventually, but with one imposter fitted with a merlin and one original impersonating a P40E with an alison, along with Judy's flying P40F and the Italian time capsule P40L.


(edit: hmm jinx James, your post wasnt there when I clicked to start drafting my reply, but it seems we covered the same ground - smiles)

regards

Mark Pilkington

_________________
20th Century - The Age of Manned Flight
"from Wrights to Armstrong in 66 years -WOW!"

Thanks guys! I forgot the Salerno time capsule aircraft was an L.

SN

So, to be honest, did I!

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

Many P-40F's and L's were re-engined with Allison's during WW2 due to shortage of Merlins etc. Are they imposters???

There are many "book worm" experts on WIX.

Bit like the gloss vs. matt paint bit. During WW2 my father for example 'polished' RAAF Spitfires and Kittyhawks with floor polish to make them go faster! Tony Gaze, Spitfire ace, who flew my Spitfire told me recently that he spent his tome off when not flying and sleeping filling gaps and polishing his mount. Said it gave about 5+ knot improvment and allowed him to use a little less power to stay with his flock giving him extra endrance..

I guess they were "gloss" even though book wisdom says this was not the case!

Hi Randy,

but I'm lost as to what other type of experts? you would reference us to "creationist, or re-creationists"

The issue being discussed is not P40's in general, but P40F's, and how many survive, based on their rarity over all the other sub models of E's M's and N's.

Either authenticity has some place or it doesnt?, otherwise todays P40N could be tomorrows P40L with an engine change, quickly shortened fuselage and adjusted high back panelling? - their all just P40s? what does it matter?

Why not put a pointly rudder on a mark V spitfire and a different paint scheme and instantly call it an original Mark VIII?

Why bother restoring a "real" spitfire at all, but instead buy a brand new "Supermarine Spitfire mark 26" as currently available in Australia, perhaps its a fraction smaller with a different engine? but its got the right name and shape, - surely then that is enough?, and it can be painted and polished a real treat??, and claimed to have flown in the Battle of Britain too??



An original USAF combat veteran P40F that was built and served all its service life with a Merlin (and that forms the primary distinction of the model) when restored and re-engined in modern times with an Alison, and painted to represent a RNZAF P40E surely cant really be described as being displayed (or surviving) as an authentically restored P40F any more?, it seems to be clearly impersonating something else? even if it is still an original P40 airframe?



A wartime P40E or P40F that received an engine swap would be whatever the military then called it, but its serial number and previous history didnt get obliterated or re-written? and probably would survive the modern day restoration industry into either a Merlin or Alison installation without dispute, because its own history underwent that, but then it would probably be restored by its owner to reflect that specific period of history to make it more authentic.

As for the new build airframe without an apparant original identity and provenance, which surely when fitted with a Merlin is intending to be representing a P40L or P40F as built by Curtiss, but clearly is a 2009 reproduction or "recreation"? accurate;y recreated to the Curtiss design, but little if any of the metal was ever touched by Curtiss?

Why not simply acknowledge that, it doesnt depreciate the fantastic efforts made in creating it? but if claimed to be built as the original, from the shadow of an original airframe and a data plate, with 99.99% new metal throughout, it is effectively impersonating that identity as far as I can see?

There seems to be a rebuilders (or owners) concern it might not hold its value as much as an original "restored" one, whereas we are talking about such a small supply side, and an increasing demand that the new aircraft might actually be considered safer and a better investment by those who wish to do lots of flying and perhaps only suffer a lower buy price if someone as choosy as Paul Allen is in the market? (who does pursue provenance and authenticity), or perhaps a National Collection?

In ALL other fields (Fine Art, Antiquities, Paintings, even car rebirthing), such restoration versus reproduction activities are either openly accepted as reproductions, or if presented and claimed as originals, are often rejected as fraudulent (and in many cases treated as illegal), why is it we consider aircraft are somehow able be treated differently?

As for gloss versus matt paint, yes they were either matt or flat paints, polished by hand with floor polish even sometimes simply grease, but in that effort they didnt come out with mirror finishes you could see yourself in, its the same with natural metal aircraft in now being restored, they were'nt originally buffed in WW2 to "mirror" finish.

There are clearly paint and surface finishes being undertaken today that bear no real resemblence to the original service conditions, polished or otherwise?? even if those original finishes were subject to polishing in the field.

In the end I dont really care as long as original parts arn't destroyed in the "creation" process, and even compromises in restorations such as second jump seats are understandable - just not original - but I am still pleased to enjoy most restorations, they are scarce enough in any form, and if the owner has the money they are welcome to do what they like, other than claim its "original", "authentic", when it clearly is'nt, from any book, photo or even testimony from wartime pilots.

Its unfortunate that some warbirds are treated more as "HotRods" being rebuilt for "show", rather than a Vintage Vehicle being restored for "exhibition".






When you find a rotted out 1928 model T ford in an old barn you can either restore it sympathetically, rebuilding the original body with its original engine and paint it in dull black as it was from the factory, or you can scrap the all the body work, engine and running gear, and only keep the windscreen and chassis, then buy in fibreglass body moldings, drop a chevy V8 in it, put mag wheels and slicks on it, chrome and polish all the remaining metal and paint flames down the sides with a high gloss paint, it really is the choice of the owner.

But thats clearly not a restored authentic 1928 Model T , thats a Hot Rod, and if thats what you wanted - fine, just dont turn up to vintage car rally's wanting to win first prize and complain when the "book worm" experts give you strange looks? (especially given the T model was discontinued in 1927 smiles)

I actually think the issue of provenance and authenticity standards is something warbird organisations should be seriously exploring, not discounting them, or sweeping them under the carpet.


Anyway, getting onto more interesting topics, how is the Spitty and A-26 going? (I dont care how polished or high gloss you make them, just let me know so I can wear shades to protect my eyes) - smiles


regards

Mark Pilkington

_________________
20th Century - The Age of Manned Flight
"from Wrights to Armstrong in 66 years -WOW!"

Agree that F model is rare indeed. Some early Spits were fitted with 'pointy' rudders & some later marks were field fitted with 'rounded' rudders...

My Mk XIV Spitfire was ordered and laid down as a Mk VIII. I guess that conversion is suspect!

I think we all get the point...

FYI below:

Curtiss P-40F Warhawk

In 1941, P-40D Ser No 40-360 was fitted with a 1300 hp British-built Rolls-Royce Merlin 28 engine with a single-stage two-speed supercharger. It flew for the first time on June 30, 1941. This experimental P-40D could be distinguished from the stock P-40E by the absence of the top-mounted carburetor air scoop. The Merlin engine did much to overcome the limitations imposed by the Allison, and a total of 1311 examples powered by the American-made version of the Merlin that was built by the Packard Motor Car Company were ordered under the designation P-40F.

The P-40F and later versions were known by the name *Warhawk* in US service.

The first 699 planes of the P-40F series had no dash numbers, since the production block designation system was not yet in effect. The dash numbers were first used with the P-40F-5-CU model, which introduced a fuselage elongated from 31 feet 2 inches to 33 feet 4 inches in order to improve directional stability. This longer fuselage was retained in all later P-40 versions. The P-40F-10-CUs had manual instead of electrically-operated cowl flap controls. The P-40F-15-CUs had winterizing equipment, and the P-40F-20-CUs had a revised oxygen flow system for the pilot. A radio mast was fitted to late production P-40Fs.

The P-40F was powered by a Packard-built Merlin V-1650-1 twelve-cylinder Vee liquid-cooled engine rated at 1300 hp for takeoff and 1120 hp at 18,500 feet. Maximum speed was 320 mph at 5000 feet, 340 mph at 10,000 feet, 352 mph at 15,000 feet, and 364 mph at 20,000 feet. An altitude of 10,000 feet could be attained in 4.5 minutes, and an altitude of 20,000 feet could be reached in 11.6 minutes. Maximum range was 700 miles at 20,000 feet (clean), 875 miles (one 43 Imp gal drop tank), and 1500 miles (141.5 Imp gal drop tank). Service ceiling was 34,400 feet. Weights were 6590 pounds empty, 8500 pounds normal loaded, and 9350 pounds maximum. Dimensions were 37 feet 4 inches wingspan, 33 feet 4 inches length (P-40F-5-CU and later), 10 feet 7 inches high, 236 square feet wing area. Armament consisted of six 0.50-inch machine guns in the wings.

