this post is about the legendary P40 WARHAWK!!!
i personally think that if it werent for this plaen the allies wouldn’t have won the war
this post is to celebrate this almost forgotten warbird
Forgotten!!, I think not, never, not in my lifetime, ain’t happening. it’s one of the most famous warplanes of all time, i’ll prolly forget my own name before i forget the Warhawk.
[Y] p40 warhawk [snYea] i agree.Ron
Alot were produced and it served all over the world by many different countries.A real workhorse
i meant that more people have heard of the spitfire and the perfetic p51. and even the wildcat
and yet they still dont know the real workhorse the P40 WARHAWK
!(http://flyboy1966.webs.com/P40 Warhawk.jpg)
this post was made do P40 warhawk lovers can share cool p40 pics and info
I don’t know about not winning the war but since I’m in the middle of a P40 build (that is a real challenge due to fit issues[:S]) I’m beginning to get to know “it” better!
Red, you’d really like this movie…
“Death Race”… It stars, along with Lloyd Bridges and Doug McClure, a “wounded” P-40 trying to outrun a German tank in the North African desert… The P-40’s been hit in the radiator so the two pilots it’s carrying (one was rescuing another when it was hit) can’t run it’s engine very long, only in short intervals to leapfrog ahead of the tank a few miles…
Probably the best “P-40” movie ever made…
Curtiss fighters just don’t get a lot of respect, but they definately played an important part in the war even if only by being available in large numbers (P-40 was the third most produced US aircraft) freeing up P-51s and P-47s for the most critical areas. The success of the P-47 and P-51 really limited interest in major development of the P-40 later in the war.
It is often said the P-36 and P-40 were obsolete at the start of the war, but the P-36 proved to be very important to France in 1940 where it more than held its own against the Me-109, and it was successfully used by Finland and India until 1944. The P-40 remained in production almost until the end of the war, and was used in every theater. Both planes ended their service with a good kill / loss ratio.
There was a proposal for a P-36 powered by a 1600 hp Wright R-2600 twin cyclone in 1938. This was expected to provide a top speed of 360-370 mph easily matching the speed of the current Spitfire and Me-109 but there was no interest from the USAAF or US Navy.
There were some also some interesting P-40 developments using a 1350 hp R-1830 (P-40C “special”) and 2000 hp R-2800 (P-60) radial engines, that showed potential. I find these particularly interesting since the P-40 began as a modified P-36 with an inline engine.
I think that can be debatable. The Hellcat was the predominate fighter in the Pacific campaign, shooting down more enemy planes then any other US plane, and over in Europe, the P-51 finally gave the bombers long-range fighter escort and decimated the German fighters.
I’ll say that the P-40 plugged the hole until better planes came along and fulfilled the needs of the air force. That being said, I’ve always liked the looks of the P-40.
I think this is were the Wildcat and P-40 get the short stick, they get compared to aircraft that didn’t even show up until the war was 1/2 over. It wasn’t until mid to late 1943 that the P-47, P-51, F6F and F4U arrived in significant numbers to relieve these early war aircraft. By the time these later aircraft arrived, the Japanese were in retreat (Midway and Guadelcanal had been won), and the German advance halted (North Africa completed, Italian campaign beginning).
Winning the war may be a overstating the value of the Wildcat and P-40, but plugging the gap is certainly short changing the role they played.
Like I said, it’s debatable. If you were to ask which aircraft had a greater impact, then you really have to take into consideration the latter planes, because of their superiority in flying capabilities, firepower, and tactical uses. Could you not argue that the P-47 could with it’s heavier firepower, ability to carry rockets and bombs do things the Wildcat and P-40 weren’t even designed to do? Thus there roles were expanded from just that of a fighter plane to fighter-bombers.
I’m in no way selling the P-40 or the Wildcat short, they held their own until 1942-43, but they weren’t the superior airplanes of the latter years that helped to turn the tide over Europe in particular. Imagine a Wildcat against a FW-190? I don’t think it could compete against the Ki-44 or Ki-84 either.
Although names like the Mustang and Spitfire might be more recognizable than the Warhawk, if you say “FLYING TIGERS”, then I think most people would instantly know what you are talking about. I think I recall reading somewhere that the shark-mouthed P-40 was one of the most instantly recogizeable icons of WWII.
the P40 was superior for its time tigerman so watch your mouth i stand up for this fighter so take your negative comments away or leave![8o|][bnghead]
well think about this if the p-47 and the LAME p-51 are so good why weren’t they used in the desert and middle-east theartre then huh?!
[snofftpc]
Tigerman, I don’t see it as an either or. The early war US aircraft generally don’t get the respect they deserve, they not only held the line, they were causing the defeat of the enemy.
There is no question that the later aircraft, F6F, F4U, P-47, P-51 out performed the earlier aircraft, likely saved Allied pilots lives and probably hastened the end of the war. The P-40 had development potential left, it was shown to be capable of challenging the performance of the P-47 and P-51 but it became a chase to catch up with aircraft now rolling off production lines in quantity. Without these aircraft the P-40 (and P-39 in the P-63) could have stepped up to do the job, but that need had been filled by very capable newer designs.
