I have always loved these planes since I was a child I still have my die cast flying tiger lol she has some serious flight time on her from all the battles me and my friends flew when we were young
Just to keep things straightforward, clear & to avoid misunderstandings the USAAF called them 'Warhawks'. Meanwhile, British Forces of all types called every unfamiliar foreign bird (the feathered ones that is) 'Sh1tehawks'.
@@JohnWayneCheeseburger I absolutely loved the type too - From the point someone, probably my dad (who in this instance of unusual largesse had probably met someone in the pub who happened to have one which fell off the back of a lorry) gave me a Glow plug engined, sand brown plastic P40 tricked out in 'Flying Tigers' (of China fame) markings. It was meant to fly round in circles its hight controlled by two strings on a hand unit. It probably would have but we could never get the motor to run for more than 20 seconds. But me & my mates would spend hours simply trying to coax the motor into life, then gaze with rapt admiration when Buurup, halt, Buurup, halt occasionally burst into a high pitched scream and tried to tug the thing out of the hands of whoever was holding it. . Looking back I probably reckoned it was the most wonderful thing my dad ever bought me. Sadly, I have no idea what happened to it. Last I saw it was sitting quietly in its box almost forgotten about. (My mother's rare obsessive urge to 'clear out clutter' is the prime suspect).
That was a public service announcement on behalf of the Society for the Preservation of Gratutious Rudeness (,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yer pheasant plucking cork soakers).
Hi Ed, I used to think I knew all or most of the WW2 era aircraft.....I was so wrong! and I have never enjoyed being so wrong in my life :-) I love your videos, keep up the good work
@@EdNashsMilitaryMatters one of my favourite authors Patrick O,Brian one said when being praised for his books "That is very kind of you...but what is your praise worth" I am a lifelong aviation buff, as well as being a glider pilot and GA pilot and aeroplane builder...and I love what your doing and think its important as well, if you find yourself in Dorset this summer, come flying with me :-)
I often think about the era in the 30's after the depression and starting into the war and the thoughts that would go through the minds of the builders and designers "great another contract " only to be followed with "how and where are we going to get another item built" Thanks for the video.
The businessmen say great a new project we can handle it the designers say it will do 400 mph on paper. Then the engineers and factory workers have to make it happen.
Finding workers with the skills as well as inventing new production techniques must have become a big problem by '42/43. Going from aircraft like the P40 and Hurricane to aircraft like the P51 and Tempest is a big leap.
or simply that Curtiss did not heed lessons learned from European countries. The thick wing and lack of proper radiator ducting come to mind. These were known issues in 1936.
A truly experimental era for military aviation, where one innovation or design direction could make or break a hard worked development. Excellent historical piece.
Hi Ed! As to the fate of the aircraft, recent research by Scott Thompson (of the Aero Vintage site and author of the B-17 book _Final Cut_ ) has found that the first XP-46 ended its days at Burgard Vocational High School in Buffalo, NY, being used to train future aircraft mechanics.
Great video. Would appreciate one about the F4F Wildcats ordered by the French and instead ended in British service. Apparently they served in the Battle of Britain.
The Wildcats in question were a pair of Fleet Air Arm aircraft, scrambled & vectored in to intercept a lone Ju-88 raider near Portsmouth, during October 1940. The full account is in the "Battle of Britain" book, by Patrick Bishop.
But then there's the P47. Compared to it's contemporaries it's a bit, unbalanced. Inelegant. Maybe even...chonky In combat though, an absolute monster. Maybe the exception that proves the rule.
True! Although I always think the p47 as a sledgehammer - never elegant or necessarily stylish, but absolute the right tool for a certain job. Also horsepower...an absolute s**t tonne of horsepower :D
@@jptata3161 supposedly Seversky commented that the P-47 would be a dinosaur, but a dinosaur with elegant proportions. 😏 Truly the Cadillac of fighters.
In between the XP-46 and the later XP-60 Curtiss also proposed a design that became the XP-53, it used an experimental inverted V12 Continental engine, the Army then told Curtiss they wanted the aircraft to use the Merlin engine instead which led to the XP-60D, unfortunately for Curtiss demand for the U.S. built version of the Merlin for the P-51 and other aircraft meant they had to find an alternative engine.
A lot of the shenanigans dealing with later Curtiss fighters revolved around Glen Curtiss being opposed to his factories building a competitor's aircraft, specifically the P-51. So he made a lot of promises to provide a better aircraft than the P-51, similar to how the B-24 was designed to keep Consolidated from building B-17's. The difference was, Consolidated delivered, where Glen Curtiss didn't.
We forget how small U.S. aircraft manufacturers were, then came a tsunami of orders. There are hours and hours of drawings in a plane, hours and hours of tooling made, hours and hours of manufacturing training. Buildings went up, machine tools procured. Compound that with the lean Great Depression years.
Very interesting, although I heard about the XP-46, I know very little about this airplane. It was evident that that this airplane offered very little improvement over the P-40 that was already a mature design with room for improvement and had the added benefit of using both the Allison V-1710 and the Packard/Rolls-Royce Merlin. A far more logical choice. Thanks for sharing this very interesting video 👍👍
I'm loving the Forgotten Aircraft series Ed!!! Keep up the good work! Any chance you could do the Blohm & Voss BV 141 and Vickers Windsor if they aren't already on your list?
It sure does look the part what shame it was never to be, but I’m a bit of a fan of the P-40 series over it’s more popular stablemates the Mustang and Spitfire as good as they where.
Aesthetically, I don't like the big maw on the later P-40s, but love the P-36, P-60 and early P-40s. The P-36 would have looked better with a spinner, which might have worked well in the North like Alaska, or farther south if cooling air exits were expanded on the sides like LA-7 and KI-100. the Buffalo would have benefited from this as well.
The bubble-canopy XP-40Q was the best looking P-40 variant, bar none...aesthetically almost perfect..the big scoop on the P-40E-N series looks good with a shark's mouth, but it is huge!...I always wondered how it could possibly be any less drag than a radial engine with that big scoop hanging down..and the Buffalo DID have a spinner on the F2A-1 versions, a small one, and a much bigger one on the F2A-2 version....@@alan6832
Thank you and Well Done to our Author …. There are so many facets of this Aircrafts history that really are untold ….especially its use by the RAF and Commonwealth Forces…
I think one of the major problems Curtiss had when it came to producing a new fighter was that due to their commitment to production of the P-40 they were kind of slow of the mark with getting new designs built, by the time the prototypes of their new fighters took to the air their performance was comparable to the performance of fighters already in service when what the Army Air Force wanted was a new fighter with much better performance than the ones then in service.
Curtiss had a poor design team, whereas NAA had engineers fresh from CALTECH / GALCIT and used that facility to advantage. NAA design team was far better and the management was astute in gleaning many lessons learned from European/Brit/German sources in 1938-1939. They also learned from the P-46 mistakes.
During the WWII era Curtiss worked on the development of no less than 20 different aircraft and some like the XP-60 series had many varieties. This combined with the loss of their top designer, Don Berlin, seemed to result in an in ability to produce successful aircraft. Even the SB2C while produced in large quantities was disliked by those who had to fly it. The XP-46 with its small wing was really more of a BF-109 than a Spitfire. Like most Curtiss designs at this time, it wasn't developed with sufficient energy. I took 4 months for the first P-51 to get in the air. It took 16 months for the XP-46, The cooling system was similar to the P-51's system, but was never developed to work well.
Amazing, how both aircraft (the 46 and the 51, that is) share so many similarities, albeit only superficial, to be so different in detail and ultimately in the results achieved with each design. The power of engineering
The P-60 was P-40 technology mated to the R-2800. The XP-46 was too small to match the engine. A better match might have been the R-1830 with 2 speed supercharger.
