The Curtis P-40 was built with both the Allison V-1710 and the Packard Merlin V-1650. Why did they build it with both engines? Which was better?
I'll cover both engines as used in various models including the E, K, F, L, M, and N. The F and L models are Merlin powered.
Check out Enigma's channel as he helped out a bit on my video: / enigma89
The Official auto and Air Fan Store is Here!
gregs-airplanesandautomobiles...
/ gregsairplanesandautom...
Paypal: mistydawne2010@yahoo.com
Greg…I’ve been an amateur WW2 historian since the third grade (I’m 62…hard to believe) and I must say, when it comes to explaining the aircraft of this period, you are so far ahead of the pack that no one else even comes close. Your videos are so crammed with technical facts and minutiae that I have to re-watch them several times to fully get everything you are throwing at me. It’s a real pleasure to watch/listen to your amazing shows. You effortlessly explain the differences in mechanical engineering as well as the flight characteristics of each aircraft. It has really fleshed out my understanding of the air war…far more than any dozen books on the subject could have…in my humble opinion. Thank you for your generosity in sharing your expertise and keep up the good work.
Thanks Christopher.
Absolutely agree. Greg is the best.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Greg you are #1
concur
For a. Gearhead like me I soak everything up from his videos !
My fathers friend " Rusty " flew P-40's in North Africa. When I was about 12-13 yrs. old I asked him about his service . I had been reading all about the various WW2 campaigns and was eager to hear a first hand account. His refusal to talk about the war brought home to my adolescent mind that war was not glamorous and something a person may want to forget they had ever been involved in. His one concession was he told me the P-40 would dive like a streamlined brick.
Exactly, it was carnage. The short tailed P-40s were a handful, needing constant trimming with changes in speed. Dives required a lot of effort and leg strength. Two point landings were preferred due to low speed instability. Roll rate was effective though. The key was to be able to see the 109's before they pounced from above. Teamwork in finger four formation was critical. So was the fact that they outnumbered the LW by mid-late 1942.
I had a relative who flew P40's in North Africa against BF 109's. He said they were competitive and he had two victories before being shot down. His engine took a flak hit and 3 German 109's were trying to claim him as a kill as he was glidiin for a landing. He said the three each took passes at him which he avoided by faking a turn and then reversing it once they committed. He was so slow with a seized engine that they were overshooting him on their gun runs. After doing a wheels up in the desert, he was strafed by one and was badly wounded through both legs and had some eye damage from splinters. He considered them strafing a downed pilot as very poor form. He was in an ambulance on bad roads from North Africa all the way to South Africa apparently. He flew ferry missions to front line bases after that, as he was not cleared for combat.
Thanks Rosco, and I'm glad he made it and could tell you the story.
Did he have top cover from Spitfires? The P-40 couldn't out run or outclimb the 109.
Brit pilots killed force landed Italian pilots. There is a P-40 pilot’s published account of the North Africa fighting. It is not the same as shooting up a guy under a parachute.
@@user-so8nj3ln7m The P-40 was in a dead heat in level flight speeds with the F and early G models. It wasn't the best climber but it would outroll and outturn both the 109 and the Spitfire.
@@edwardpate6128 vertical energy management was the fighter tactic of experienced german pilots. 109s could engage and then climb/disengage at will. Luftwaffe had supply lines compromised and were outnumbered, which was their undoing.
I used to give tours and talks on the P-40 we had back at a local Museum years back and have always had a large respect and affirmation for this aircraft. We had a P-40N-30 produced in 1944, at which point the P-40s were carrying a bombload of comparable size to the much larger P-47s. Very underrated airframe in my opinion and I am glad to see a video from Greg of all people discussing some subject on it. I certainly look forward to anymore videos on the P-40 in any capacity, and if you ever do need some P-40L documentation I have some old scans of archival material that may prove to be useful.
I didn't realize that there were versions of the P-40 that carried that much weight in bombs. Can you tell us specifically what bomb loadouts it carried?
@@Jbroker404 My recollection was that it was an evolution. The bomb on centerline was always 2X size of underwing bombs. I could be mistaken all these decades later but I believe max was a 1000 pounder on centerline and a 500 under each wing. Most effective against ground troops in China was six 250 pound fragmentation bombs that had segmented casings like a pineapple grenade, about a 10 foot detonator-probe sticking out the forward end, conventional fins but also a drogue chute on back. A vicious vicious load of antipersonnel ordnance. The only living things that I could ever justify using such hellish weapons on were The Communists. And so they were.
