The P-40 basic facts?

[durb]

Hi,

I have some difficulty to see differences between different models of famous P-40 fighter. I know that P-40 models up to C were "Hawk 81" and "Tomahawk". From P-40 D or E starts "Hawk 87" which is called also as "Kittyhawk". However I have seen P-40 E been called also as "Warhawk". What is the difference between "Kittyhawk" and "Warhawk" - were they really different variants?

And the most enigmatic about P-40: if it was a "mediocre" fighter by WW2 standards, why were so many ordered and built? - must have been very good business for Curtiss company, but was it good allocation of US/Allied resources to put so much money and raw materials in P-40 fighters?

[Orwell1984]

As to your second paragraph you might find this an interesting read:

The P-40 Warhawk and the A6M Zero by Patrick Masell
http://www.chuckhawks.com/p-40_vs_zero.htm

[Sheldrake]

It was available, and the best US built fighter in 1940ish.

Poor mans spitfire. At its best going downhill.

As with many WW2 fighter aircraft there were lots of variants as the aircraft was modified during the course of the war. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtiss_P- ... k_variants

More powerful engines added weight throguh the P40E anf F and then a lighted version which improvied performance as a fighter. The Allison engine did not perform well at altitude which was a disadvantage when contesting air superiority

Each generation of the P40 had higher wiong loading and lower power/ weight than the spitfire
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermarin ... d_armament

if you want to learn how to fly one try this . http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/P-40.html

[durb]

Well, looked on this basic guide on P-40: http://www.p40warhawk.com/Variants/Variants.htm

It seems that P-40 B/C or Hawk 81 were "Tomahawk", then from P-40 D all variants were just "Kittyhawk" when used by British and their Commonwealth allies. From P-40 F it was "Warhawk" when used by USAAF, probably even P-40 E was "Warhawk" when in US service. If I have understood correctly, "Kittyhawk" and "Warhawk" were practically same planes, names were just different by users. Maybe Americans liked to associate "hawk" with more strong "War" than with a bit tame "Kitty". I guess that "Tomahawk" was liked by Americans too.

P-40 was not one of the best premium fighters of WW2 like Spitfire or Mustang but I guess that it was decent as fighter-bomber and if flown by skilled pilot P-40 could even hold its own against Bf 109 and Zero. Although P-40 was "second-rate" like Hurricane, probably its importance is undervalued and it deserves more respect than is usually given. Not one of the best ones, but maybe not so bad after all...

[Sheldrake]

I did meet a P40 fighter pilot a while ago. Here is some time "worlds fastest man" Neville Duke flying a flight simulator of "his" P40B at a Tangmere Aviation Museum open day.

The names are from different sources. The USAAF used a type "P40" and a version letter "B" or "E" RAF gave aircraft names thus the P40B was the Tomahawk I and the P40E the Kittihawk.

The manufacturer may have given it a name as well. Press coverage helped popularise the names, and coverage of P40s in the Western Desert with with sharks mouth markings were widely circulated (and copied by the AVG)

[jtemple507]

I agree with those that say the P-40 is an underestimated fighter. In the hands of a skilled pilot it could do just as well as a Mustang or Spit. Much like the Hurricane, it was a design a little behind its time by the time it saw combat but looks awesome and did surprisingly well in the right hands.

The Hurricane and P-40 are among the top 10 of my favorite WWII aircraft just because of how underestimated they are, the fact that they were amazing fighter-bombers and decent fighters (I mean, the Hurricane's loadout with the "universal wing" would practically be the equivalent of an A-10 Warthog if we equate WWII loadouts to modern ones), were pretty rugged and could take a beating, and look absolutely beautiful (except the Hurricane Mk. IIC; those cannon protuding from the wing detract from its beauty)

[Mark in Cleveland, Tn.]

Excellent articles of all varients, history,service history,quality and quantity of all P-40 models in Air Classics/AirPower/Wings back issues.GO to www sites to order the very old issues(late 1970's to late 1980's magazines.