Not sure how I missed this one. When the Royal Air Force approached North American to build some of Curtiss's aircraft for them North American showed the RAF their ideas for a fighter. The RAF said yes but found it to be underpowered. So they took out the Alison engine and but in the Merlin in its place. So the aircraft went from being the A-36 to the P-51. And we all know what happened next.
Actually, NAA was fed up with Allison from the very beginning. In March 1941, Kindelberger asked the BPC for the RR Merlin XX installation documents, which they received. GM therefore interferred with NAA ability to compete for a USAAF fighter contract, so they did a backdoor deal to provide the A-36 from different funding while they concurrently improved the radiator ducting with Brit help. By 1942 they were well prepared to fit the 2 stage Merlins and produced two for testing purposes about the same time as the Brits flew the Mustang X. ... And we all know what happened next.
Had Curtiss concentrated on “cleaning-up” the P-40 aerodynamically like it finally did late in the war with the 422mph P-40Q, this variant would have been 8 mph faster than the P-38 and more maneuverable. In fact the P-40 in all its variants was a more maneuverable airplane than the P-51.
The Allison was not reliable. The Q handled better, but with the auxilliary s/c it lacked intercooler, aftercooler and backfire screens. Allison (GM) was the problem throughout the war and in Korea.
I've admired your work for so long, well done! Can't trust YouselessTube, or the web, beyond this, sad to say! Australia used the "Kittyhawk" in great numbers, for it's small population. Thank you for your great videos!
I read a book on the Flying Tigers when I was in elementary school, years ago. I don't remember the title, but I do remember the author using multiple names for the P-40 (ie. Tomahawk, Kittyhawk, Warhawk, etc.) At 9 or 10 years old, this confused me thoroughly to the point that I gave up on reading the book. Great video as always, Ed! Thank you!
Prior to signing up with the US Army my Dad worked night's at Curtiss and went to UB at the time, even at my time ha ha, it was still called University of Buffalo. He of course, like many WW II soldiers, he didn't talk much about the war, but boy he sure loved Curtiss, good memories for him.
Exactly. Don Berlin was fed up with lack of progress on the fighters so he left Curtiss. Their design team was unimpressive, but the P-40 was their (and GM's) cash cow, milking the system until 1944.
@@michaeltelson9798 there was immense pressure from GM and Wright Field (Material Command) to not compete with the Allison P-46 venture. Allison was uncooperative with NAA from the very beginning. As for timing NAA had been talking with Brit companies and BPC since 1938-39 and their V-12 fighter concept development was in the works by 1939 (P-509). Schmued said he'd been working on the concept since Meredith published his cooling drag paper in 1935.
I think the problem these aircraft had is they were designed to meet a different need than to be found in the 1940 battles between Britain and Germany. In the US the army bought the aircraft and were only interested on protecting their troops which were not above 15,000 ft. In the UK as an island our requirements were different, the germans had time to gain height, and as we know the high controls the battle. The P40 did ok in the desert war which was what it was designed for, I would say the Hurricane had it second 'Waterloo' in north africa also. The war in Europe moved up beyond the capabilities of both aircraft but north africa was mostly below 15,000 feet.
The P-40 filled a need when the war was most desperate for the Allies. The AVG in China had a very favorable kill ratio over the Japanese using P-40's. Curtiss kept working on the P-40, eventually getting up to the "Q" version, which had a top speed of 422 mph.
unfortunately it was 2 years too late to be useful and so whilst the best P-40 ever made, it was still average compared to what was fighting in europe at the time.
Right...had Curtiss gotten the "Q" model in production 2 years earlier, it would have been more than worthwhile..and they might have done so had they not been wasting their time and resources on ungainly dead-ends like the XP-42, XP-46, XP-60, XP-55, and XF14C....@@philkennedy8683
The Q handled very nicely, but the Allison was still a problem with no intercooler, aftercooler or backfire screens. Read the flight reports. The Q constantly had forced landings.
In Duncan BC Canada a local vintage mechanic rebuilt a Curtiss P40 D Kittihawk in the spring of 1979 and displayed it along the Victoria Duncan highway until it was sold sometime in 1980. Sadly the restorer of the aircraft (Granger Taylor) along with his pickup truck went missing in December of that year never to be seen again.
@@kevinohalloran7164 Granger Taylor disappeared during a major storm of the century (my area in Port Alberni got effected too) no power for 2 weeks thousands of trees down. The Army was call in for a time. prior to Taylor's disappearance he became obsessed with Aliens, UFO's, left a farewell note saying he made alien contact and was boarding a Flying saucer on a 3 year space mission. There is a 1 hr CBC TV documentary on Granger Taylor (very sad)
Such a sleek looking design. It's always struck me as odd that it was slower than the later P40, as it looks like it would be better from an aerodynamic standpoint. The radiator is even in the "Mustang" position, which probably contributed more to the P51's low drag than its laminar flow wings did. Awesome video of an intriguing "what if" aircraft!
Curtiss never developed the cooling system design so that it worked correctly. North American did their development work. Compare the XP-51 cooling system with the systems in the P-51A, P-51B, and P-51D. All of the cooling systems for the production aircraft were different and carefully designed to get the aerodynamics correct.
@@jimfisher5856 Probably one of the most fascinating aspects of World War 2 fighter development is how "upstart" companies that were not known as fighter design firms managed to usurp companies that were well known for fighters. Hawker was usurped by Supermarine in Britain, Curtis was usurped by North American and Republic. And of course Messerschmitt had the same sort of luck vs. Heinkel in Germany. Yet, when it came to bombers, the "old hands" like Handley Page, Avro, Boeng etc. dominated. It's just such a fascinating bit of history. :)
Sorry, but that's all hyperbole. Those over-boosted P-40s were problematic with engine fires, broken cranks, thrown rods, etc. Even the late war Allison engines were problematic. Have a read of the Wright field testing of P-51B, P-47 and P-38J with the 150 Octane. The Allisons were limited to 70" MP and still had problems. No way the earlier Allisons could handle the boost advertised on those videos without detonation and extreme short life. The RAAF did it, but it was a question of saving the pilot vs the engine.
The XP-46 was the first of the "misses" for Curtiss and put them on the road to doom. The British went up to North American and asked them to produce a license copy of the P-40; NAA built the P-51 from a fresh set of drawings. However, compared to the BF-109 & Spitfire the P-51 was heavy (the Zero was too light to count; it was a terrible aircraft for long term attrition warfare). The chief engineer of North America went to the U.K. and weighted every component of a Spitfire. That lead to the nearly 1,000 pound lighter P-51H super fighter. What's the point? The USA aircraft manufacturers made our aircraft too heavy. Why? We used 1/16th thickness of aluminum. When the Soviets copied the B-29 they were able to use 1mm Aluminum sheet on much of the aircraft. 1/16th Aluminum = 1.6mm (about). That .6 mm adds weight. 1/32 aluminum = .8mm or a little more than 300% the thickness of heavy aluminum foil. That's too light.
Were the thicker aluminum sheets deliberately designed to make the aircraft more robust? Most US aircraft were known to take a lot of punishment and keep flying. Superior maneuverability at the expense of strength was shown to be a fool's choice in the Zero and even the Spitfire and BF-109 became heavier and less maneuverable in favor of heavier armament in later models.
@@fazole Boils down to imperial or metric. At that time About the thinnest that could be produced in inches scale was 1/16th inch thickness. Where as the standard in metric was 1mm.
