Warhawk question...

[JDK]

Lots of good points, gents, good discussion!

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.

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.

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.

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...

[The Inspector]

Many moons ago, I believe in AIRPOWER (thanks a bunch on that one Michael O.) an article on later P-40's mostly dealing with the N, it was discovered after the fact that Don Berliner made a serious error in stretching the aft fuselage of the P-40 to correct some imbalance that could have been fixed by redesigning and better sealing of the carburetor air intake and trunk. The airplane handled acceptably from all I can gleen but, it handled like a taxicab entered in the Monaco Grand Prix compared to it's subsiquent adversaries. That was a character fault that Chennault saw early and cautioned his pilots to never dogfight, dive, shoot, keep going

[Buz]

JDK

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.

Although the British said not, they still used it quite extensively, a lot more than people are lead to believe. Flew over Europe on low level TACR type sorties as well as delousing and Rhubarb ops. They flew operationally from Aug 1941 until April 1942, completing in excess of 400 sorties, for the lost of only 4 aircraft, two of these were to fighters (against FW190's of JG2). Added that most of these sorties were by Tomahawk I aircraft, in daylight over airfields as well as stooging around looking for trouble, as well as making a couple of claims against opposition aircraft. Not bad for an aircraft that can’t cut it…...

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!

This is a case of type of Merlin, where there was a better choice however they weren't allowed to use it. In Jan 1942 Curtiss had attempted to mate the Merlin 61 series to the P-40F but where closed down by the Tech Staff Section at Wright field, the Chief of which stated "based on the reported speed of 375mph at 21000 feet, this airplane, equipped with the Merlin 61 without additional cooling, should go about 392mph. The production engineering section feels it is wrong to continue to develop the P-40 type airplane as a new model on the basis of increased speed alone. This is apparently the only improvement gained by changing the engine. Rate of climb, maneuverability, and other factors making up good performance all suffer. They are not opposed to putting a Merlin 61 engine in existing P-40F's, providing it doesn't interfere with the production schedule. They are very much opposed, however, to extending the production schedule of this type airplane by Curtiss"

Being un-educated in the ways of aerodynamics (well not that un-educated), I fail to see how an engine with basically the same weight, but of a higher power with the advantages of the extra blower stage will adversely affect the climb and maneuverability.
I wonder if there might have been other motives or if indeed that is what the outcome of the mating would have been, who knows.

Buz