There are also P-40 www sites on the history, as well as numerous FaceBook P-40 dedicated groups.
IMO P-40 was a dog, why they were after Africa Theater given to USSR, and then all turned over to state side training squadrons.

[durb]

Interesting article about P-40 Tomahawks/Kittyhawks in Soviet service: http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/a ... enko/p-40/

[EKB]

It was available, and the best US built fighter in 1940ish.

Poor mans spitfire. At its best going downhill.

As with many WW2 fighter aircraft there were lots of variants as the aircraft was modified during the course of the war. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtiss_P- ... k_variants

More powerful engines added weight throguh the P40E anf F and then a lighted version which improvied performance as a fighter. The Allison engine did not perform well at altitude which was a disadvantage when contesting air superiority

Each generation of the P40 had higher wiong loading and lower power/ weight than the spitfire
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermarin ... d_armament

The P-40 had better performance than you suggest. See below for reality check.
Click on image to enlarge for clarity.

[Sheldrake]

Yes but.

1. The variant you have quoted figures for was the first batch, optimised for high altitude fighting with the weight reduced, partially by removing two guns. Apparently this armament was not regarded as adequate and the guns added back in the next batch, reducing maximum speed by C30 mph. http://www.p40warhawk.com/Variants/P-40N.htm

2. Your comparison is apples and oranges. The first production versions of the P40N appeared in March 1943 but your have quoted performance for spitfire variants of the1941 vintage Spitfire V. The 1943 versions of the spitfire were the Mk IX and Mk VIII which were about 25mph faster than the under gunned P40 variant and armed with 20mm cannon and 2x .5 or 4 x .303. http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-IX.html Comparable US aircraft such as the P38 P47 and P51 were all faster and better armed in a fighter or fighter bomber role.

3. The historic use supports the view that the P40 was a mediocre aircraft The P40Ns produced were largely shipped to the soviets or Australians or Newzealanders. It was not the fighter or fighter bomber of choice for the USAF or RAF. The warhawks were adequate and played a part, particularly in the Pacific and Mediterranean theatres, but it was no one's first choice by 1943.

[EKB]

The variant you have quoted figures for was the first batch, optimised for high altitude fighting with the weight reduced, partially by removing two guns. Apparently this armament was not regarded as adequate and the guns added back in the next batch, reducing maximum speed by C30 mph.

http://www.p40warhawk.com/Variants/P-40N.htm

Your opinion does not agree with the laws of physics.

1. No P-40 lost 30 mph from adding wing guns.

2. Most P-51Bs had four wing guns, while most P-51Ds had six wing guns. Random testing showed that level speed was almost identical.

3. Under wing racks/shackles could cause an 8-12 mph drag penalty on the P-51, depending on height, but that was offset by raising the supercharger boost. By 1944, the Packard V-1650-7 (Merlin 66) was the factory standard … which increased low altitude power and decreased high altitude power.

Granted, it was not unusual to find a 30 mph difference between two airplanes of the same kind. But it was caused by other factors like added external parts, quality of panel fit, surface finish, condition of the engine, and supercharger boost settings selected by the pilot.

Your comparison is apples and oranges. The first production versions of the P40N appeared in March 1943 but your have quoted performance for spitfire variants of the1941 vintage Spitfire V. The 1943 versions of the spitfire were the Mk IX and Mk VIII which were about 25mph faster than the under gunned P40 variant and armed with 20mm cannon and 2x .5 or 4 x .303. http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-IX.html Comparable US aircraft such as the P38 P47 and P51 were all faster and better armed in a fighter or fighter bomber role.

Apples and oranges indeed!

You might have noticed that many Spitifres tested at Boscombe Down were not production models, so the data given was over-optimistic. For example, pilots from No. 41 Squadron stated that service models of the Spitfire Mk. XII were about 20 mph slower than the prototype (serial DP845)

The P40Ns produced were largely shipped to the soviets or Australians or Newzealanders. It was not the fighter or fighter bomber of choice for the USAF or RAF.