@@fazole G A Pratt's answer is correct. The USA is imperial in measurement. All the sheet aluminum producing machines in the USA made it in 1/16th inch (technically .0625 inch). The US took imperial inch and made it digital way back in the c. 1900 era. I took manufacturing courses and learned both US digital & . Metric. Metal sheets can be made in 1mm, 2mm, or 3mm. In the USA it was 1/32, 1/16, 1/8th [ .03125, .0625, .0125] of an inch.
@@Easy-Eight Not sure that is correct. I think Alclad sheeting used in aircraft was made in various 'mil' based thicknesses, where 'mils' are thousandths of an inch. Alcoa produced Alclad in many thicknesses, e.g., .020, .022, .026, .028, .032, .034, .040, .045 mils and so on. Aluminum sheet 1 millimeter thick would be close to .042 mil. So, aluminum sheeting close to 1 mm was in fact available. I dunno about P-40s, but all of the thicknesses I quoted above appeared in different places on the wings of DC-3s. I suspect most WW2 era US aircraft incorporated a range of different sheeting thickness--different thicknesses in different parts of the plane. With a little searching you can find online repair manuals for various WW2 aircraft and see the actual thicknesses used on differnet parts of those planes.
The skins on the P-51 varied in thickness due to what was needed in a particular area. Most of those skins were .040". 0.6 mm is actually the thick of 23 sheets of heavy aluminum foil. I just measured the "heavy duty" foil in my kitchen. It was .001" thick.
@@jacobmccandles1767 I think it was great in regards to numbers produced and theaters used. With over 2200 air to air kills ( different sources vary a bit) it shows that it was effective enough in that role. Also lots of material destroyed on the ground. Held the line for the early years in the Pacific , CBI and Mediterranean. A great plane in my opinion.
@@guaporeturns9472 so tell me El Guapo, would you say they had...a plethora of P-40s? Certainly it was great in that it beld the line, and I am a big fan. Sometimes a good solution right now is far better than a perfect solution later. For countries like China, South Africa, and New Zealand, the P-40 was there and it was their best. Even where it wasn't the best, like in the U.S., it could free up better planes for the Front.
@@Idahoguy10157 and really, even if the P-38 Had been available early, it's hard to say if it would have been employed correctly. It was no dogfighter, and later relied on boom and zoom tactics against the Japanese. The P-40 could out turn the Zero if it kept its speed high enough.
"The P-36...creditable service...but they could never be described as top rate performers in air combat." Um, the Battle of France would like to have a word, sir...
@@michaeltelson9798 The Allison engines in the original AVG P-40s were cobbled together from rejected parts after being balanced by machinists. They were better than the production Allisons. The P-36 didn't use Allisons.
A lot of manufacturers based their top speed figures on the prototypes weight and engine power before figuring in things like armour, armament, self-sealing fuel tanks and all the other paraphernalia that a combat aircraft needs, so they tended to sound much more impressive than they actually were.
Airplane salesmen. They are like automobile salesmen. And it's interesting that every airplane that never made it into production would have been a super world beater airplane without any of the problems and drawbacks that always seem to crop up with production airplanes when they go into actual service and are called upon to perform in the real world.
Ridiculous amount of firepower for a light air-superiority fighter. Curtiss should have got rid of half of the wing-mounted MGs. (2) .50 cals and (4) .30 cals would have been adequate. The saved weight would have increased performance.
I really don't know why so many firms thought they needed their aircraft to carry a dozen machine guns when it really came down to a handful of heavy machine guns in the right place.
@@echodelta2172 Most MG's firing rifle calibre rounds, need a massive combined RoF to equal the weight of shot on target in a shot aimed burst to achieve a relative chance of damage close to that of a .50, 13mm and larger machine cannons can do on-target - hence the number of guns, the number of which, was/were usually a requirement/stipulation by the Air Ministries/War Departments based on their own Airforces knowledge of their own average aerial gunnery abilities - of/from/during those times. It doesn't help too much that the Browning 0.30's and 0.50's are quite heavy guns each, even without the feed tray/guides and the ammo chutes/boxes.
looks an awful lot like the XP-47 with Allison engine. The irony of the XP-47 being originally part of the lightweight fighter program, only to go on and become the largest singe engine fighter of WW2.
It would have been interesting if this plane participated in combat. But to put it into production, would have meant stopping the production lines for the P40, which through slow was still demanded for use as a fighter bomber in North Africa and the Pacific too.
Germans seemed to think that way as well..FW-190A,F,G variants were some of the very few radial engine WW2 German fighters..most had inline engines, as did many of their bombers..the Japanese, on the other hand, were quite the opposite..overwhelmingly favoring radial engines in everything, much as the U.S. Navy did....
A P40 wasn’t considered a viable enough fighter ? RAAF pilot Nicky Barr, 26 th June ,1942, was the first Allied pilot to make Ace in one day, shooting down five in one sortie. Nothing wrong with these aircraft. The serviceability and availability in the desert environment made these tough aircraft invaluable to the western desert campaign. The ruggedness of the design was again outstanding in the Pacific theatre. Most times, a lumbering bunch of plough horses can achieve more than a few thoroughbreds.
when one is making bold claims, one should read the actual feats performed. It appears that two of the kills were Stukas, not exactly hard kills. He went on to take out a macchi and that would hjave been harder work, assuming the Italian pilot was his equal. Wikipedia ( with Citations ) notes "His philosophy was that the P-40 was not a top-class fighter, but that its shortcomings "could be offset by unbridled aggression" Please Note I am a Kiwi and since the man was born here, I'll take part claim to the man but it doesnt change the status of the P-40 being very average and outdated piece of machinery by the time the war was peaking. The very existence of the P-51 is based around that issue.
I think the P-51 has a better claim of being the American Spitfire. Initially rejected by the British as too slow, until they stuck a Spitfire engine in it. Lo and behold, we have both sides of the equation, that has endured till today. American air-frames, British power-plants.
point of order: the Mustang only exists because of the British. they loved the aircraft but hated the lack lustre engine. upgrading to the two stage Merlin now being license built by packard was an obvious step. Rolls did the first conversions to prove the point then NAA did a fairly major upgrade to give us the B/C version. It was the USAAF that initially didnt want it.
Such nonsense, the Brits loved the Mustang I/IIs and used them until they wore out, it was miles better than the P-40 at all levels and vastly outperformed the Spitfire MkV at *_low level._* The USAAF took all the P-51As that they could get and even took a ground attack version to get around funding restrictions. No more were made once the P-51B/C came out. The RAF’s low level photos for OVERLORD were taken from Mustang I/IIs.
One book I read-The P-40 at War-suggests that North American was able to produce the P-51 prototype in 120 days because that had the data from the XP-46 program.
The P46 sure looks like a development step between the P40 and the P51. Does the book say that North American used elements of the P46 design for the P51? I couldn't find any reference to that title anywhere.
NAA bought the XP-40 ( not 46 ) test data, as insisted on by the british commission. read "Mustang Designer" etc and you will see the NA-50B was signed for by the British before the asked NAA to buy the paperwork. the configuration was already settled. The XP-46 was one of many half thought out designs that doomed Curtiss to history.
It needed a dual stage supercharger that would have made a big difference!! Leave the 50 cals in the nose, put a 20 mm in each wing and get rid of almost useless 303 cals. That would get rid of 200-300 lbs. Also it looks like a few things could have been done to reduce drag and lighten the plane even more.
