The Curtiss XP-40Q; When a Mustang and a Warhawk love each other very much…
Вставка
- Опубліковано 2 чер 2024
- 00:00 Introduction
00:20 P-40 Impact and Debate
02:28 XP-46
03:03 Curtis designs falling behind
03:45 P-40Q
04:26 P-40Q-1
05:15 P-40Q-2
06:15 P-40Q-2A
07:25 P-40Q-3
08:42 Postwar racing career
Buy my book: amzn.to/3preYyO
Sources for this video can be found at the relevant article on:
militarymatters.online/
If you like this content please consider buying me a coffee or else supporting me at Patreon:
ko-fi.com/ednashmilitarymatters
/ ednash - Наука та технологія
![A Domestic Failure That Became An International Success | Curtiss P-36 Hawk [Aircraft Overview #33]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/lTgY8za-2Xw/mqdefault.jpg)
That is truly a bizarre looking bird. It's like "We have P-51 at home"
A P-51 made using a small aubergine.
I think they look clean asl
Look up the CAC CA-15 Kangaroo…
What happens when you think a RR Griffin engine would be “interesting” in a Mustang.
@@allangibson8494 I have learned about it a bit, as well as seeing Ed's excellent video on it. I definitely agree with him that it was less Aussie Mustang with a Griffon, than Aussie Fw190 without a Centaurus
When you order a P-51 from Wish
The P 40 was the M 4 Sherman of aircraft, it was just good enough to be in every theater of war from 7 Dec 1941 to September 1945.
Yes sir and she was there for the entire war and did sterling service 🇺🇸
That’s a major disservice to the Sherman’s real legacy. Not the one mostly based on the German’s post-Oct/44 excuses for losing the war. The Chieftain goes into the subject on UA-cam, and John Keegan goes into it much deeper in his books.
Before Operation Tractable (& Bagration) was successful, captured German field officers spoke very highly of the Sherman over their own hodgepodge of unreliable vehicles & horse drawn artillery. It was only after, when they knew the war was lost, did the Sherman bashing begin.
Somehow the Sherman with its 2:1 Tank-vs-Tank kill ratio and a 82% crew survivability rate, including the Soviet front, became just good enough.
@cjwrench07 I am sorry to have upset you so badly. However to your very good defense of the M 4, it was a Tank of compromises, it was built to standards that really prohibited its fully potential. Weight and size restrictions because every one of them had to be shipped overseas, they had to not exceed the weight limits of our combat engineers bridges. This made uparmoring them impossible for the majority, then the gun issues, the 75 was fine in 43 but by June of 44 it needed the 76mm just to stay even vs the Germans. Once wet stowage was a thing it did greatly increase survivability. The M 4 was a decent Tank and yes it had a good survivability rate, it was issued with enough spare parts available that mantinance and availability was superb. But with our country's ability to build and engineer machines the M 4 was just good enough to do the job, not nessicarily the best we could build.
The RAF, RAAF were flying the P-40 Tomahawks in combat in June 1941 in the middle east. 112 Sqn put tiger teeth on theirs that summer. Not a bad fighter then if flown by competent pilots, and better than the Hurricane at low-med altitudes.
Not only did the P-40 have all the attributes you mentioned, it was also available in great numbers because it was relatively inexpensive, easy to mass produce with readily available materials. It wasn't the very BEST fighter aircraft but it wasn't the WORST one either by a long shot.
As Stalin said, "quantity has a quality all its own".
The P-40 is definitely under appreciated, even if it was not the best.
It's all relative. It was appreciated by pilots who previously had to fly Hurricanes and saw lots of their mates killed. P-40 was good in large numbers against a retreating LW in Africa, with Spitfires and P-40Fs for top cover, but used more as a ground attack aircraft as better fighters appeared in 1943.
@@bobsakamanos4469 definitely.
The P-40 proved itself both underrated and an underdog. With reliability, and a good combat record. Appreciate it for being there in numbers when a fighter was needed
Like the Hurricane it was a prewar aircraft that was already marginal at the beginning of the war. They had roughly comparable performance, although the Hurricane was a bit faster early on. (Perhaps due to achieving its maximum speed at a higher altitude due to a better blower?) They both contributed a great deal to the allied war effort, yet on the internet the P-40 seems to get far less respect than than Hurricane. If the Hurricane had not earned fame in the Battle of Britain it would probably hold a place in the firmament closer to the P-40, which doesn't get talked about much in proportion to its contributions.