Because the North African campaign had clearly swung to the Allies by the time the P-47 and P-51 were entering service, and the faster, longer ranged aircraft were needed in Europe and the Pacific to escort the bombers. Bomber escort was not a job the P-40 was well suited for because of its limited range and poor high altitude performance. There is no doubt that when it finally arrived, the “lame” P-51’s was a dream escort fighter for bomber crews. That isn’t an insult or take away from the fact the P-40 was an able general purpose fighter / bomber for the duration of the war.
Whoa, settle down Hoss. I didn’t mean to push a button. I’m not a huge fan of the P-51 myself, but your comment about the P-40 won the war was just a bit strong . I just made my point that is all. It’s all subjective and can be longly debated. The P-40, as I pointed out, was instrumental for holding the line until better planes came along. It was a good fighter and was a pretty good match for early Japanese planes.
The P-47 didn’t really come out in numbers until around early-mid 43 when the African campaign was pretty much finished. The P-51 flew some months later over Europe. HTH
firstly about you not being a fan of the p51 congrats the p51 is my worst favourite plane
“and i did not say the p40 won the war” i said if it weren’t for the p40 the allies might not have won the war
ohh and if i offened you im sorry[;)]
i just dont like people making fun of my favourite plane
dude, you really need to calm down a notch or four…this is certainly not an argument that is worth getting this worked up over.
Also, you did NOT say “might not have won the war”. Heres your quote:
"i personally think that if it werent for this plaen the allies wouldn’t have won the war"
For someone who is so bent out of shape about this debate, you havent even been honest…you really shouldnt take this so seriously that you act in this manner.
And your assessment, with all respect, is wrong. The P-40 only defeated Japanese Zeros by use of tactics early on, against the newer, better Japanese planes those tactics would not have worked nearly as well. And you really need to think about this–the Hellcat racked up the most kills at a time when a plane that could outperform the Japanese was sorely needed. The Warhawk would not have possibly been able to take out that many planes as the F6F did. Which means that the Pacific war would have lasted longer…with the Japanese not getting nearly as beaten as they did. In Europe, consider the P-40 against the FW-190…the Reich was only defeated because we gained air superiority over Germany, so our bombers could continue to drop bombs. The Warhawk could never have made it as a high-altitude escort. Remember now, our bombing campaign was very nearly stopped completely in 1943-44…so the Warhawk would not have changed that. That bombing campaign contributed as much as the fighters did to cutting down the available number of German combat aircraft and weaponry, if not more.
Consider it like this–I like to look at the “what-if” theory. What if there was no P-47 or P-51? The Warhawk could never have performed their roles nearly as well. But, if the 47’s and 51s had to perform the Warhawk’s roles, could they have done as well? They would have actually done better. There’s your answer.
Oh, and about the Wildcat, many people do not know this, but the FM-2 variant, flying from escort carriers, actually had the highest kill ratio of any allied fighter of the war. Of course, this was primarily because they did not usually go up against fighters, but it still shows the ongoing contribution that the old Wildcat made.
From a sheet of paper and prototypes? [:P] [:D]
The first P-47 combat mission occured in March 1943, the P-51B entered production in 1943, and didn’t began escort missions until January 1944.
With those time spans you need to be looking at:
P-40Q which did have a supercharger for high altitude flight at 422 mph, and could have been in production by 1944.
P-60C (P-40 with an R-2800 radial engine) which had a supercharger and could do 405 mph at high altitude. It could have been in production in 1943/44
P-63 (improved P-39) which had a supercharger and could do 410 mph at 25,000 feet.
These became foot notes because by that time the P-47 was in service and offered even better performance with a top speed of 433 mph, and the P-51 was entering service with a top speed of 433 mph and exceptional range. The older aircraft were finally breaking 400 mph, as the new breed approached 500.
The P-36 / P-40 design was 6 years old, and had been in service for 2 years when the P-51 was first dreamed up by North American.
The P-47 was more evolutionary originating with the P-35, then P-43 and finally P-47, but it was a major improvement (the reason for the new designation). It’s earlier relatives were notably inferior to the P-40 and not used in quantity (about 300 total).
So sure, the P-47, P-51 could have done the job better, but that is kind of like comparing the P-51 to the F-84 as a WW2 air superiority fighter, better but it simply didn’t exist in that time frame.
The Spitfire and Me-109 came from the same time period but saw continual development, while the P-40 peaked in 1943 when the USAAF wisely adopted newer designs with more long term growth potential, that would not cause an interuption of P-40 production. Somehow for many “something even better” has translated to the P-40 was a turd.
It’s okay Baron. I wasn’t trying to belittle the Warhawk. Please reread my posts and you’ll read that I never downplayed it the way you might have interpreted. [:)]
If you haven’t seen the John Wayne classic “Flying Tigers”, get it. It was of course a propaganda film, but had lots of great footage of the P-40. The shark’s mouth as we all know is classic. “Tora Tora Tora” and Pearl Harbor also have some nice P-40 footage as well.
Just to be a little more proactive here, are you currently building or built one? Let’s check her out. [Y]