There was no 2 stage supercharger for the Allison simply because no one ever paid them to develop one (until very late in the war for use on the production version of the Twin Mustang). The Army Air Corps paid for the development of the Allison engine and they forbid Allison from using any of the funding to develop a 2 stage supercharger, in the mid 30's the military task NACA with determining what the best type of supercharger system was for high altitude performance, their conclusion was a single stage supercharger with a turbo to feed it at altitudes above 12,000 ft or so, that's the system that the Army Air Corps dictated all it's aircraft would have, the P38, P47, B17, B24 B29 and other's all had it, the P39 and the P40 (look up XP37) were both originally supposed to have the same system but on both the turbo was dropped at the last minute to speed up development because everyone was screaming for aircraft. NACA determined that a 2 stage 2 speed supercharger was the 2nd best way of achieving high altitude performance, for it's own reasons the US Navy chose that system for all aircraft developed for them, since the Navy didn't use anything that had the Allison engine in it they weren't going to pay for a 2 stage 2 speed supercharger to be developed for it. That's the reason that when the P51 was developed it's Allison only had a single stage supercharger, because the US Army didn't order the P51 originally and wasn't going to pay for a high altitude supercharger to be developed for it's Allison engine. It should also be known that Merlin engines also weren't available with 2 stage superchargers until mid 1942, even the early Packard built Merlin's only had a single stage supercharger, so putting a Merlin in the P51 when it was first developed wouldn't have resulted in any better performance. Single stage Allison engines were actually better than the single stage Merlin engines because they had intercoolers on them from day one allowing them to run higher boost levels where the single stage Merlin's didn't, they didn't get intercoolers until the 2 stage supercharger was developed for them. It's a myth that the Merlin engine is more powerful than the Allison, it's just that in mid 1942 the Merlin became available with a 2 stage supercharger, but with it's single stage supercharger with intercooler and the original turbo configuration for high altitude as used in the P38 is why it's performance exceeds Merlin's at any altitude (given of course that you're rating them on the same octane fuel).
Too bad, it looks like it would fly right. Would it out-manoeuvre a Zero do you think? 'Prolly not but it would be fun to recreate somewhere. Thanks for another good one, Ed. You and Rex's Hangar - if I see either of your names my hand just clicks it automatically, no brain involved since you're both that goof. I am extremely happy that I happened upon both of you around the same time. Lovely.
The LaGG had a terrible reputation with the Soviets with them taken the plane’s 4 letters into what translated something as “ Certified Flammable Varnished Coffin”
Kittihawk: they never told you what happened to your siblings. Warhawk : i have heard enough, they all said i had no siblings at all Kittihawk: i am your little sister. Warhawk: impossible. Kittihawk : ask 47 thunderbolt your friend you know it to be true
Jeez. As they added extra requirements, then the prototype flew and proved that it was a little too slow, I don't suppose it crossed anyone's mind to remove some of the ten guns to save weight. Maybe the pilot could make do with only eight cannons, or (gasp!) merely six. And let's not bother seeing if there might be a more powerful engine after all this delay. Then again, considering the alternatives that were putting on a good show already, that does sound like a lot of pointless effort.
XP-46 with an airfoil thicker (23016.5) than even the P-40 (2215) ... what were they thinking ! ... and no boundary layer lip on the rad housing. Curtiss needed better engineers and aerodynamicists, not to mention better engines than the Allison. To be fair, Curtiss did revisit the concept of an aft, ventral radiator, which was the best location for weight n balance but they once again didn't explore the necessary ducting required to meet the specs of the Meredith research paper or the Goethert wind tunnel studies.
I wish Curtiss had not wasted their efforts and time on the XP-42, XP-46, XF14C, XP-55, or all the iterations of the XP-60, and had focused their efforts on the bubble-canopy P-40Q instead..they probably could have had it developed and into production late-1942-1943 if they hadn't wasted their resources on all that other crap...and the P-40Q would have been more that competitive in that time frame...
OK! Now I understand why 2 names were used for the P-40 in RAF (and Commonwealth) service! Thanks Ed.
Yes, it was a detail I had wondered at too, only got the answer when researching this aircraft.
I have always loved these planes since I was a child I still have my die cast flying tiger lol she has some serious flight time on her from all the battles me and my friends flew when we were young
Just to keep things straightforward, clear & to avoid misunderstandings the USAAF called them 'Warhawks'.
Meanwhile, British Forces of all types called every unfamiliar foreign bird (the feathered ones that is) 'Sh1tehawks'.
@@JohnWayneCheeseburger I absolutely loved the type too - From the point someone, probably my dad (who in this instance of unusual largesse had probably met someone in the pub who happened to have one which fell off the back of a lorry) gave me a Glow plug engined, sand brown plastic P40 tricked out in 'Flying Tigers' (of China fame) markings.
It was meant to fly round in circles its hight controlled by two strings on a hand unit.
It probably would have but we could never get the motor to run for more than 20 seconds.
But me & my mates would spend hours simply trying to coax the motor into life, then gaze with rapt admiration when Buurup, halt, Buurup, halt occasionally burst into a high pitched scream and tried to tug the thing out of the hands of whoever was holding it.
.
Looking back I probably reckoned it was the most wonderful thing my dad ever bought me.
Sadly, I have no idea what happened to it.
Last I saw it was sitting quietly in its box almost forgotten about.
(My mother's rare obsessive urge to 'clear out clutter' is the prime suspect).
That was a public service announcement on behalf of the Society for the Preservation of Gratutious Rudeness (,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yer pheasant plucking cork soakers).
My father was involved in the cold weather trials for this plane up in Alaska in WW2. I think the P-60 was evaluate too.
Best looking plane to wear the " Flying tiger" face.
@@johnbockelie3899112 Sqn teeth.
Hi Ed, I used to think I knew all or most of the WW2 era aircraft.....I was so wrong! and I have never enjoyed being so wrong in my life :-) I love your videos, keep up the good work
Thanks Andrew, so pleased you enjoy the videos.
@@EdNashsMilitaryMatters one of my favourite authors Patrick O,Brian one said when being praised for his books "That is very kind of you...but what is your praise worth" I am a lifelong aviation buff, as well as being a glider pilot and GA pilot and aeroplane builder...and I love what your doing and think its important as well, if you find yourself in Dorset this summer, come flying with me :-)
Several of the photos of the XP-46 show it flying with the inner landing gear doors stuck down.
That kinda explains the whole program.
I'm eagerly awaiting the video about the XP-60
You've managed to unearth a significant amount of photos for an extremely obscure aircraft, always impressive!
I often think about the era in the 30's after the depression and starting into the war and the thoughts that would go through the minds of the builders and designers "great another contract " only to be followed with "how and where are we going to get another item built" Thanks for the video.
The businessmen say great a new project we can handle it the designers say it will do 400 mph on paper. Then the engineers and factory workers have to make it happen.
TBF, most everybody, in the mid / late 1930's, was caught with pants down when issue of 'production capacity' came up.
Finding workers with the skills as well as inventing new production techniques must have become a big problem by '42/43. Going from aircraft like the P40 and Hurricane to aircraft like the P51 and Tempest is a big leap.
@@maxpayne2574 designers are engineers
The XP-46 could be called a victim of 'requirement-creep'
Awesome video on this forgotten bird :D
The Curtiss thinking was outdated by '41/'42, bigger, more aerodynamically advanced airframes were required, mated to larger engines and fuel loads.
or simply that Curtiss did not heed lessons learned from European countries. The thick wing and lack of proper radiator ducting come to mind. These were known issues in 1936.
Goodness another video from Mr Nash.
Excellent!!
Oh yes, and I MIGHT get another one out later today. No promises though.
@@EdNashsMilitaryMatters
Excellent news.
Hopefully all goes well.
A truly experimental era for military aviation, where one innovation or design direction could make or break a hard worked development. Excellent historical piece.
