Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: The P-40 Thread
RockyMTNClimber    3/11/2009 12:41:01 PM
From time to time old US fighters get mentioned on these boards and I am suprised at how little respect the P-40 Kittyhawk/Warhawk, Tomahawk gets given the sterling accomplishments the aircraft achieved in the hands of Allied pilots during WWII. When the war started in 1941 there were two primary modern US types. The Army's Curtis P-40 and the Navy's Grumman F4F Wildcat. These aircraft both shared the American penchant for aircraft of rugged construction, heavy armament, and pilot protection. The P-40 featured a supercharged Allison 1170 hp, liquid cooled V12 engine with a critical altitude of 15,000 feet msl (critical altitude is the elevation at which the engine's supercharger will produce sea level manifold pressure). It's advantages over its adversaries were as follows: P-40 v. A6M Zeke/Zero, P-40 was faster in level flight than any of the contemporary A6M's. it had a maximum dive speed of 480mph v. the Zeke's 350mph. The typical load out of armament for a P-40 was 6 .50 caliber heavy machine guns; the Zeke/Zero had two rifle caliber machine guns in the nose that were suplimented by two short barrelled 20mm cannon. The P-40 had pit armor and self sealing tanks where the Zero was utterly un armored and caught fire with a single hit from a tracer bullet, even a rifle caliber bullet! The P-40 had superior roll and turning rates at any speed above 250mph. As long as the P-40 pilot stayed above 250 mph the Zero could not turn or roll with it! Another critical advantage for the P-40 was its ability to withdraw from a fight by diving away. Litterally, the allied pilot could choose the time and place to engage and disengage. P-40 v. BF-109; The P-40 had superior dive speed, again allowing the allied pilot to disengage or fight at his choosing. It also could turn inside of the 109 and arguably the US six .50 guns were a better choice for air to air combat. The ultimate proof is that allied pilots scored consistently better kill ratios against their enemies. This is true whether you are talking about allied pilots fighting A6M or the BF-109 or other types. This is also true when you discuss veteran enemy pilots against allied rookies. Simply put the P-40 was a great aircraft that allowed allied pilots to win early and win often. It was later overshadowed by better allied aircraft and that is okay too, but give the girl her due. Check Six Rocky
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18   NEXT
earlm       3/17/2009 8:42:59 PM
The P-38 was a fine escort fighter with drop tanks.  Trying to produce an escort fighter before the tech is ready is likely to result in a Messerschmitt 110.
 
Quote    Reply

HERALD1357       3/18/2009 11:39:30 AM
HERALD1357       3/17/2009 10:41:17 AM

The gas ejectors work as added thrust with the Spit and the Mustang until you hit around 400 knots then the pressure differential of the gas efflux and the slipstream over the the fuselage sets up a drag condition on the fuselage.




Shrug. Its a vacuum drag effect. In the motorjet it shows up INSIDE the motorjet around the piston engine! 

Herald

Thanks Herald. As I can recalled, only heavily modified Bearcat and MiG I-250 ever breached 400kt barrier of piston-driven fighters in level flight. While the Bearcat record is done in 1989 with probably new technology and specialized fuel, I-250 record was carried out with stripped down prototype.

As far as I can also recalled, the development of turbosupercharger on R-2800 and the steady increase of power from that power plant was quite smooth. What would you do if you are in charge of a fighter design team for a USAAF bomber escort in European theater?

P-47N as is.

Depends on the year and what I can license or steal from foreign technology..

If I start with the 1935 period I have four proven engine sources (Continental, Pratt and Whitney; Wright, and Allison) and SEVEN lines of airframe development. I have Curtis, Seversky, Grumman, Douglas, Boeing and the newcomers Lockheed and North American (North American Fokker. originally)

Based on what I've seen out of Curtis in the mid thirties, I fund one airframe line out of them, I fund one line out of Seversky, I fund one line out of Grumman. I find one out of Lockheed. The others have to take their chances and compete..

I ask for the following from the four engine manufacturers.

A corncob radial 1/1/1 or a 1 HP/1 cu. in./1 pound as measured in those days for an engine rated at MSL at 1500 HP takeoff and no less than 1000 HP cruise at 20,000 feet service ceiling. The whole engine with whatever boost addons NTE 1850 pounds total weight in a single pull package with a MTBT of not less than 100 hours.

