In my opinion the P-40 was a rugged plane and had its good qualities as well as its use in the arsenal of materiel needed to fight the war. If the P-40 and P-39 had better turbo-superchargers, would they have been right up there with the topline fighters of both sides?
They would both need a little more than a better engine. But, as we have seen, the P-40Q and the P-63 Kingcobra both turned in impressive performances, However, by that time, they had already been superseded by better aircraft.
Could the Pratt and Whitney Engine that powered the Corsair and the P-47 been used in either of these fighters to improve performance?
I would say yes as long as they had them in 1941 or 42. They both were a match for for BF109Es at low to medium altitudes in Africa and Russia.
Google the Curtiss XP-60. More specifically, the XP-60C & XP-60E. Your looking at major modifications to the airframe.
Yep, that was to have been the production version of the XP-60C. However, none were built before the contract was cancelled. http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/p60.html
Adapting the Merlin / Packard to those narrow airframes would be easier, and this was done with the P40F, but the P51 made better use of the available Packard production than the P40F did.
the short answer is NO first the P40, now when you say rugged, it was but then ruggedness also needs to be qualified, ability to take hits, at best it was average, as a ground attack with a big chin mounted radiator and oil coolers, no it was not. rugged yes in its wing strength also with its undercarage. now remember the P40 is a beefed up p36 so the basic airframe has already been hacked about to take it from a nimble but effective fighter for its pre ww2 days to a heaver early ww2 p40 days. against the ME109 it was dog meet. the only trick that a P40 pilot had up his sleeve was to drop flaps and some times wheels as well to get the speed down then it could out turn the 109. BUT if there were more than one 109s in flight aline, the P40 was dead. the P36 was better able to mix it with the 109 and the 190 low down say below 10 000 ft. but the added weight of the P40 happened it a bit. the P40 was also a bit edgy on the edge. they did fitt the supper turbocharger Allison to the P40, but this made the aircraft quite long and also having to move the cockpit back. did not proceed past trials, it was a bit of a dog and there were better aircraft available. the P39, well it was / is a bit of an oddball in airframe terms. even with the same power plant it could not out preform the p40, upping the power with the supper turbocharged allison would also have lengthened the airframe, stuffing up the CoG. but with also the added complication of the drive shaft and toque tube being up graded = weight. sort of explains why the p39 was not developed further or in reality at all. the p39 with its mid-mount was probably a complex solution to the P51s mid-mounted radiator ( opinion)
What are your sources for "Dropping flaps and trying to out turn an Me109"? or "P36 better able to mix it with Me109 and Fw190" I agree the P40 was an average early 1940s fighter. It was a "poor mans spitfire" Faster than, but less maneuverable than a Hurricane/Morane 406/P36/F2A/Fokker DXX1,A6M2 or Ki43 but slower than an Me109 or Spitfire. Dropping flaps and wheels might dodge a first attack, but it would leave the aircraft slow and out of e for the re-attack. An Me109 would zoom out and manouvre in the vertical plane, or for his wingman. It would be a fatal tactic against an A6M or Ki43. The best response for the P40 against Me109, or A6M was to dive away. It gained speed quickly and retained energy. It had a good rate of roll so it could change direction in a dive, which was a good way to lose a pursuer. These were the Chenault Tiger's tactic against Japanese fighters. Harder to pull against an Me109F. Not that different to the story told by Neville Duke, the British P40 Ace who was reasonably happy with the aircraft. The P36 was a fairly nimble fighter for 1940, and was the best of a mediocre selection of fighters available to the French. However, it lacked firepower, speed, and climb rate against the Me109E and would have been dead meat against the Me109F and Fw190.