One pilot stated who had flown both the P-40 and the P-51 said he could at below 10,000 ft he could turn inside a P-51 with the P-40. If not for the lack of tungsten, the P-40 would have received a two stage supercharger, but this wasn't considered a drawback as the USAAC as the bomber mafia beliefed that bombers would get through (although the P-38 should have shaken that idea) based on speed. Both the P-40 and P-39 (the build two designs in case on turned out to be a turkey), were considered as to counter West Coast invasion as ground attack fighters as Japan was thought to be the invasion threat of an enemy. This was one reason for the heavier pilot protection for the P-39 and P-40.
@@Jbroker404 The late-war manual I was referring to back when I was at the Museum specified a "maximum bombload" comprising of one 1,000-lb AN-M65 bomb on each wing and one AN-M64 500-lb bomb on the centerline, for a combined 2,500-lb payload. I also know that the later P-40Ns did carry rockets, namely the 4.5" M8 rockets, but I do not know of any instances where this maximum bombload and rockets were carried together--especially since the M8 rockets were a rarity in P-40 armaments.
@@Renshen1957 P-40s could out turn the Me109 down low too
One thing about the Allison is that it is a modular design. It's cam gearbox and power takeoff could be bolted to either end. IIRC, it could run clockwise or counterclockwise. It was envisioned and engineered to be as versatile as possible. And strong. The Mustangs that race at Reno use Allison conrods in their Merlins because they're stronger.
The Allison could indeed run in either direction, which was used to great effect in the P-38.
Saw a quote a long time ago about the Allison-powered Kittyhawks in British service in North Africa - "Quite a few German Messerschmitt pilots found out the hard way that the fighter-bomber Kittyhawks of the Desert Air Force were perfectly capable of defending themselves down at low level". This video explains why! Thank you very much!
Hans-Joachim Marseilles alone shot down 101 of these in North Africa.
@@johnedwards1685 That speaks more to the ability of a very experienced pilot often facing those just getting into combat for the first time.
@@edwardpate6128 Marseilles shot down five of these aircraft in six minutes. Three of the downed P40s were flown by aces.
@@johnedwards1685 hmm, I’ve always liked the P40, but thanks for the balance, some in this thread are getting a bit carried away. 👍🏻
@@johnedwards1685 the German fairy tales kzhead.info/sun/gdWPhNtljqeMmKs/bejne.html&ab_channel=TinusleRoux
Your graph at 18:12 with the 109F included is probably the key reason for the p40F. As I understand the fighting in the Mediterranean early on was particularly fierce. The attrition had yet to impact the Luftwaffe and they still had many aces in the ranks. The 109F's would frequently pounce from above and maintain an energy advantage hence the need for something to reach them. Thanks for the upload!
Thanks for mentioning Australian P40s. As I'm a Real Baby Boomer, the war was fresh in everyone's minds when I was small, and I think I knew about RAAF P40s even before I knew about Spitfires, though they were retired before I turned 2, so I don't recall seeing any. We were often behind the door when military aircraft were being given out, but managed to achieve quite a bit with the less spectacular but still effective aircraft like the Kittyhawk and the Beaufighter. Even the Boomerang, while not a great threat to enemy aircraft did at least frighten bombers off and prove effective in ground attack and pathfinder use -- and wasn't a bad achievement for an almost non-existent industry.
It's amazing what the Australians did with the Harvard, turning it into the Wirraway and Boomerang!
"The initial Packard modifications were done on this engine by changing the main bearings from a copper lead alloy to a silver lead combination and featured indium plating. This had been developed by General Motors' Pontiac Division to prevent corrosion which was possible with lubricating oils that were used at that time. The bearing coating also improved break-in and load carrying ability of the surface. British engineering staff assigned to Packard were astonished at the suggestion but after tear down inspections on rigidly tested engines were convinced the new design offered a decided improvement." Packard Merlin Aircraft Engine - Combat Air Museum page
Thanks Greg. Yeah, I believe the P-40 got a lot of it's bad mouthing from being used in Northern Europe where they flew at higher altitudes. Where they flew mostly at lower altitudes it was more highly regarded. One thing about New Guinea - was that while the Betty had a very high altitude - the Japanese didn't have a lot of choice about the altitude they were flying at if we were attacking their air fields. Here - as I tend to mention when talking about P-40's and F4F's - these two aircraft took on the cream of Japanese Naval Aviation and fought them to a stand still. Later aircraft were taking on enemies of a less denser experience base - because of all their veterans who died at the hands of someone in a P-40 or F4F. P-40's also saw extensive service North Africa - which is where the Flying Tigers got the idea for the Shark Nose the P-40 is such a natural for. .