An in-line conforms to the same specs.

That more or less could give me three row corncob Cyclones or Wasps, a possible P&W R-2060 Yellow Jacket and an Allison or a Teledyne Continental 0-1460 with GE turbo-chargers;. Assuming that any of it works, and that is a tall assumption, I now have my fighter and bomber engines. I hope I get at least two successful lines of them, because if I'm stuck with just an Americanized Merlin or an Allison to the design specs, I'm in trouble. Engine bottleneck.

For the sake of simplicity, let's suggest that a Pratt and Whitney develops the R-2060 Yellow Jacket and at the same time, produces a Wasp Junior corncob to specs.

I now have two radial engines, one that weighs 1800 pounds (the corncob)or thereabouts and one that weighs 2200 pounds.{the liquid cooled radial Yellow Jacket). Both engines are approximately 55 inches in diameter and both if they are to take a turbocharger will have to have to take twin turbochargers mounted at the engine sides and ram feed. My engine cowling becomes a pronounced oval. DRAG.

I am now forced to laminar flow the fuselage wing design. Expensive.

If the Allison is turbocharged to the design specs I get a 2200 pound engine and turbo-charger package. HMMMMM. This starts sounding like the P-38 twin engine fighter as I need a lot of fuel for a long range fighter.

As for the P&W engines described I'm thinking something like this:
  Quote    Reply

JFKY    Herald   3/18/2009 11:52:08 AM
Your proposed a/c is OK, just make it into the Beaufighter...it's just going to be another BF-110 otherwise.  You say by 1942 it's not going to cut it as a bomber escort.   Well then, don't build it...because in 1942 there isn't a Bomber Campaign underway.  That doesn't begin until 1943.  So, as an escort, it has nothing to escort and by the time there IS something to escort it's outdated.
 
So probably it's best bet is as a niche player in the ground attack, naval surface strike role, and will the Navy buy it?
 
Bottom-line: A2A, by your own admission it's not viable when we need it, so why buy it in the first place?
 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    Overengineering the Herald way   3/18/2009 12:07:11 PM
The Lockheed A-20 Havoc, built in the pre-war years, had a speed of about 345mph (run along side a A6M Zeke/Zero in a drag race). So there is no advantage in speed with your design Herald. Manuverability & accelerated stall characteristics with that monster would be sick and engineering the thing would take an extra 5 years just because the canard design wasn't understood in that context at the time.
 
I see no advantage with that odd bird and allot of reasons to go with what they already had because they had good designs. KISS it.
 
Check Six
 
Rocky
 
Quote    Reply

HERALD1357       3/18/2009 1:19:32 PM

The Lockheed A-20 Havoc, built in the pre-war years, had a speed of about 345mph (run along side a A6M Zeke/Zero in a drag race). So there is no advantage in speed with your design Herald. Manuverability & accelerated stall characteristics with that monster would be sick and engineering the thing would take an extra 5 years just because the canard design wasn't understood in that context at the time.

1. Design begins in 1935 about the same time as the B-17 xoncurrent with that aircraft and with the engines.
2. Canard design was understood as well as needed. Lockheed had such designs kicking around since 1934. .
3. The A-20 Havoc couldn't turn. If you tried a 20 degree bank at 200 knots you tore the wings off.- It was a BOMBER, This one is airframe stress rated and mass balanced to point (the whole reason for the CANARD layout is pre-input of Z axis pitch while the oversized vertical stabilizer handles Y axis yaw.as you point.)

I see no advantage with that odd bird and allot of reasons to go with what they already had because they had good designs. KISS it.

Its a KISS canard.

Check Six

 

Rocky


JFKY    Herald   3/18/2009 11:52:08 AM
Your proposed a/c is OK, just make it into the Beaufighter...it's just going to be another BF-110 otherwise.  You say by 1942 it's not going to cut it as a bomber escort.   Well then, don't build it...because in 1942 there isn't a Bomber Campaign underway.  That doesn't begin until 1943.  So, as an escort, it has nothing to escort and by the time there IS something to escort it's outdated.
 
In the Pacific War we sure could have used it. The reason is simple. We needed a long range fighter of some type that could escort B-17s and B-25s which were the types in service there. At eight hundred nautical miles useful radius it would have a viable reconnaissance function-especially with a two man crew. The P-38 was a single crewman monster that could not be easily adapted into a night-fighter or a tactical aircraft.  
 