Over Africa the P-40E and later models were considered marginally superior to the Hurricane. The P-40 could turn better, dive better (one of the best divers of the war, no NES), and was a bit faster at over 370 MPH. The P-40E and later aircraft were equal to the BF-109E and - if properly flown - proved a fair match for the BF-109F.
@@Easy-Eight Also - a big plus - if it was hit the prospect of being roasted was much less than with a Hurricane.
Not quite the point but as folk here will probably be interested, Eric Winkle Brown rated the Wildcat & the Hurricane as more or less on a par.
@@babboon5764 I've read Brown's writings from years past. He liked and disliked the Wildcat. Taking off from an airfield the Wildcat would try to kill the pilot with a ground loop. Conversely, he said it was much superior to the Hurricane as a carrier aircraft. The Wildcat could take a beating on a landing. Brown said after two weeks if a carrier had 24 Sea Hurricanes at sea then the whole lot would be broken. BTW, when the FM-2 version of the Wildcat came out it was a fair match for the Zero. 1,350 horse power can make up for a lot of weight. But by late '43 the F6F Hellcat was on line and 80% of the great Japanese aviators from the start of WWII were dead.
The early models of the P-40 (P-40 thru P-40C), at least based on the data reported in various reference works were from 30-40 mph faster at altitude (>15,000 feet) and had a better dive speed. Performance dropped off as altitude increased. The P-40F had the Packard version of the Merlin and its was still 40 mph faster than a Hurricane II at 25,000 feet.
@@babboon5764 This was the early model F4F-3 and F4F-3A (Martlet I, II and III). The F4F-4 (Martlet IV and V) was heavier and had slightly inferior performance. The FM-1 was of course an F4F-4 built by Eastern Aircraft. The FM-2 not only had a more powerful engine, it was run through a weight loss program, that made it a much better performance, especially in climb rate.
Just a note about the laminar flow airfoil on the Mustang. It wasn't designed to create speed nor was it designed to be slippery at speed, it was designed to be slippery/efficient at cruising speed thus providing contribution to the Mustangs' very-long-legs. Few realize this!
The "When a xxxxx and a xxxx love each other very much..." joke never gets old 🙂
It's like Curtis just got stuck in a rut. Reinventing variations of the Warhawk and never thinking outside the box to come up with a better fighter than their competitors.
The P-46 was their replacement for the P-40, but they simply didn't put the effort into using available research to improve the wings or radiator ducting, etc. Keeping the assembly line going was their cash cow.
A surprisingly good looking airframe I have to say... The bubble canopy and much sleeker lower cowling are improving it's lines significantly. I like it!
The last XP-40Q crashed in a blaze of glory, thankfully the pilot survived. The Warhawk did the job, just didn't get the glory.
I understand the P40 was cheaper than it’s contemporaries, so was useful in many roles that didn’t need a first rate aircraft. A Battle of Britain pilot remarked the spitfire was the better aircraft but the hurricane was the better weapon for the fight (as it was much easier to repair and the for the cost of 3 spitfires you could have 5 hurricanes). The same could be said for the P40. A grandfather of mine flew one so between that and the flying tigers I’ve always had a soft spot for it.
I saw some monetary figures ($$$$$) on the P-40 a while ago and it semms the P-40 cost about half of what a P-51 cost. Money is ALWAYS a consideration....
LOL, the Hurricane was obsolete even in the BoB, but useful in numbers going after slower bombers. Sadly it cost the lives of too many young lads. It had the worst kill ratio of the battle.
I've always respected the role that the P-40 played in the War. The knowledge that there were improved versions developed by Curtiss, to me, shows not only the basic soundness of the fighter, but its potential for improvement. Had the P-51 not existed, I feel confident a P-40Q of some sort would have gone into production. A fascinating 'what if' coda do the Warhawk story.
Very clean looking AC. The P36 style landing gear really give its roots away.
Thanks for this one....I have always like the P-40Q, Sort of reminds me of the P-63...Hint..HINT!
You never disappoint Ed,always a "new" aircraft,well,"new" to me anyway.And I really had NO idea hat so many P-40's were built,and in so many variants.Thanks for another great vid!