Hi Ed! As to the fate of the aircraft, recent research by Scott Thompson (of the Aero Vintage site and author of the B-17 book _Final Cut_ ) has found that the first XP-46 ended its days at Burgard Vocational High School in Buffalo, NY, being used to train future aircraft mechanics.
The Kittyhawk was flown by the RAAF though heavily outnumbered in the defence of Port Moresby.
Don't forget the New Guinea theater either
@@razorback20 Port Moresby is in New Guinea.
@@borninjordan7448 Oops, my bad. Next time I'll refrain myself to comment while I'm multitasking (^^)
@@razorback20 No problem.
Top P40 fighter ace world wide, Clive Caldwell RAAF👌
Great video. Would appreciate one about the F4F Wildcats ordered by the French and instead ended in British service. Apparently they served in the Battle of Britain.
The Wildcats in question were a pair of Fleet Air Arm aircraft, scrambled & vectored in to intercept a lone Ju-88 raider near Portsmouth, during October 1940. The full account is in the "Battle of Britain" book, by Patrick Bishop.
@@CZ350tuner Thanks. Good to know.
I believe the Royal Naval Air Arm called them "Martlets"...
A fine, well researched, concise report.
They say: "If it looks right, it will fly right."...its just a gut feeling but the proportions of that plane seem off. :DD
Great video as allways :)
You know, I thought the same!
It doesnt look bad as such, just...not quite right.
But then there's the P47. Compared to it's contemporaries it's a bit, unbalanced. Inelegant. Maybe even...chonky
In combat though, an absolute monster.
Maybe the exception that proves the rule.
True!
Although I always think the p47 as a sledgehammer - never elegant or necessarily stylish, but absolute the right tool for a certain job.
Also horsepower...an absolute s**t tonne of horsepower :D
@@jptata3161 supposedly Seversky commented that the P-47 would be a dinosaur, but a dinosaur with elegant proportions. 😏
Truly the Cadillac of fighters.
@@toqtoq3361 begrudgingly I must agree.
In between the XP-46 and the later XP-60 Curtiss also proposed a design that became the XP-53, it used an experimental inverted V12 Continental engine, the Army then told Curtiss they wanted the aircraft to use the Merlin engine instead which led to the XP-60D, unfortunately for Curtiss demand for the U.S. built version of the Merlin for the P-51 and other aircraft meant they had to find an alternative engine.
A lot of the shenanigans dealing with later Curtiss fighters revolved around Glen Curtiss being opposed to his factories building a competitor's aircraft, specifically the P-51. So he made a lot of promises to provide a better aircraft than the P-51, similar to how the B-24 was designed to keep Consolidated from building B-17's. The difference was, Consolidated delivered, where Glen Curtiss didn't.
We forget how small U.S. aircraft manufacturers were, then came a tsunami of orders. There are hours and hours of drawings in a plane, hours and hours of tooling made, hours and hours of manufacturing training. Buildings went up, machine tools procured. Compound that with the lean Great Depression years.
Can't wait to see the XP-66 video, never heard of it before.
Lol.......I researched (minor) the Allison Mustangs & the XP-46 kept popping up. That is an amazing "furball".
Many thanx Ed 👍
Never seen a P-40 in polished aluminum! Looks really cool.
Cant decide if the 46 was good looking or not. Looks kinda like a mustang with dwarfism.
Very interesting, although I heard about the XP-46, I know very little about this airplane. It was evident that that this airplane offered very little improvement over the P-40 that was already a mature design with room for improvement and had the added benefit of using both the Allison V-1710 and the Packard/Rolls-Royce Merlin. A far more logical choice. Thanks for sharing this very interesting video 👍👍
God bless you. Learning something every time I watch your videos.
I'm loving the Forgotten Aircraft series Ed!!! Keep up the good work! Any chance you could do the Blohm & Voss BV 141 and Vickers Windsor if they aren't already on your list?
Sure I'll get around to them one day :)
Excellent work man; God bless you
It sure does look the part what shame it was never to be, but I’m a bit of a fan of the P-40 series over it’s more popular stablemates the Mustang and Spitfire as good as they where.
Aesthetically, I don't like the big maw on the later P-40s, but love the P-36, P-60 and early P-40s. The P-36 would have looked better with a spinner, which might have worked well in the North like Alaska, or farther south if cooling air exits were expanded on the sides like LA-7 and KI-100. the Buffalo would have benefited from this as well.
The bubble-canopy XP-40Q was the best looking P-40 variant, bar none...aesthetically almost perfect..the big scoop on the P-40E-N series looks good with a shark's mouth, but it is huge!...I always wondered how it could possibly be any less drag than a radial engine with that big scoop hanging down..and the Buffalo DID have a spinner on the F2A-1 versions, a small one, and a much bigger one on the F2A-2 version....@@alan6832
Thank you and Well Done to our Author …. There are so many facets of this Aircrafts history that really are untold ….especially its use by the RAF and Commonwealth Forces…
I think one of the major problems Curtiss had when it came to producing a new fighter was that due to their commitment to production of the P-40 they were kind of slow of the mark with getting new designs built, by the time the prototypes of their new fighters took to the air their performance was comparable to the performance of fighters already in service when what the Army Air Force wanted was a new fighter with much better performance than the ones then in service.
Then there were the 18 other aircraft development programs that Curtiss was working on resulting in a massive dilution of effort.
Sounds right. A lot of manufacturers got stuck making hundreds of a proven, successful, but outdated designs, at the expense of innovation...
Curtiss had a poor design team, whereas NAA had engineers fresh from CALTECH / GALCIT and used that facility to advantage. NAA design team was far better and the management was astute in gleaning many lessons learned from European/Brit/German sources in 1938-1939. They also learned from the P-46 mistakes.
During the WWII era Curtiss worked on the development of no less than 20 different aircraft and some like the XP-60 series had many varieties. This combined with the loss of their top designer, Don Berlin, seemed to result in an in ability to produce successful aircraft. Even the SB2C while produced in large quantities was disliked by those who had to fly it.
The XP-46 with its small wing was really more of a BF-109 than a Spitfire. Like most Curtiss designs at this time, it wasn't developed with sufficient energy. I took 4 months for the first P-51 to get in the air. It took 16 months for the XP-46, The cooling system was similar to the P-51's system, but was never developed to work well.
Amazing, how both aircraft (the 46 and the 51, that is) share so many similarities, albeit only superficial, to be so different in detail and ultimately in the results achieved with each design.
The power of engineering
Same thing I was thinking, looks cool without any paint!
Would be interesting to have seen the airframe with the P/W wasp engine. 2000 HP may have made quit handful .
The P-60 was P-40 technology mated to the R-2800. The XP-46 was too small to match the engine. A better match might have been the R-1830 with 2 speed supercharger.
Awesome video Ed, love your content!
Not sure how I missed this one. When the Royal Air Force approached North American to build some of Curtiss's aircraft for them North American showed the RAF their ideas for a fighter. The RAF said yes but found it to be underpowered. So they took out the Alison engine and but in the Merlin in its place. So the aircraft went from being the A-36 to the P-51. And we all know what happened next.
Actually, NAA was fed up with Allison from the very beginning. In March 1941, Kindelberger asked the BPC for the RR Merlin XX installation documents, which they received. GM therefore interferred with NAA ability to compete for a USAAF fighter contract, so they did a backdoor deal to provide the A-36 from different funding while they concurrently improved the radiator ducting with Brit help. By 1942 they were well prepared to fit the 2 stage Merlins and produced two for testing purposes about the same time as the Brits flew the Mustang X. ...
And we all know what happened next.