The Spitfire was never durable (its main weakness). The P-40 was a better choice for low altitude flying, where most of the fighting took place.

That was also true even in the British Home Islands. By January 1944, 23 squadrons were equipped with the Spitfire Mk IX (of which 18 squadrons were re-assigned to army support with the 2nd Tactical Air Force). By that time the Merlin 66 engine was made standard for better low level performance.

Likewise, many Mustang Mk III and Mustang Mk IV aircraft were diverted to missions with 2nd TAF or Coastal Command for low altitude operations.

The historic use supports the view that the P40 was a mediocre aircraft

The Spitfire Mk V was less than mediocre by 1942 … yet in January 1944 there were 27 active squadrons based in the British home islands.

The warhawks were adequate and played a part, particularly in the Pacific and Mediterranean theatres, but it was no one's first choice by 1943.

Too bad that the P-40Q wasn't mass produced, because it outperformed the Spitfire Mk IX. Let's not forget that the Spit Nine would not exist if Rolls Royce did not purchase rights to copy the French two-speed supercharger drive.


The Seafire program was a disaster from beginning to end. Read Mike Crosley’s They Gave Me a Seafire for all of the sordid details. The Seafire Mk III was the most advanced model used in combat, and was fraught with problems that it made it “more dangerous to its own pilot than the enemy” (quote from the author who flew them). The Seafire Mk XV was even worse, and was not declared battle ready until long after the war ended.

[Sheldrake]

The historic use supports the view that the P40 was a mediocre aircraft

The Spitfire Mk V was less than mediocre by 1942 … yet in January 1944 there were 27 active squadrons based in the British home islands.

The warhawks were adequate and played a part, particularly in the Pacific and Mediterranean theatres, but it was no one's first choice by 1943.

Too bad that the P-40Q wasn't mass produced, because it outperformed the Spitfire Mk IX. Let's not forget that the Spit Nine would not exist if Rolls Royce did not purchase rights to copy the French two-speed supercharger drive.

Yes there were lots of Spitfire V in service in 1944. A lot of them had been made and the RAF had plenty of used for these airframes, even if Pierre Closterman described his as "Clipped cropped and clapped" The 1944 production variants were the Spit IX/XVI as well as the Griffon engined Mk XIV which formed the main RAF high altitude fighters. The low altitude fighters were the Hawker Typhoon and from 1944 the Tempest. In July 1944 the RAF deployed the Gloster Meteor I into squadron service.

The RAF's first jet fighter had about the same maximum speed as the XP40Q which might have been produced in 1945, and would outperform the 1942 Spitfire IX - but not the Spitfire F21 or F24 in services in 1945. However, by 1945 the benchmark for fighter aircraft was the Meteor III and Me262, both of which were 100 mph faster. This isn't apples v pears. It is smooth bore muskets v the Minie Rifle.

The fact is that P40 development and performance was about a year or two behind comparable more successful allied fighters.

[durb]

Despite the shortcomings of P-40 it is clear that there was a big market for it - by 1941/1942 the Tomahawk/Kittyhawk was still the best that US aircraft industry could offer as a land based fighter and the plane was manufactured in many thousands with all of its different models. That so many were manufactured and pressed in service highlights the fact that there were not enough "better" fighters available for the Allied to satisfy the demand of all war theaters. One could say that P-40 was a "interim solution" while waiting fighters with higher performance.

A bit similar story with P-36/Hawk 75 - the best that US aircraft industry could offer as a fighter by 1939, but technically about a half-generation behind the Bf 109 E and Spitfire Mk I. The P-36/Hawk 75 served as a more or less satisfactory "interim solution" for both the French Air Force and USAAF in 1939/1940. The P-40 was basically a P-36 airframe extended and modified to include the Allison engine.