It was the American Hawker Hurricane - handy, reliable, but never stellar. Still quite dangerous in expert hands. The Q variant looks like a pretty decent plane.
Yeah, Curtiss' idea of innovation seemed to be just sticking a more powerful Alison engine onto the P-40's fuselage and adding a bubble canopy. They just never seemed to have a design team that understood the root causes of the original airframe's aerodynamic limitations. For example, they stuck with the P-36 style landing gear all the way up to 1944.
I've always liked the P40, particularly the N model with six 12.7mm machine guns in the wings, and no more synchronized guns, plus thr squared off rear canopy. The Q looks good but since it wasn't quite as good as the P51 already in major production it was pointless.
The 6 gun configuration began with the P-40E. Only the M varied from this arrangement.
I almost always learn something from you. I knew about the P-40Q, but NOT about the four variants and how each was cobbled together from different, earlier P-40 versions taken off the production line. I also didn't know about the troublesome engines.
I worked for C-W from 1980 to 2001, and I know a lot about the Company's corporate culture from old-timer employees who were there during WWI!, and during the period of its decline in the 1950s and 1960s. Its labor-management relations were terrible. Its size as the #2 manufacturing corp during the war (after GM) bred an arrogance towards its customers (the military) for which it paid dearly when it was payback time. Its financial vs. engineering orientation created a conservatism that stifled risk-taking and innovation. Its airframe and engine competitors designed and built better products, but there's no doubt that the P-40 was good enough and available in sufficient quantities to make a difference when it counted. The R-1820 engine was very important for the war effort. Heavens, it powered the B-17, the SBD, and the FM-2 to name just a few important aircraft. Finally, just think of all the aircraft that had Curtiss Electric propellers.
Good summary, Ed, and not whitewashed.
The Q had a cleaned up cowl and radiator locations, but still had no wheel doors so drag was still an issue. The engine installation was ineffective / unreliable and these prototypes kept having accidents during forced landings. You can't just tack on an auxilliary supercharger without proper intercooler, aftercooler and backfire screens. The induction airflow was still limited as well and compromised by the poor intake manifold. Allison just never learned.
Your assessment of the P-40 is pretty spot on. It terms of the Pacific theatre it was out performed by the Zero, but once newer tactics were adopted it was more effective against that type and could do the one thing the Zero couldn't, take punishment, something the Japanese pilots noticed as the conflict went on. They were used to good effect in North Africa too. As you said, in the hands of a good pilot who knew how to use it, it could hold its own.
The thing about that conflict, if a given aircraft was just good enough, and there in numbers, it was going to give the axis powers a real headache. Having a better performing aircraft with somewhat of a technical edge is good, but not so great in a war of production where everything sooner or later gets shot up.
Now this really underscores the saying that a P-40 is a poor man's P-51.
Great informative video Ed! - I've always wondered why later variants of the P-40 didn't incorporate the Mustang's much faster lower drag 'laminar flow' (cough cough) wing design. After all, during WWII all American manufacturers were on the same team. I read that the Merlin was tried in the P-40 but the high drag 1930s wing negated any real benefits. Nevertheless, the P-40 was in fact an incredible aircraft and served many countries during WW2 with distinction, even though it was an older design. I read it could even out dive most German fighters, and that says a lot.
Cheers from Thailand!
The Supermarine Spiteful’s all new laminar flow wing turned out way inferior to the original 4 series aerofoil Spitfire’s. Rate of climb, drag under load and stall behaviour are also vitally important.
@@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935 LOL I guess they too should have tried the excellent P-51 wing! :)
The flying tigers and the P-40 were my first introduction to the history of war as a youngster and I'll always remember their importance, plus they looked cool , like the red barons fokker. Thx. FTM 👍
I've always thought of the P40 in the same vein as the Hawker Hurricane; was it the best aircraft in the world? No. Was it a useful, reliable, adaptable aircraft that was able to compete and most importantly, available in numbers? Yes, most definitely.
Sure, the world-class aircraft like Spitfire, FW-190, Mustang, Coursair etc were far superior but these needed development time. The P40 and Hurricane were absolutely essential in their own rights and sometimes, being good enough and available is what is needed.