Had Curtiss concentrated on “cleaning-up” the P-40 aerodynamically like it finally did late in the war with the 422mph P-40Q, this variant would have been 8 mph faster than the P-38 and more maneuverable. In fact the P-40 in all its variants was a more maneuverable airplane than the P-51.
Yep, and they probably could have had the P-40Q sooner, had they not been f@rting about with dead end designs like the XP-46, XP-60, XF14C, XP-55....
The Allison was not reliable. The Q handled better, but with the auxilliary s/c it lacked intercooler, aftercooler and backfire screens. Allison (GM) was the problem throughout the war and in Korea.
Awesome video. Keep them coming!!!!!!!!
I've admired your work for so long, well done! Can't trust YouselessTube, or the web, beyond this, sad to say! Australia used the "Kittyhawk" in great numbers, for it's small population. Thank you for your great videos!
I read a book on the Flying Tigers when I was in elementary school, years ago. I don't remember the title, but I do remember the author using multiple names for the P-40 (ie. Tomahawk, Kittyhawk, Warhawk, etc.) At 9 or 10 years old, this confused me thoroughly to the point that I gave up on reading the book. Great video as always, Ed! Thank you!
I remember that, too. P-40 names still confuse me. My favorite name for it is Warhawk. Everything else I think was for export.
Prior to signing up with the US Army my Dad worked night's at Curtiss and went to UB at the time, even at my time ha ha, it was still called University of Buffalo. He of course, like many WW II soldiers, he didn't talk much about the war, but boy he sure loved Curtiss, good memories for him.
Very iteresting as always, Thanks.
Curtiss: Well, it didn't quite live up to expectations. I guess we'll just keep churning out P-40s. North American: Excuse me, is this seat taken?
I believe that the British asked North American to produce the P-40 for them and they responded that they could do better.
Exactly. Don Berlin was fed up with lack of progress on the fighters so he left Curtiss. Their design team was unimpressive, but the P-40 was their (and GM's) cash cow, milking the system until 1944.
@@michaeltelson9798 there was immense pressure from GM and Wright Field (Material Command) to not compete with the Allison P-46 venture. Allison was uncooperative with NAA from the very beginning. As for timing NAA had been talking with Brit companies and BPC since 1938-39 and their V-12 fighter concept development was in the works by 1939 (P-509). Schmued said he'd been working on the concept since Meredith published his cooling drag paper in 1935.
Thanks Ed.
Uncle Bob # ! in the House! Thank you ed!
Haha more than welcome.
I think the problem these aircraft had is they were designed to meet a different need than to be found in the 1940 battles between Britain and Germany. In the US the army bought the aircraft and were only interested on protecting their troops which were not above 15,000 ft. In the UK as an island our requirements were different, the germans had time to gain height, and as we know the high controls the battle. The P40 did ok in the desert war which was what it was designed for, I would say the Hurricane had it second 'Waterloo' in north africa also. The war in Europe moved up beyond the capabilities of both aircraft but north africa was mostly below 15,000 feet.
Most interesting, as usual. Good job clearing up the Toma and Kitty business. TFP
The P-40 filled a need when the war was most desperate for the Allies. The AVG in China had a very favorable kill ratio over the Japanese using P-40's. Curtiss kept working on the P-40, eventually getting up to the "Q" version, which had a top speed of 422 mph.
unfortunately it was 2 years too late to be useful and so whilst the best P-40 ever made, it was still average compared to what was fighting in europe at the time.
Right...had Curtiss gotten the "Q" model in production 2 years earlier, it would have been more than worthwhile..and they might have done so had they not been wasting their time and resources on ungainly dead-ends like the XP-42, XP-46, XP-60, XP-55, and XF14C....@@philkennedy8683
The Q handled very nicely, but the Allison was still a problem with no intercooler, aftercooler or backfire screens. Read the flight reports. The Q constantly had forced landings.
Enjoyed your video and I gave it a Thumbs Up
In Duncan BC Canada a local vintage mechanic rebuilt a Curtiss P40 D Kittihawk in the spring of 1979 and displayed it along the Victoria Duncan highway until it was sold sometime in 1980. Sadly the restorer of the aircraft (Granger Taylor) along with his pickup truck went missing in December of that year never to be seen again.
Now you've brought up a mystery. BC in December - I'm thinking ice on the road, and a deep pond alongside the road.
@@kevinohalloran7164 Granger Taylor disappeared during a major storm of the century (my area in Port Alberni got effected too) no power for 2 weeks thousands of trees down. The Army was call in for a time. prior to Taylor's disappearance he became obsessed with Aliens, UFO's, left a farewell note saying he made alien contact and was boarding a Flying saucer on a 3 year space mission. There is a 1 hr CBC TV documentary on Granger Taylor (very sad)
@@rEdf196 Thanks for the expanded info. I'm from PEI, so I've seen some deep snow when I was young.
I seen him.....
Such a sleek looking design. It's always struck me as odd that it was slower than the later P40, as it looks like it would be better from an aerodynamic standpoint. The radiator is even in the "Mustang" position, which probably contributed more to the P51's low drag than its laminar flow wings did.
Awesome video of an intriguing "what if" aircraft!
Curtiss never developed the cooling system design so that it worked correctly. North American did their development work. Compare the XP-51 cooling system with the systems in the P-51A, P-51B, and P-51D. All of the cooling systems for the production aircraft were different and carefully designed to get the aerodynamics correct.
@@jimfisher5856 Probably one of the most fascinating aspects of World War 2 fighter development is how "upstart" companies that were not known as fighter design firms managed to usurp companies that were well known for fighters. Hawker was usurped by Supermarine in Britain, Curtis was usurped by North American and Republic. And of course Messerschmitt had the same sort of luck vs. Heinkel in Germany. Yet, when it came to bombers, the "old hands" like Handley Page, Avro, Boeng etc. dominated. It's just such a fascinating bit of history. :)
Actually, the P-40D was a little slower, but more manouverable with a better wing loading.
Have a look at 'Greg's' video on what might have been on the 1750 HP p40 ;-)
Sorry, but that's all hyperbole. Those over-boosted P-40s were problematic with engine fires, broken cranks, thrown rods, etc. Even the late war Allison engines were problematic. Have a read of the Wright field testing of P-51B, P-47 and P-38J with the 150 Octane. The Allisons were limited to 70" MP and still had problems. No way the earlier Allisons could handle the boost advertised on those videos without detonation and extreme short life. The RAAF did it, but it was a question of saving the pilot vs the engine.
The XP-46 was the first of the "misses" for Curtiss and put them on the road to doom. The British went up to North American and asked them to produce a license copy of the P-40; NAA built the P-51 from a fresh set of drawings. However, compared to the BF-109 & Spitfire the P-51 was heavy (the Zero was too light to count; it was a terrible aircraft for long term attrition warfare). The chief engineer of North America went to the U.K. and weighted every component of a Spitfire. That lead to the nearly 1,000 pound lighter P-51H super fighter.
What's the point? The USA aircraft manufacturers made our aircraft too heavy. Why? We used 1/16th thickness of aluminum. When the Soviets copied the B-29 they were able to use 1mm Aluminum sheet on much of the aircraft. 1/16th Aluminum = 1.6mm (about). That .6 mm adds weight. 1/32 aluminum = .8mm or a little more than 300% the thickness of heavy aluminum foil. That's too light.
Were the thicker aluminum sheets deliberately designed to make the aircraft more robust? Most US aircraft were known to take a lot of punishment and keep flying. Superior maneuverability at the expense of strength was shown to be a fool's choice in the Zero and even the Spitfire and BF-109 became heavier and less maneuverable in favor of heavier armament in later models.
@@fazole Boils down to imperial or metric. At that time About the thinnest that could be produced in inches scale was 1/16th inch thickness. Where as the standard in metric was 1mm.