It took until 1942/1943 when US designs for single-engined fighter airframes finally catched up with the British/German models when the P-47 and P-51 B came out. But it took still some time until the production of P-47/P-51 was in full speed, so P-40´s continued to be manufactured as a "back-up" until 1944. I think that the shortcomings of the airframe were mainly due to limitations of Allison engine which however was probably the best engine that USAAF could think for the American land-based fighter back in 1940/1941. It created the basic design which could not be later improved enough to match the continuing development of Bf 109 (+ FW 190)/Spitfire airframes. As a fighter-bomber P-40 was to my knowledge quite good - in that role there was no need for more high-altitude performance and the sturdy plane could resist quite well the hits of light ground fire.

When it comes to Zero vs. P-40, I think that this is relatively little studied to tell which of the two fighters came actually over the top during the critical period of 1942. I guess that actually P-40 did not make it so bad against Zero. I remember to have read that P-40 pilots claimed to have shot down as many as five Zeros for one lost P-40, but this kill/loss -rate is probably exaggerated.

[Sheldrake]

Despite the shortcomings of P-40 it is clear that there was a big market for it - by 1941/1942 the Tomahawk/Kittyhawk was still the best that US aircraft industry could offer as a land based fighter and the plane was manufactured in many thousands with all of its different models. That so many were manufactured and pressed in service highlights the fact that there were not enough "better" fighters available for the Allied to satisfy the demand of all war theaters. One could say that P-40 was a "interim solution" while waiting fighters with higher performance.

A bit similar story with P-36/Hawk 75 - the best that US aircraft industry could offer as a fighter by 1939, but technically about a half-generation behind the Bf 109 E and Spitfire Mk I. The P-36/Hawk 75 served as a more or less satisfactory "interim solution" for both the French Air Force and USAAF in 1939/1940. The P-40 was basically a P-36 airframe extended and modified to include the Allison engine.

It took until 1942/1943 when US designs for single-engined fighter airframes finally catched up with the British/German models when the P-47 and P-51 B came out. But it took still some time until the production of P-47/P-51 was in full speed, so P-40´s continued to be manufactured as a "back-up" until 1944. I think that the shortcomings of the airframe were mainly due to limitations of Allison engine which however was probably the best engine that USAAF could think for the American land-based fighter back in 1940/1941. It created the basic design which could not be later improved enough to match the continuing development of Bf 109 (+ FW 190)/Spitfire airframes. As a fighter-bomber P-40 was to my knowledge quite good - in that role there was no need for more high-altitude performance and the sturdy plane could resist quite well the hits of light ground fire.

When it comes to Zero vs. P-40, I think that this is relatively little studied to tell which of the two fighters came actually over the top during the critical period of 1942. I guess that actually P-40 did not make it so bad against Zero. I remember to have read that P-40 pilots claimed to have shot down as many as five Zeros for one lost P-40, but this kill/loss -rate is probably exaggerated.

These are all good points. There was a market for the P36 and P40 because there was demand from The French and British for more modern aircraft than the obsolete aircraft they had - such as the Gloster Gladiator.

The limitations of the Allison engine illustrates the importance of engine technology to aircraft design. Lack fo a decent engine condemned the Italian and to lesser extent Japanese aircraft industry. The P51 might have been better known as a tactical recce and diver bomber if it had not been re-engine with the Merlin.

[EKB]

I think that the shortcomings of the airframe were mainly due to limitations of Allison engine which however was probably the best engine that USAAF could think for the American land-based fighter back in 1940/1941.

USAAF Material Command was committed to turbo-supercharging to raise high altitude performance, as reflected by the Lockheed P-38 and Republic P-47. The Curtiss P-40 would need to be radically re-designed to accept a turbo installation.

Another obstacle to Allison making big changes was that the V-1710 design was owned by the U.S. government, while design rights to the Merlin were privately owned by Rolls Royce.

From 1941 to 1942, Curtiss was under intense pressure from the USAAF and RAF to produce more airplanes. Significant production line changes would have resulted in reduced factory output, and that would not have been welcome to all parties concerned.