300 knots combat at 25,000 feet is 336 miles per hour at 25,000 feet. As I remarked, it is not a Havoc. This aircraft is designed to dive, shoot, and pull away in a climb.    
 
So probably it's best bet is as a niche player in the ground attack, naval surface strike role, and will the Navy buy it?
 
Of course it will. If the Navy was desperate for PB4Ys, to make up its patrol bombers it will gobble this up as a tactical strike aircraft, if it can get it..
 
Nightfighter, radar equipped interceptor, photo-bird, pathfinder, target marker, navigation escort, what niches it fills!  
 
Bottom-line: A2A, by your own admission it's not viable when we need it, so why buy it in the first place?
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Herald, I'd bet...   3/18/2009 1:44:19 PM
We don't need it in the Pacific....there's no long-range bombing underway in 1942... the time after which your plane is out-of-date.  I have yet to read of any tactical or operational campaigns, in the air, that were limited by Japanese air defenses, defenses that B-17's could not penetrate.  No need for an escort for the B-17 in the era 1941-42, really '45....
 
The long-range escort wasn't needed, if it was needed then, until 1944...when your plane is obsolete.
 
Night fighter, radar equipped interceptor, photo-bird, pathfinder, target marker, navigation escort, what niches it fills!
 
All niches that can be filled with a/c already in the pipeline or niches not needed in the Pacific...Interceptor...not a need until 1944, and the Bearcat comes along to fill it...Photo-bird...P-38...Pathfinder/target marker...not needed in the Pacific, and not needed in the ETO, either, as the USAAF didn't fill either role with a specialized a/c...navigation-escort...for fighters almost ANY bomber a/c filled this role.  Night-fighter is a niche it might fill well.  I'd agree, certainly the US and its Allies needed one prior to the P-61.
 
Lastly, the range isn't even close to comparable to the PB-4Y...800 mi v. 2500 mi.
 
Two engined fighters didn't perform all that well in the Second World War...you propose tactics that the USAAF didn't adopt until the war began, so instead of vertical, the USAAF is going to try to take the A6M in the horizontal...and lose.  It's a big fighter...a big target...the ME-110 didn't prosper what makes you think yours'll do any better?
 
It's kewl technology extrapolation...but as an usable a/c I have my doubts.
 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    Herald Canard Fighter v. History...   3/18/2009 2:19:16 PM
The A20 in fact was quite sturdy and the Brits/USAAF used it as a night fighter. Not the end all of twins but it was an attack platform that served quite well until more modern designs arrived. Your creation has some issues to work out: accelerated stalls with canards are a nightmare (this is combat Herald and accelerated stalls happen), your plane isn't a zoom and boom because pitch energy for that bird is going to be hard to manage under combat loads, don't even try to talk roll rates, and just what do you think is going to happen when you drop a bomb from in front of those props (USAAF gonna buy a plane in 1940 that can't drop a bomb?)?  In order to make that work with the technology of the day (metallurgy) the front end will be heavy as a engine block which makes me wonder about CG, the rocket plane idea was never really proven efficient when considered against more conventional designs. Yes free thinkers were considering these options but why didn't they develop into mature designs?
 
Because they were impractical. Allies needed planes now not experiments that might or might not pan out (very limited time/funds for concept research). Interesting ideas but not going anywhere IMV. The A20 concept itself was out dated by the P47 which could match it's bomb load and fight air to air also.
 
Remember, we have limited capacity for production and development. We need to move forward with proven concepts that would show benefits in about a year. P38 was radical and frankly pushed the technology envelope about as hard as was possible. It took a year after its introduction to get the high speed compressibility issues dealt with properly. Half of those P38 problems were pilot training issues and about half design tweaks. The Herald Canard Fighter is a bridge too far. Better to build a US Mosquito if you must have another twin fighter (remember the Grumman F7F Tigercat?).
 
Respectfully IMV, you are thinking outside of the box, which is good, but I'd still go with the more conventional designs for a much better return on investment.
 