@@fazole G A Pratt's answer is correct. The USA is imperial in measurement. All the sheet aluminum producing machines in the USA made it in 1/16th inch (technically .0625 inch). The US took imperial inch and made it digital way back in the c. 1900 era. I took manufacturing courses and learned both US digital & . Metric. Metal sheets can be made in 1mm, 2mm, or 3mm. In the USA it was 1/32, 1/16, 1/8th [ .03125, .0625, .0125] of an inch.
@@Easy-Eight Not sure that is correct. I think Alclad sheeting used in aircraft was made in various 'mil' based thicknesses, where 'mils' are thousandths of an inch. Alcoa produced Alclad in many thicknesses, e.g., .020, .022, .026, .028, .032, .034, .040, .045 mils and so on. Aluminum sheet 1 millimeter thick would be close to .042 mil. So, aluminum sheeting close to 1 mm was in fact available. I dunno about P-40s, but all of the thicknesses I quoted above appeared in different places on the wings of DC-3s. I suspect most WW2 era US aircraft incorporated a range of different sheeting thickness--different thicknesses in different parts of the plane. With a little searching you can find online repair manuals for various WW2 aircraft and see the actual thicknesses used on differnet parts of those planes.
The skins on the P-51 varied in thickness due to what was needed in a particular area. Most of those skins were .040".
0.6 mm is actually the thick of 23 sheets of heavy aluminum foil. I just measured the "heavy duty" foil in my kitchen. It was .001" thick.
Being My Second Favorite Plane Of The War (Your Mosquito Is First), I Thought I Knew All About It But I Was Wrong. Thanks For Sharing.
The P-40 was an awesome plane.
It was certainly an adequate one.
@@jacobmccandles1767 I think it was great in regards to numbers produced and theaters used. With over 2200 air to air kills ( different sources vary a bit) it shows that it was effective enough in that role. Also lots of material destroyed on the ground. Held the line for the early years in the Pacific , CBI and Mediterranean. A great plane in my opinion.
Available early in quantity. When desperately needed. Which the P-38 was not.
@@guaporeturns9472 so tell me El Guapo, would you say they had...a plethora of P-40s?
Certainly it was great in that it beld the line, and I am a big fan. Sometimes a good solution right now is far better than a perfect solution later. For countries like China, South Africa, and New Zealand, the P-40 was there and it was their best. Even where it wasn't the best, like in the U.S., it could free up better planes for the Front.
@@Idahoguy10157 and really, even if the P-38 Had been available early, it's hard to say if it would have been employed correctly. It was no dogfighter, and later relied on boom and zoom tactics against the Japanese.
The P-40 could out turn the Zero if it kept its speed high enough.
Maybe the XP-46 would have been faster if it flew with the gear doors closed 😂
True enough. Also a thicker wing, higher wing loading and Too many air intakes creating too much drag.
Any video production on the Curtiss P-60?
"The P-36...creditable service...but they could never be described as top rate performers in air combat." Um, the Battle of France would like to have a word, sir...
@@tomstulc9143 The engines that AVG received were those rejected by the USAAC for being beyond the stated requirements. This the AVG used happily.
@@michaeltelson9798 The Allison engines in the original AVG P-40s were cobbled together from rejected parts after being balanced by machinists. They were better than the production Allisons.
The P-36 didn't use Allisons.
Curtiss ALSO made the CW-21 Fighter, which in Dutch Hands, held off Oscars and Zeroes in Dogfights..
Odd how every airplane could go over 400 mph on paper
Well in a dive straight down most can , although that's not ideal
A lot of manufacturers based their top speed figures on the prototypes weight and engine power before figuring in things like armour, armament, self-sealing fuel tanks and all the other paraphernalia that a combat aircraft needs, so they tended to sound much more impressive than they actually were.
Airplane salesmen. They are like automobile salesmen. And it's interesting that every airplane that never made it into production would have been a super world beater airplane without any of the problems and drawbacks that always seem to crop up with production airplanes when they go into actual service and are called upon to perform in the real world.
False marketing, especially by Curtiss, Bell and Lockheed. NAA delivered closer to their estimates.
Great video
Ridiculous amount of firepower for a light air-superiority fighter. Curtiss should have got rid of half of the wing-mounted MGs. (2) .50 cals and (4) .30 cals would have been adequate.
The saved weight would have increased performance.
I really don't know why so many firms thought they needed their aircraft to carry a dozen machine guns when it really came down to a handful of heavy machine guns in the right place.
@@echodelta2172 Most MG's firing rifle calibre rounds, need a massive combined RoF to equal the weight of shot on target in a shot aimed burst to achieve a relative chance of damage close to that of a .50, 13mm and larger machine cannons can do on-target - hence the number of guns, the number of which, was/were usually a requirement/stipulation by the Air Ministries/War Departments based on their own Airforces knowledge of their own average aerial gunnery abilities - of/from/during those times.
It doesn't help too much that the Browning 0.30's and 0.50's are quite heavy guns each, even without the feed tray/guides and the ammo chutes/boxes.
@@razor1uk610 What a great write-up of info! Concise too. Thanks!
True enough, but the thicker wing and multiple air intakes (and poor ventral ducting) still created too much drag.
Good video, thanks
That XP-60 looks nice
Love it. Thanks.👍
Hey Ed:
Still waiting for the XP-60 video
looks an awful lot like the XP-47 with Allison engine. The irony of the XP-47 being originally part of the lightweight fighter program, only to go on and become the largest singe engine fighter of WW2.
The P-47 was heavier, but had smaller wings than the F6F and F4U. The p-47 was slightly longer.
Right after the USS Kitty Hawk heads to the scrapper :(
Love your channel, keep up the good work. Maybe you could do a couple of videos on obscure German fighters.
Have a look around. All sorts of stuff on here ;)
Ed Nash's Military Matters Have you looked at the Bell L-39? It was the first swept wing conventional plane to fly in the USA .
Not yet, I'll put it on the (huge) list :)
Thank you
It would have been interesting if this plane participated in combat. But to put it into production, would have meant stopping the production lines for the P40, which through slow was still demanded for use as a fighter bomber in North Africa and the Pacific too.
Allies : "Radial Engines Are Crap For Fighters"
Kurt Tank : "Begnadigung?"
Germans seemed to think that way as well..FW-190A,F,G variants were some of the very few radial engine WW2 German fighters..most had inline engines, as did many of their bombers..the Japanese, on the other hand, were quite the opposite..overwhelmingly favoring radial engines in everything, much as the U.S. Navy did....
Aesthetically the Most Beautiful Aircraft I'd say, Did the Engine let it's Performance down? Why didn't it Perform as Expected?
I see Ed Nash video I click on it!
One thing that is known is that a Spitfire could out dog fight a Zero if the pilot had some skill and then airframe was reasonably modern
and proper training against the enemy fighter.
A P40 wasn’t considered a viable enough fighter ? RAAF pilot Nicky Barr, 26 th June ,1942, was the first Allied pilot to make Ace in one day, shooting down five in one sortie. Nothing wrong with these aircraft. The serviceability and availability in the desert environment made these tough aircraft invaluable to the western desert campaign. The ruggedness of the design was again outstanding in the Pacific theatre. Most times, a lumbering bunch of plough horses can achieve more than a few thoroughbreds.
when one is making bold claims, one should read the actual feats performed. It appears that two of the kills were Stukas, not exactly hard kills. He went on to take out a macchi and that would hjave been harder work, assuming the Italian pilot was his equal. Wikipedia ( with Citations ) notes "His philosophy was that the P-40 was not a top-class fighter, but that its shortcomings "could be offset by unbridled aggression" Please Note I am a Kiwi and since the man was born here, I'll take part claim to the man but it doesnt change the status of the P-40 being very average and outdated piece of machinery by the time the war was peaking. The very existence of the P-51 is based around that issue.