In about 1973, I built and flew an R/C version of the XP-40Q from plans in a magazine. Its size and weight made it legal for quarter midget pylon racing. It wasn't very fast, but I won a local pylon race with it because I had been flying it often and the other pilots had hardly ever flown their planes.
The P-40Q is basically what an American Bf 109K would look like.
That’s actually a pretty good looking airplane. Wonder what would have happened if given a little more time.
The last prototype looks quite cool to me... love child of a Mustang and a Warhawk.
Thank you soo much for covering this strange hybrid aircraft, which would certainly have been produced in great numbers, had the P-51 and P-47 not been so successful
Its an icon....period.
It did what it had to do in the early war.
Love it.
As a model builder I have always wished someone would build a model of this plane. I have one but it is small and a rather poor mold.
I've seen R/C models of the Q
Interesting but RC models don't have the detail or accuracy of a display model though. Thanks.@@bluetopguitar1104
There was one made in 1/72 Scale back in the 90’s by I think MPM. It is a short run kit though and will take some skill to build. I regret not getting one when it was released. Can maybe find one second hand though.
Actually, I think that is the one I have but MPM... meh. Would be great to see a major manufacturer make one in 1/48. Thanks Though.
@@burntorange70
Thank gosh that owner of the last one at the air races was able to bail out and survive.
I've long known a lot about WW2 aircraft - or thought did until you and others on YT showed me more & more stuff in depth. One thing I was surprised to learn a few years ago was that the P-40 gave useful service till the end of the war. I thought it was phased out after North Africa. It may have been in secondary theaters but it meant the new P-47 & P-51 were ~all sent to where they were most needed. Curtiss was able to keep up uninterrupted production.
Great video. When I was in the Army, I had a look at declassified documents about night vision developments during WW2. There was a photo of a P-40 fitted with an enormous, early prototype of a "starlight scope" mounted in front of the canopy.
The P-40 is what helped to fuel my interest in WW2 starting in 8th grade (mid-late 90s) when part of the class was to pick a book would read on it for a set time then write a summary. The book in question was an old print of FLYING TIGERS which was a couple hundred pages I think. After that one was done the next had me move onto a book from home...Martin Caiden's FORK TAILED DEVIL the P-38 which has become my favorite Allied fighter of the era while the Ol' Reliable P-40 holds a special role as 2nd favorite even though it was 1st.
This was definitely a fighter to be respected & NOT underestimated!
This has got the thought processes working.
To build a model of this I have an FW-190 canopy, P-51 nose & P-40 wings but not a late Spitfire fuselage. Hmmm! A true Frankenplane.
The team designing the NA-73 (Mustang) in a hurry for Britain were permitted to use the aerodynamic test data from the XP-46 project, so there is an actual link between the Curtiss and NAA designs.
stevetournay Dutch Kindelberger in the book P51 Mustangs in Action said they were forced to buy the info from Curtis but said all it taught them was what not to design or use !!!! Kindelberger and Atwood had already had a lot of the research and design done on the Mustang when the Brits showed up, why the First plane was built in 112 days, You do not design and build the most modern aerodynamic fighter in 112 days !!!
I like the cleaner air intake of the P40 Q. Wonder how it would have performed with a Merlin engine. Even the P51 really came alive once the Merlin was installed
It would have had a higher effective service ceiling. High altitude performance would have been better, that's about it.
The Allison & Merlin were very comparable... it was the Merlin's 2 stage turbo supercharger that made the difference at higher altitudes (the P-38 had great high alt performance with the Alison engines for example)
A small point - the Merlin two stage was mechanical, not turbo, but your observation is otherwise spot on !@@cabanford
@@wingmanjim6 I'm pretty sure that's just how they called it back then.
@@cabanford No they were technically literate.
Both the Curtiss CW-21, CW-22 (trainer) and the Model 75/P-36 were also ordered by the Netherlands and because of the German invasion in May 1940 were diverted to the Dutch East Indies and later saw action against Japanese forces. The Dutch CW-21's were easily identifiable by the inward retracting main landing gear, that eliminated the need for the undercarriage fairings notable on the Model 21.
Barely a footnote. Overhyped and underperforming
the P-40 is VERY underrated, and actually performed well against the Germans and Japanese. It just wasn't as good as other newer designs. It had aerodynamic flaws and such, but it was rather good and reasonably competitive. It just requires nuance to talk about it. Most people are not good at nuance.