ok my sources, Kiwi pilots flight instructions 1940. also references to the same tactic by american pilots in P40 who were catapulted off ship during torch. the Vichi French had P36s. i think you understanding of the tactic is light but your conclusion is about correct. droping flaps and wheels drops air speed A LOT. thus with a lower wing loading the P40 was able to out turn a 109 or 190. so that a turn to get out of the guns and a turn back in to put them into your guns. OR a turn into a head on with the attacking aircraft. on that last point look up Lysander vers me 109 kills. the same tactic was used against the Japs diving to get away was at the fighting altitudes in both north Africa and the pacific, early days) would have just resulted in the pilot have its very own sand pit or paddling pool. not an option. in reference to the flying tigers. there tactic was only to attack when they had the hight advantage. diving into, shoot and dive away. this is pure Blue max, red baron, and the pom with no legs who played golf and owned a Bar tactics. the flighting tigers never Mixed it with the japs. your last comment re the P36. the poms had them in north Africa as did the vichie French. in both cases they did sort of OK in the early days against the early 109 Mks, NB 190 came latter. BUT as a good comparison you should realy look at the records of the american pilots ( no experiences) vers the Vichie French pilots ( plenty of experience) and the respective P40 vers P36 scraps. lastly, and and all pilots LOVE the airframe that thay fly. so read with care the comments like that
You have to hand it to the P-40, it fought on more fronts than any other fighter. CBI DEI South Pacific Philippines Australia Aleutians North Africa Italy Russia Western Europe (Admittedly, a short period)
Re 1 - These look like early war fighting notes. They may not have been supported by practice and findings from, say the tests done by the RAF's Air Fighting Development Unit (ADFU) and informs the modern viwew of fighter tactics. he wikipedia entry here explains the basic fighter fighter manoiuvres. It nolooks to be based on Shaw's book on fighter tactics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_fighter_maneuvers Re 2 - and 3 Shaw and wiklipedia Explains why the advice to drop flaps and wheels and turn is a bad idea unless really really desperate and why the flying Tiigers had the right idea against Japanese fighters. The P40 had a much higher loading than the Ki43 and Zeke, which also had much rate of climb. If meeting ewither of these aircraft - or some similar nimble italian fighter, such as the Mc200/Md202 or Fiat G50, the last thing the P40 pilot shopudl do is hang around in a dog fight. It cannot out turn or out climb its adversary. It will get slower and lower and this disadvantage will get worse the longer the pilot stays and tries to fight. The same was true, to a lesser extent for the spitfire V onwards, one reason why the RAAF ran into difficulties over Darwin. An attacking Me109 or Fw190 would not be advised to turn with the P40 for the same reason. They have a higher wing loadign , but are faster and have a higher rate of climb too. They use this advantage in the vertical plane and boom and zoom in the attack. A break turn is the simplest defensive manouvre to throw an attacking aircraft out of angle (aim). Adding additional drag with flaps and wheels may help to ensure an overshoot, but it will dump a lot of kinetic energy (speed), and probably more than necessary. It won't improve the sustained turn rate and unhelpful in turning the aircraft to face the attacker. The Lysander v Me109 is an extreme case illustrating why turn rate does not translate into air combat advantage. The Lysander squadrons were withdrawn from combat after suffering unacceptable losses early in the 1940 campaign. Not sure how many engagements between Me109 and Lysander ended in the latter's favour, but I'd be interested Re 4. The P36 in French hands seems to have lost two fighters for every P40 or F4f shot down in Op Torch. Not sure what your point is. Re 5 True. Neville Duke was also a test pilot. Here he is "flying" his P40B on my PC in 2000 View attachment 24338
The P40 could out-dive and out-turn most of the front-line enemy fighters from what I read in first-hand testimony of pilots flying the P40 and against.
@ Sheldrake 1 yes early fighting notes. hand written by the pilots ( Kiwis ) based on actual exsperiance not some RAF egg on head type still lamenting about his sopworth. But all in all we have no argument as you posted. to drop flaps and wheels and turn is a bad idea unless really really desperate and --P40 pilot shopudl do is hang around in a dog fight. It cannot out turn or out climb its adversary and --- An attacking Me109 or Fw190 would not be advised to turn with the P40 for the same reason. They have a higher wing loadign , but are faster and have a higher rate of climb too. They use this advantage in the vertical plane and boom and zoom in the attack. ( in which case the P40 would have completed its turn into the attacker. the fight results is a series of head to head conflicts. Adding additional drag with flaps and wheels may help to ensure an overshoot.--- other aircraft used Simlur tactics to encourage an over shoot. both the P51 and P38 would flair. and then turn back in. any way we agree on some points. that wiki articular i am know with as of the author. but in reality the conservation of energy is / was a passing fad that suited the aircraft of the time. IE early sweaped wing and delta jets. not totaly wrong in ww2, applicable but only as applicable as it is to the gen 4 fighters. IE it is not absolute
for those who are interested, and since N Africa was the only other campaign to use P40s read this http://cedar.wwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1075&context=wwuet