They did force the retirement of the Bf109E in North Africa.
Explains why the two got the one name，good job
1.46 "though they could never be described as top-rate performers"
How did the P40 compare to the Hurricane or Nakajima Ki-43 Hayabusa?
I think the P-51 has a better claim of being the American Spitfire. Initially rejected by the British as too slow, until they stuck a Spitfire engine in it. Lo and behold, we have both sides of the equation, that has endured till today. American air-frames, British power-plants.
point of order: the Mustang only exists because of the British. they loved the aircraft but hated the lack lustre engine. upgrading to the two stage Merlin now being license built by packard was an obvious step. Rolls did the first conversions to prove the point then NAA did a fairly major upgrade to give us the B/C version. It was the USAAF that initially didnt want it.
Such nonsense, the Brits loved the Mustang I/IIs and used them until they wore out, it was miles better than the P-40 at all levels and vastly outperformed the Spitfire MkV at *_low level._* The USAAF took all the P-51As that they could get and even took a ground attack version to get around funding restrictions. No more were made once the P-51B/C came out. The RAF’s low level photos for OVERLORD were taken from Mustang I/IIs.
I wonder how it would have performed with a Merlin engine instead of the Allison.
Look at the P40 with the Merlin.
Greg’s Airplanes just covered this topic
It didn’t improve the aircraft much. That’s the P-40F which was used in North Africa.
One book I read-The P-40 at War-suggests that North American was able to produce the P-51 prototype in 120 days because that had the data from the XP-46 program.
The P46 sure looks like a development step between the P40 and the P51. Does the book say that North American used elements of the P46 design for the P51? I couldn't find any reference to that title anywhere.
@@toomanyhobbies2011 It suggests it,but presents no evidence. I no longer have the book,so I cannot refer back to it.
NAA bought the XP-40 ( not 46 ) test data, as insisted on by the british commission. read "Mustang Designer" etc and you will see the NA-50B was signed for by the British before the asked NAA to buy the paperwork. the configuration was already settled. The XP-46 was one of many half thought out designs that doomed Curtiss to history.
Another great story of paper planes not working out quite so well in the real world!
Love those short tail 40s.
The P-40 was really, the final decent CW aircraft design. The SB2C should have been rejected.
The problem is that they did not put a two stage super charger as that would have solved the high altitude problem
That xp-60 (to me) looks like the stockier, american cousin of the fw-190. Mainly because of the side exhausts...
It needed a dual stage supercharger that would have made a big difference!! Leave the 50 cals in the nose, put a 20 mm in each wing and get rid of almost useless 303 cals. That would get rid of 200-300 lbs. Also it looks like a few things could have been done to reduce drag and lighten the plane even more.
There was no 2 stage supercharger for the Allison simply because no one ever paid them to develop one (until very late in the war for use on the production version of the Twin Mustang).
The Army Air Corps paid for the development of the Allison engine and they forbid Allison from using any of the funding to develop a 2 stage supercharger, in the mid 30's the military task NACA with determining what the best type of supercharger system was for high altitude performance, their conclusion was a single stage supercharger with a turbo to feed it at altitudes above 12,000 ft or so, that's the system that the Army Air Corps dictated all it's aircraft would have, the P38, P47, B17, B24 B29 and other's all had it, the P39 and the P40 (look up XP37) were both originally supposed to have the same system but on both the turbo was dropped at the last minute to speed up development because everyone was screaming for aircraft.
NACA determined that a 2 stage 2 speed supercharger was the 2nd best way of achieving high altitude performance, for it's own reasons the US Navy chose that system for all aircraft developed for them, since the Navy didn't use anything that had the Allison engine in it they weren't going to pay for a 2 stage 2 speed supercharger to be developed for it.
That's the reason that when the P51 was developed it's Allison only had a single stage supercharger, because the US Army didn't order the P51 originally and wasn't going to pay for a high altitude supercharger to be developed for it's Allison engine.
It should also be known that Merlin engines also weren't available with 2 stage superchargers until mid 1942, even the early Packard built Merlin's only had a single stage supercharger, so putting a Merlin in the P51 when it was first developed wouldn't have resulted in any better performance.
Single stage Allison engines were actually better than the single stage Merlin engines because they had intercoolers on them from day one allowing them to run higher boost levels where the single stage Merlin's didn't, they didn't get intercoolers until the 2 stage supercharger was developed for them.
It's a myth that the Merlin engine is more powerful than the Allison, it's just that in mid 1942 the Merlin became available with a 2 stage supercharger, but with it's single stage supercharger with intercooler and the original turbo configuration for high altitude as used in the P38 is why it's performance exceeds Merlin's at any altitude (given of course that you're rating them on the same octane fuel).
@Duke Craig - Great info. Thank-you.
Too bad, it looks like it would fly right. Would it out-manoeuvre a Zero do you think? 'Prolly not but it would be fun to recreate somewhere.
Thanks for another good one, Ed. You and Rex's Hangar - if I see either of your names my hand just clicks it automatically, no brain involved since you're both that goof.
I am extremely happy that I happened upon both of you around the same time. Lovely.
XP-46 kinda looks like the USSR's LaGG-3
Kind of in the English Language.
Exactly what i thought of! Especially the canopy...
The LaGG had a terrible reputation with the Soviets with them taken the plane’s 4 letters into what translated something as “ Certified Flammable Varnished Coffin”
Well, that sorted out a lot of misapprehensions that I had about the Kittihawk ... !!!
Kittihawk: they never told you what happened to your siblings.
Warhawk : i have heard enough, they all said i had no siblings at all
Kittihawk: i am your little sister.
Warhawk: impossible.
Kittihawk : ask 47 thunderbolt your friend you know it to be true
Make more videos of forgotten planes, and experimentally planes fight or bomber
Jeez. As they added extra requirements, then the prototype flew and proved that it was a little too slow, I don't suppose it crossed anyone's mind to remove some of the ten guns to save weight. Maybe the pilot could make do with only eight cannons, or (gasp!) merely six. And let's not bother seeing if there might be a more powerful engine after all this delay.
Then again, considering the alternatives that were putting on a good show already, that does sound like a lot of pointless effort.
How sad was the end of Curtiss. Maybe worth a short video?
XP-46 with an airfoil thicker (23016.5) than even the P-40 (2215) ... what were they thinking ! ... and no boundary layer lip on the rad housing. Curtiss needed better engineers and aerodynamicists, not to mention better engines than the Allison.
To be fair, Curtiss did revisit the concept of an aft, ventral radiator, which was the best location for weight n balance but they once again didn't explore the necessary ducting required to meet the specs of the Meredith research paper or the Goethert wind tunnel studies.
RAAF 75 and 76 SQN used the kit in PNG in WW2
XP-60 please 🙏🙏🙏
Sounds like Curtis made the right decision.
I wish Curtiss had not wasted their efforts and time on the XP-42, XP-46, XF14C, XP-55, or all the iterations of the XP-60, and had focused their efforts on the bubble-canopy P-40Q instead..they probably could have had it developed and into production late-1942-1943 if they hadn't wasted their resources on all that other crap...and the P-40Q would have been more that competitive in that time frame...
If only Allison had put the development effort into a two stage/two speed supercharger sooner.
why is it flying with the gear door open?
Too bad no prototype remains.. :( They look nice!
You forgot to mention Japan in your opening.
He did - a picture flashed up