Great title for this video mate and thanks for your efforts making these. Love your stuff 🇦🇺✌️
I really like the look of this plane, I like the look of the Merlin-powered Warhawks already, but this Allison-powered one seems to combine a lot of the things I like about the look of the P-51D and later Spitfires without any of the things I dislike about the look of those planes. Such as the P-51D's underslung radiator and the ever-increasing numbers of blisters and the underwing pair of box radiators on late Merlin and Griffon Spitfires.
I think that this is my favorite location for the radiators and intake on a liquid-cooled V12 aircraft, maybe even than the annular nose radiator on the 190 D and Ta 152s. Though I do like the XP-40Q better without the wingtips clipped.
P40 had a niche where it operated well, just needed to be kept into that operational doctrine.
Great video! Thank you.
I'm a 69yr old Brit, a retired motor mechanic, In the early 70's I worked for a wannabe rich south London garage owner, bought and sold a few Yank motors, Now it's important to note I was still repairing Brit and European cars(A35's) with half Hydraulic and rod operated braking systems, No vacuum assistance in those days unless you were rich, But the thing that put me off American Engineering back then, was it was made only slightly better than you could make yourself in your garden shed, Cheap is not just what a young chicken say's, I can imagine Curtis Aircraft never worked out Quality + Quantity
The P-40 Warhawk was the Sherman of the air. Not the best at anything. But rugged, easily maintained and very adaptable.
This is one of my favorites.
It's exactly as you said, the P-40 wasn't bad in all aspects, it served a good role in the Pacific theatre as an attack fighter.
Probably the best records were achieved by the Flying Tigers, they held themselves up well against Japanese fighters.
As for the XP-40Q, a couple of variants proved to be good aircraft but indeed they did not offer any advantages over the P-47 or P-51, also the Merlin of the P-51 was far more reliable than the Allison V1710-121 which is a quite important benefit in an aircraft.
Defending the p40 it was one of the best low-altitude fighters of world war II.
According to another UA-cam channel that's some ground crews were getting the plane to run 74-in of manifold pressure and getting these up to 380 miles an hour at sea level
In North Africa and the south Pacific where altitude performance wasn't critical or resupply was few and far between the p40 was almost the ideal fighter as it was easy to maintain and could handle anything the access through at the aircraft.
I read the later part of the title first, and thought you were describing the CAC CA-15 "Kangaroo" !
Covered that one a long time ago ;)
One interesting point of the one or two P-40Qs (-3 and -4) that used of the wings off the XP-46 which as you said were not laminar flow, is that the airfoil used for the XP-46 was NACA series airfoil 23000, 23016.5 at the root and 23009 at the tip. The original P-40 used the identical airfoil to the DC-2, 2215 at the root and 2009 at the tip and almost a DC-3 airfoil which was 2215, 2206. As to the XP-46, the 23000 series airfoil was used on the Beech Staggerwing, D-18 series, Bonanza models 33, 35 and 36, Twin Bonanzas, Travel Airs and all Barons, Queen Airs and King Airs. Also don't forget that Douglas used the NACA 23000 series in the DC-4,6 and 7 series aircraft as well. and used a similar 23000 series on the A-20 and DC-5. The 23000 series airfoil makes one terrific handling wing.
ED, And I speak from experience as I have a 1,000 hours in a Baron, 600 in a V-Tail Bonanza, 5 hours of twin Beech and a few hours of King Air time and an hour or two in a P-51 and T-28. And as I have written and published many times, the best handling airplane I ever flew was the P-51 with the T-28 close second, but the V-Tail is a close third as are all the Beechcrafts, so I can only conclude the P-40, especially the Q have to be fine handling birds.
P-40 was under appreciated !
Kool! I didn't know about this version. 👍🙂
the P-40 landing gear cost it a lot of speed. They never addressed that. And it really needed an all-new wing.
Basically, it needed to become a P-51
@@daszieher yup, which is why North American offered a clean sheet design. They knew they could do better than the P-40 when the British came calling. They'd had a chance to learn from past designs as well as benefited from recent NACA aerodynamic testing data. They knew how to fix the P-40, but to do so was easier to start clean sheet.
