Twin engine P-40! Who knew?

[mike furline]

http://wpalette.com/en/pictures/56559

[Michel Lemieux]

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

[Michel Lemieux]

Could have been a mock-up?

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

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]

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]

Old news...

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

[Adam Kline]

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

[Lon Moer]

1990-cc67a9d352373c1977fcac3c1c67d651.jpg (20.16 KiB) Viewed 3792 times

Here's the photo from the Putnam book

87488-86296b80503483ca317c7d9ee0e74d29.jpg (53.55 KiB) Viewed 3792 times

[JohnTerrell]

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]

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]

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

[JohnB]

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]

A Dehavilland Hornet, that is not.

[bdk]

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

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]

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

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

[Invader26]

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..