that the P-39's problems, turbo-supercharger-wise, space...on this thread it's been stated that US charging systems were bulky.  That being the case, there wasn't the room to install the turbo-superchargers, only the first stage super-chargers, in the airframe.  So the P-39's higher altitude performance fell off..OK, it's not the best design/implementation idea on the planet, a high altitude interceptor that has a fairly low high performance altitude, but that's what you get with a tight airframe and a very large weapons load-out, in the nose...

according to Wiki, the armament and the engine installation forced the use of wing fuel tanks, only and so limited the range...probably ANOTHER draw-back on an interceptor. Mayhap not so much the RANGE as the TIME ALOFT, hurting the plane's abilities, too.

 

But if you wanted to tank or barge bust, the P-39/400 was your bird...until the Sturmovik came along.

JFKY, that Oldsmobile cannon was terrible. Its ballistoics and rate of fire gave it a suicidally short MER for bomber killing. Its only plus was that it was RELIABLE.

 

Wiki... 

 

Yeah I know its Wiki, but the point is that the H/S404 was a better development line than the Oldsmobile to handle bombers. USAAF fouled  that up pathline up too.  

 

Herald

 

 

 

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).<Rocky

Herald

 

 

Actually in order to prove this I would need a angle of bank/airspeed/g-load chart from the P40's pilot's operating handbook. I don't doubt that this can be done. In order to accomplish it, you would be in about 75% left bank and an 80% power setting, you'd  have the stick in your lap and positioned on the right side of the cockpit, have the trim tabs on the elevator trimmed to full up and probably have the rudder trim to full right while standing on the right rudder. This condition is called cross control and will be required to counter the torque of the 1170 hp engine trying its best to snap you over into a spin. In addition to the above you would have to have your nose about 5-7 degrees below the horizon in order to keep your speed up. Rate of descent would be about 900 fpm. So if you started at 15,000 feet you could keep this up for about 20 minutes.

 

Anybody who can do that is a stud.

 

Check Six

 

Rocky

 

PS: I picked 5gs because that is about what it takes to begin blurring your vision. Most people in good physical condition can sustain 4 gs without any effects like that as long as you keep breathing.

I was curious as to where the 5gs came from and thought that perhaps the blurred vision would be the reason.  Out of curiosity, have you crossed this line before?  While most folks mildly interested in aircraft are aware of the 9G max that most pilots in good and prepared condition can handle, we may be less aware of the stages of the physiological effects of increasing G loads.  Are they fairly consistent from individual to individual so long as they are trained and condition to a common standard?

An associate of Art Scholl told me that Art had performed a measured 22g manuver in his Pitts S2c. He eventually died in that same aircraft while getting the spin footage you enjoyed in the movie Top Gun. Most military pilots are trained to sustain 9-12g manuvers for a short period of time and 5-8gs as much as might be needed. G load is a function of speed and the planes I have looped, rolled, and dived are designed to keep their manuvers from about 4.5gs and under. So while I have been to 5gs it really isn't all that practical in a C-150 Aerobat. In Basic flight training you don't see more than about 2.5gs in steep turns and spin recovery manuvers so allot of non military pilots never see anything like that.

I'd love to take some lessons in a Sukoi, Pitts, or Christian Eagle and really ring it out. 

 

Check Six

 

Rocky

I read that the P-36 gave the Me-109's a run for their money during the invasion of France in 1940. From what I have read the P-36 was an outstanding plane to fly but was slower than the 109's and was undergunned. Not bad for the direct predecessor of the P-40

Still...one of the prettier aircraft of wwII

The question would be WHICH 109? Early 109B/C maybe, but 109E used widely in the Battle of Britain, I doubt. P-36 was slaughtered by Japanese Ki-43 and early A6M around 1939-1940 in China theater.

 

Compare to contemporary fighters: A6M, Ki-43, C.200, Hurricane, 109E and F4F, P-40 is certainly not bad at all. By 1942, it started to show its age. Japanese didn't stop at Ki-43 and A6M. They pushed out Ki-61, Ki-84 and N1J later, but couldn't produce them in quantity or couldn't make them work effectively. Italian C.205 with DB601 certainly out-class P-40 on most respect. 109F which appeared in early '42 have out-passed P-40. At that time, Allison still couldn't make compact high-performance engines such as DB601 and Merlin. The turbosupercharger simply don't work with P-40. The solution would be to built larger airframe to cope with need for more powerful turbosupercharger and radiators. In short, P-40's airframe is limited, and can't keep up with evolving nature of WW2 air wars.