One hundred and fifty P-40Fs were supplied to the RAF under Lend-Lease. The RAF assigned them the name Kittyhawk II. The Kittyhawk IIs were offset from USAAF allocations 41-13697/14599. RAF serials were FL219/448. Unfortunately, P-40Ls were also mixed in with this lot with no mark distinctions, so it is impossible to tell which planes were Fs and which were Ls by merely looking at the RAF serial number. In the event, very few of these aircraft actually served with the RAF. FL273 and FL369-448 were returned to the USAAF for use in North Africa in 1942/43. FL230/232, 235, 236, 239/240 were lost at sea before reaching the RAF. FL263, 270, 276, 280, 383, 305, and 307 were handed over to the Free French, who operated them in North Africa. 100 were transferred to the USSR.

The designation YP-40F was unofficially assigned to P-40F Ser No 41-13602 used for experimental tests of the cooling system and the tail rudder. The coolant system was moved aft in several different configurations, including a mounting fitted inside a thickened wing-root section.

USAAF serials of the P-40F were as follows:


41-13600/13695 Curtiss P-40F Warhawk
41-13696 Curtiss P-40F Warhawk (order cancelled)
41-13697/14299 Curtiss P-40F Warhawk
41-14300/14422 Curtiss P-40F-5-CU Warhawk
41-14423/14599 Curtiss P-40F-10-CU Warhawk
41-19733/19932 Curtiss P-40F-15-CU Warhawk
41-19933/20044 Curtiss P-40F-20-CU Warhawk

A number of P-40Fs were selected at random, withdrawn from operational service, and fitted with Allison V-1610-81 in place of their original Merlins. These planes were intended for training duties. These were redesignated P-40R-1. Similar conversions from the P-40L were designated P-40R-2. Army records report that over 600 such conversions were made, but only 70 such conversions can be confirmed by serial number



[/b]

How is progress going with the Spit Mk XIV and the A-26?

regards

Mark Pilkington

_________________
20th Century - The Age of Manned Flight
"from Wrights to Armstrong in 66 years -WOW!"

P-40F's converted to Allison power during the war were designated P-40R's, so you could say that the RNZAF Museum have a "P-40R".

Spit fuse primary structure rebuild finished. tailplanes finished. wings next.
A-26 slow due to time/people

That's not what the RNZAF Museum are going to call it though.

Going to be at Echuca?

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

The F and E were paralell path machines. Most probably the basic airframes came down the same source path. Bit like the Mk 9 and Mk 16 Spits..

The first 600 P40F's were probably identical to P40E's firewall back, however the P40F introduced a 26" fuselage stretch from the P40F-5-CU model onwards that is not matched at all in the P40E production design versions, and the remaining 600 aircraft therefore are probably closer to the later K, M and N which all implemented the long fuselage part way through production, than the earlier short fuselage E and L?





41-13600/13695 Curtiss P-40F Warhawk
41-13696 Curtiss P-40F Warhawk (order cancelled)
41-13697/14299 Curtiss P-40F Warhawk
41-14300/14422 Curtiss P-40F-5-CU Warhawk
41-14423/14599 Curtiss P-40F-10-CU Warhawk
41-19733/19932 Curtiss P-40F-15-CU Warhawk
41-19933/20044 Curtiss P-40F-20-CU Warhawk

As this aircraft is from the first 600 "short" P40-F's it is most likely structurally identical to the P40-E, other than the engine mounts, cowls and engine installation itself, and use of it as a P40-E probably doesnt destroy the underlying structure's representation of an intact and authentic P40-F survivor, despite the Alison sitting firewall forward and the RNZAF colour scheme and identity. (but it is impersonating something other than its own history).

But it is a pity it couldnt be retained as a restored P40-F and a P40-E acquired by the RNZAF Museum elsewhere, in fact even better if it was one of the 6 surviving RNZAF examples (including a rare P40-M), rather than a rare repainted USAF example masking its own provenance.


Six ex-RNZAF P-40's survive:



regards

Mark Pilkington

_________________
20th Century - The Age of Manned Flight
"from Wrights to Armstrong in 66 years -WOW!"

That info is out of date. The ex-John Chambers P-40M that was being restored by the Subritzky family was sold to the USA some while back.

NZ3009 has been based in NZ at Masterton with the Old Stick and Rudder Company since 2004.

And there's a seventh ex-RNZAF P-40 which is flying in Australia with Allan Arthur.

_________________
The Wings Over New Zealand Forum http://rnzaf.proboards.com

The Wings Over New Zealand Show http://www.cambridgeairforce.org.nz/WONZ_Show.html

Wings Over Cambridge http://www.cambridgeairforce.org.nz

Note that there are both short tailed and long tailed versions of both the P-40F and P-40L.

_________________
Shop the Airplane Bunker At
www.warbirdbunker.com