Reworking your mistakes into something better is still a technique in manufacturing. Believe me.
The prototypes lookpretty cool, though.
The P-40Q suffered of the same prablem of the early Mustangs, the Allison engine. This was the cause of the high altitude low performance. When the P-51 changed to Rolls Royce it became the legend we all admire.
several p-40 variants were equipped with the Merlin engine, it was only more powerful at altitude early on. The later variants of the Allison were excellent performers.
jujenho The Merlin Mustangs never used a RR Built merlin engine, ALL were built in AMERICA by PACKARD and were a version ONLY used in Mustangs !!!!
@@echodelta2172 The Merlin used in the P40 F&L models was the Packard built V1650-1 andit was a SINGLE stage 2 speed supercharger version NOT the LATER 60 series 2 STAGEB version, different engines all together !!!!
Minding the P's and Q's fighter.
How about some reserch into the Felixestowe Sea Plane Base. Oppset to where I was borne in 1951. Then evacutaed to Weymouth after the January 53. Eaast Coast Flooding. Bearing in mind Supper Marine made the Felexestowe Flying Boat. It would be interesting if there are early airial photos?
"When a Mustang and a Warhawk love each other very much…" It would be criminal to not click on the video
Thanks! A rare subject.
some of those versions look really hot...imagine repowering with a turbo prop to get rid of all that piston driven complexity.....
Curtiss company motto: “We’re not the worst thing flying.”
Cool! Thanks Ed, I didn’t know this plane existed. ( as an aside Always been surprised such a prominent & seemingly successful, manufacturer as Curtiss pretty much disappeared by end of ww2....but I guess BMC made same mistake of relying too much on successful older designs & not keeping up with competitors 🤔)
Might not have been the best in its class but for sure the P40 is one of the sexiest fighters of the conflict. Something special about it maybe because of its famous shark mouth livery.
You know that a creator has become popular enough to attract the pedants when you can hear the echoes of their arguments in "Yes, I know that [obscure fact/disagreement]."
Finally, the real GTA SA Rustler!
North American washed their hands of the Allison engine in the development of the Mustang for all the reasons noted in this video. They went with the Merlin engine, built in the US by Packard under license from Rolls-Royce.; which was also furnished to the RAF for operation in their Spitfire when sourcing them in England became problematic.
Excellent.
Depending on the hand on the joystick 🕹
30s style, birdcage glass better than being half outside, 40s and on, bubble canopy
a bubble canopy makes aircraft look so good, think p51
I want to see the love child of a P-51 Mustang and a P-38 Lightning.
Oh...that's the F-82.
Never mind.
☮
It makes me wonder what the original P-40 might have become had they instead be re-engined with the merlin & 2 stage supercharger.
tedstrikerwa That was considered except the Mustang was in full production and already proving itself, the problem was the whole P40was NOT as aerodynamic or clean as the P51,and why waste a good engine on a medeocur airframe of the P40 !!!
Actually 15,000+ were built? I have a photograph of a P-40 off the Curtiss assembly lines and it is marked “15,000 plus Curtiss Fighter”. A lethal airplane if you knew her strong points.
Curtis politiced the P 40 into production up to late
1944. Their final version had a merlin engine but wasn't built in any numbers.
JohnnySmithWhite WRONG !!! It was proposed to use the Later merlin but the USAAF wanted the engines used in the Better performing Mustang, NO late merlins used in Late P40's !!!
I think Curtiss made P-47's under license from Republic. There may have been some quality issues with them as I don't think that variant went into combat.
True, after P40 production stopped, but the quality was bad, none saw service all were trainers !!
Maybe they could have squeezed more out of the P-40 by modifying it per a P-82 with LH/RH Allison’s on each fuselage?
This is my favorite looking P-40! Wish it was in War Thunder or DCS
I never understood why Curtis-Wright didn’t compliment the in-line Allison engined P40 range with a radial update of the P36, say powered by the Wright R-2600 Twin Cyclone or the Pratt & Whitney R-2800 Double Wasp (as shown by other aircraft produced, Curtis-Wright were pragmatic enough to use P&W engines when situations warranted their use). Afterall the FW-190 & the Soviet LA series, plus of course the Vought F4U Corsair, showed it was possible to build a close coupled aerodynamic fighter with a radial engine. Gez, with the LA series, the Soviets actually did the opposite of Curtis & updated an in-line powered design with a radial engined design & it worked out quite well.