Check Six
 
Rocky
 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    Herald Canard Fighter v. History...   3/18/2009 2:36:22 PM
The A20 in fact was quite sturdy and the Brits/USAAF used it as a night fighter. Not the end all of twins but it was an attack platform that served quite well until more modern designs arrived. Your creation has some issues to work out: accelerated stalls with canards are a nightmare (this is combat Herald and accelerated stalls happen), your plane isn't a zoom and boom because pitch energy for that bird is going to be hard to manage under combat loads, don't even try to talk roll rates, and just what do you think is going to happen when you drop a bomb from in front of those props (USAAF gonna buy a plane in 1940 that can't drop a bomb?)?  In order to make that work with the technology of the day (metallurgy) the front end will be heavy as a engine block which makes me wonder about CG, the rocket plane idea was never really proven efficient when considered against more conventional designs. Yes free thinkers were considering these options but why didn't they develop into mature designs?
 
Because they were impractical. Allies needed planes now not experiments that might or might not pan out (very limited time/funds for concept research). Interesting ideas but not going anywhere IMV. The A20 concept itself was out dated by the P47 which could match it's bomb load and fight air to air also.
 
Remember, we have limited capacity for production and development. We need to move forward with proven concepts that would show benefits in about a year. P38 was radical and frankly pushed the technology envelope about as hard as was possible. It took a year after its introduction to get the high speed compressibility issues dealt with properly. Half of those P38 problems were pilot training issues and about half design tweaks. The Herald Canard Fighter is a bridge too far. Better to build a US Mosquito if you must have another twin fighter (remember the Grumman F7F Tigercat?).
 
Respectfully IMV, you are thinking outside of the box, which is good, but I'd still go with the more conventional designs for a much better return on investment.
 
Check Six
 
Rocky
 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    An alternative Canard...   3/18/2009 2:49:00 PM
After trashing the WWII canard concept as hard as I could I wondered...
 
What if the P39 were a pusher canard? room in the nose for the Turbo Supercharger (two stage with 20,000 ft critical altitude) and for the structure of the forward wing.
 
Random thought.
 
Quote    Reply

HERALD1357       3/18/2009 3:16:46 PM

We don't need it in the Pacific....there's no long-range bombing underway in 1942... the time after which your plane is out-of-date.  I have yet to read of any tactical or operational campaigns, in the air, that were limited by Japanese air defenses, defenses that B-17's could not penetrate.  No need for an escort for the B-17 in the era 1941-42, really '45....
 
JFKY what dp you call what was happening with the FEAF in ABDA and later at Port Moresby and over New Guinea? Tiddly Winks?
  
The long-range escort wasn't needed, if it was needed then, until 1944...when your plane is obsolete.

That is just flat out absurd.

Night fighter, radar equipped interceptor, photo-bird, pathfinder, target marker, navigation escort, what niches it fills!

All niches that can be filled with a/c already in the pipeline or niches not needed in the Pacific...Interceptor...not a need until 1944, and the Bearcat comes along to fill it...Photo-bird...P-38...Pathfinder/target marker...not needed in the Pacific, and not needed in the ETO, either, as the USAAF didn't fill either role with a specialized a/c...navigation-escort...for fighters almost ANY bomber a/c filled this role.  Night-fighter is a niche it might fill well.  I'd agree, certainly the US and its Allies needed one prior to the P-61.
One SINGLE plane better designed to fulfill the roles than the half dozen budge jobs you mentioned  press ganged into service. GIB is the KICKER. What night fighter did we have the P-63? Did the British need one before 1942? Did we need one at Guadalcanal?

Lastly, the range isn't even close to comparable to the PB-4Y...800 mi v. 2500 mi.

Its a FIGHTER. The PB4Y is a bomber.Plus with drop tanks you add 30% range. 

Two engined fighters didn't perform all that well in the Second World War...you propose tactics that the USAAF didn't adopt until the war began, so instead of vertical, the USAAF is going to try to take the A6M in the horizontal...and lose.  It's a big fighter...a big target...the ME-110 didn't prosper what makes you think yours'll do any better?

Mine can point and roll on its thrust line, and its CG isn't fouled up with the wing put in the wrong place and the engines too far apart, or torque plagued. 

It's kewl technology extrapolation...but as an usable a/c I have my doubts.

Asked and answered. You also forget that the initial plane was planned for 1000 kilowatt engines. I already stated that unlike the other US aircraft in the offing at the time a bigger engine is DESIGNED into the upgrade path.
 
Herald
 
 
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy