Twin engine P-40! Who knew?

mike furline · **Joined:** Wed May 05, 2004 3:45 pm **Posts:** 2629

Michel Lemieux · **Posted:** Sun Aug 09, 2020 1:38 pm

Early P-80 prototype??? hehe.....

Michel Lemieux · **Posted:** Sun Aug 09, 2020 1:46 pm

Could have been a mock-up?

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/twin-engine-curtiss-p-40.509/

Quote:

Twin XP-40- One of the more extreme P-40 modifications proposed
was a twin-engine version. No military designation was assigned and
no Curtiss model number is known but it did get to the full mockup stage
using the fuselage of P-40C (41-13456) and two Packard V-1650-1 engines.
Nothing came of this late 1942 project.

Edit fond more: https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/p-40-twin.38575/

https://www.reddit.com/r/SimplePlanes/comments/bdxpf4/rare_twin_engined_p40/

JohnB · **Posted:** Sun Aug 09, 2020 4:11 pm

Old news...
There is a photo of it on page 495 of Peter M. Bower's Curtiss Aircraft,1907-1947, published by Putnam 1979/1987.

As mentioned above, It was a non-flying mock-up based on P-40C 41-13456 and outfitted with Marlins and cowls from P-40Fs.

If you're a serious aviation historian, you need the complete Putnam manufacturer series in your library. Eight U.S. builders in nine volumes (Douglas, McDonnell, McDonnell Douglas has two volumes) and no less than 20 UK firms, many are admittedly, pretty esoteric or obscure.
In addition, there are separate books by Swanborough and Bowers on US Military and Naval aircraft.

Great stuff.

sandiego89 · **Joined:** Mon May 21, 2012 12:28 pm **Posts:** 1196

JohnB wrote:

Old news...

"Old news" is still news to folks that haven't seen it. New one for me. Thanks for posting.

Adam Kline · **Posted:** Mon Aug 10, 2020 9:29 am

Thanks for posting. I didn't know about it.

Lon Moer · **Posted:** Mon Aug 10, 2020 11:57 am

Attachment:

original.jpg [ 89.19 KiB | Viewed 3787 times ]

Attachment:

Here's the photo from the Putnam book

Attachment:

JohnTerrell · **Posted:** Mon Aug 10, 2020 12:16 pm

Note that in the one often repeated B&W photo, there is no nose section, rather the fuselage stops at the stock firewall. Some of the renders I've seen with an extended nose added makes it resemble something like an armed De Havilland Comet on steroids.

Here is an old flight sim "what if" version:

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

I wonder what the purpose or impetus for this aircraft was? Curtiss what-if to generate interest or did the USAF ask for it?

junkman9096 · **Joined:** Mon Aug 16, 2010 11:44 pm **Posts:** 254

I'd hate to be in a dogfight with that. You could hide a lot of Zeros behind those nacelles.

JohnB · **Posted:** Mon Aug 10, 2020 1:41 pm

bdk wrote:

I wonder what the purpose or impetus for this aircraft was? Curtiss what-if to generate interest or did the USAF ask for it?

I can't imagine the AAF asking for it.
It looks to me like Curtiss wanted in on some of the P-38 action.
Just think of it: the same number of engines...but none of the range.

I can't imagine where they'd put the fuel for two Merlins...certainly not a long range escort like the P-38 or P-82, too small for a night fighter with radar gear. Perhaps a fast-climbing point defense interceptor...which wasn't needed?

I get the feeling that Curtiss was milking the basic P-40 design for all it was woth, as far as the AAF was concerned, Curtiss was a one plane empire by the later stages of WWII...with the exception of the C-46. Their later Navy types, (Seamew, Seahawk) were duds and they seem to have pretty much run out of ideas unlike its competitors.

Dan Jones · **Posted:** Mon Aug 10, 2020 10:22 pm

A Dehavilland Hornet, that is not. :lol:

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

I had such high hopes for the P-40Q, even though that was shelved long before I was born...

JohnB wrote:

I get the feeling that Curtiss was milking the basic P-40 design for all it was worth, as far as the AAF was concerned, Curtiss was a one plane empire by the later stages of WWII...with the exception of the C-46. Their later Navy types, (Seamew, Seahawk) were duds and they seem to have pretty much run out of ideas unlike its competitors.

Lon Moer · **Posted:** Tue Aug 11, 2020 2:25 pm

bdk wrote:

I had such high hopes for the P-40Q, even though that was shelved long before I was born...

JohnB wrote:

I get the feeling that Curtiss was milking the basic P-40 design for all it was worth, as far as the AAF was concerned, Curtiss was a one plane empire by the later stages of WWII...with the exception of the C-46. Their later Navy types, (Seamew, Seahawk) were duds and they seem to have pretty much run out of ideas unlike its competitors.

I wish the P-39Q didn't crash at Cleveland.
Anyways

Attachment:

P-40Qb.jpg [ 39.68 KiB | Viewed 3353 times ]

Attachment:

P40Qbirth.jpg [ 63.94 KiB | Viewed 3353 times ]

Invader26 · **Joined:** Wed Aug 11, 2010 7:56 am **Posts:** 843

As mentioned above, It was a non-flying mock-up based on P-40C 41-13456 and outfitted with Marlins and cowls from P-40Fs.

If you're a serious aviation historian, you need the complete Putnam manufacturer series in your library. Eight U.S. builders in nine volumes (Douglas, McDonnell, McDonnell Douglas has two volumes) and no less than 20 UK firms, many are admittedly, pretty esoteric or obscure.
In addition, there are separate books by Swanborough and Bowers on US Military and Naval aircraft.

I've never heard of a Marlin engine in a P-40F. I guess Punam is wrong if that's what you referenced..

Warbird Information Exchange

Twin engine P-40! Who knew?

Who is online