It would also need a second stage with intercooling, better with a clean sheet including fully retracting gear.
And Curtis's claim to fame is "We have good enough fighters available when the war broke out .. when the allies needed them the most"
Like Martin-Baker, making a good enough catch-up fighter for about 3 years ago and maybe available in the following year.
It was an interesting idea, but a big waste of time for Curtiss because the USAAF already had large fleets of P-47's and P-51's being delivered.
Really a good looking bird. I'm not surprised someone tried to turn it into a racer....it had the look! Great presentation. What exactly was the problem with the Allison in terms of reliability?
I'd be guessing that it had oil or cooling system issues - those radiator inlets look rather small, considering the upgraded engine.
No time for development and trouble shooting in war time.
Best video title ever!!!!
I believe Curtis had a plant or at least an assembly line making p47s at one stage but the number produced was so low as to be negligible. Republic historians are quite scathing on this point
P41s were not the best but if you ran that at 50 inches manifold pressure like the Australians discovered -they could move fast
RichardGoth When Curtis stopped production of the P40 they were "recruited" to build the P47, which they did and their build quality was so poor those P47's never saw combat, all held back as trainers. no glory there !!!
The second and fourth version are beautiful! The one with clipped wings not so much imo.
A Fezziwig by any other standard. Still a fine looking aircraft if not an example of success leading to downfall.
Imo is they would have put the engine, prop and possible two stage supercharger on the earlier P40's the P40 would have had a greater success against the Me109
IMO the problem was the army air corps original spec for the Allison engine. Unlike the Rolls Royce engine (1933) where the development of the 2 stage 2 speed blower was developed by RR, the army spec has the engine developed by Allison (1929), but it was suppose to breath with a GM turbo (yes Allison was a division of GM) that was way too big to be fitted onto many fighters. The original Mustang had the Allison and it was rejected because it ran out of breath at about 12,000 feet. When fitted with the Merlin, it went on to become the legend that it did. The P-38 with it's twin boom allowed the the GM turbos to be fitted to it and it acquitted itself very well at altitude. The Allison was a great engine and if the military had stayed out of the process of choosing who was going to design what, it most likely would have been a much better power plant.
For some videos you have to deal with there being very few photographs. In this one you have an embarrassment of riches - thank you for sharing all of them with us.
The Q-3 almost looks like the canopy was inspired by the Fw-190 canopy.
My first thought was 'I could build a model of this I have a 190 canopy, P-51 nose & P-40 wings but I need a late Spitfire fuselage'. A frankenplane.
@@aussie6910 Yeah, that does sound like a patchwork. :D
@@UnintentionalSubmarine Bigtime. LOL!
TY 🙏🙏
Each and every plane in this episode looked like winners. The Hawk too. We all like what if's. And my "what if" now is if Britain would have been better of with a load of P 40's instead of tinkering around with Spitfires. The P 40 is like the Sherman tank simple rugged enough good enough and very adaptable to upgrades and modifications.
negative, they already had the hurricane as their workhorse. They needed a thoroughbred in the Spitfire to even the odds against German fighters of a higher caliber.
The P-40 was a very good plane. It's bad reputation comes mainly from the same Curtiss, that instead of developing it, they did so many efforts to substitute it with so many failed attempts (P-46, P-53, P-60, P-62).
Good looking airplane.
Wonder what the problems were with the Allison V1710-121 engines?
Basically, its lack of a two stage supercharger limited its high altitude performance. That one issue seems to have tainted the Allison in postwar years. It was actually a very good engine , well engineered, strong and relatively easy to maintain, to name a few virtues.
I read the title wrong as ... XP400 and thought. Did they really make an experimental two-seater version of P40 with a Zero on it's tail?
There's a distinct "late model Seafire" look to the Q4. Not surprising, given that they're both a mid 30s design with an inline V12 pushed - or beyond - its absolute development limit
For me the P-40 will always conjure up images of 112 Sqn RAF shark mouthed aircraft over the Western Desert or AVG machines with tiger teeth battling the Japanese. If the Q variant had been developed a year or two earlier they may have been the birds we would be thinking about.