I agree that F4Fs took the cream of the IJN in the early war, but I’m not so sure about the P-40. I think the P-40 (and P-39) held their own against the the Japanese so long as they strictly held to fights below 15K feet and didn’t turnfight, but it was standard practice for Japanese to come down on P-40s and ‘39s from above 18K feet. It wasn’t until the F4Us and P-38s (Guadalcanal) came on the scene that the tables really turned on the Japanese Air Force. P-38s and F4Us had the altitude and speed to dictate terms of engagements. Also, there are records of a number of engagements between P-38s and Japanese above 20K feet - it wasn’t the norm but it certainly happened more than a few times.
Gotta love that shark nose and teeth! Clair Chennualt must have thought "Screw the camouflage, let's intimidate the bastards!" That's psychology with balls, arouses the warrior spirit. Inadvisable for infantry though!
@@Jigaboo123456 IIRC ... the originators of he idea was a German Me-110 unit. Then a British Unit in the North African Desert did it - and the AVG got the idea from them. The P-40 lends itself really well to the Sharks Nose paint scheme. I don't know if it was Chennault's idea to use the motif or someone elses in the AVG. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nose_art#World_War_II .
@@BobSmith-dk8nw I stand corrected--possibly. I had thought that the AVG had flown the pre-war, " pre-war" for we Brits, that is. I had a brain-fart and forgot that the Yanks pre-war ended on Dec.7, '41, The Flying Tigers fought one hell of a fight. :-)
@@Jigaboo123456 No Sweat. .
As a little boy of ten I choose a P40 and a ME109 instead of a spitfire airfix kit because the P40 looked so right and indeed in a dive I think I was right. Had it been fitted with a two stage Merlin it would have been second to none in combat performance.
Dido to that👍
The P-40 was so iconic by the time I became old enough to know about the war (I was born in '41). I've been studying them since I retired in '03 and have several radio controlled models built from those enthused childhood memories.
P-40 was my introduction to WW2 aircraft as a kid, and I've loved it ever since. It just looks so good. Something about that nose, especially with the shark mouth. Love the overall shape of the P-40E best.
Dive ?? by far a worse Tactical Mach number
@@michaelshore2300 "Dive" might be a reference to some dive speed record the P-40 held during the period, not a necessary go-to tactic in combat.
The P40 saved Australia in the air battles over New Guinea and that was against the best Japanese planes and pilots. Quality American engineering emphasises reliability making it easier for the RAAF to ring the neck of the Allison.
Don't forget North Africa. Tough and reliable.
Don't forget the Beaufighter .
No71 wing RAAF initially equiped with :- 2 Sq P40's 1 Sq Lockheed Hudson 1 Sq Bristol Beauforts The wing mainstay soon became the Bristol Beaufort with 5 Squadrons. Just to get the facts straight.
@@paulchandler9646 Not possible to forget something you have never heard of just look where the comments originate from.
The plane that saved Darwin
Another scholarly work Greg. Another point with logistics is not just parts, but tools. The English used Whitworth standard, and I think they had one or two other British standards as well for fun. Anyone who has tried to use a 1/2" Whitworth spanner on a 1/2" SAE nut has failed miserably. It would have been easy to mix up different standard tools, and a pain to have to have both tool kits. Many things about old British engineering seem designed to confuse or bizarre even.
Oh that's a great point. I can't believe I forgot to bring it up, I was thinking about it too, but sometimes I just forget to put things in.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles ..I was thinking these were Packard-built Merlins though..did Packard continue to use British/Whitworth fasteners, or did they switch to SAE fasteners with American(Packard) production?...
@@dyer2cycle Packard used SAE.
Thanks Greg another great dive into the details! My dad was an engineer at Curtis during the war and was especially proud of the P-40 because of the in his words "the constant improvement process" he told me about a giant chalk board the was on the factory wall and how they charted the various parts and the improvements of that part during the entire build cycle of the P-40, he said "our boys deserve the best" and we are bound and determined to give them what they need. He was very proud of his war effort, even though very little ever gets mentioned of the thousands and thousands of "slide rule geeks of the day" he and other engineers/draftsman often slept under their drafting tables for a "few hours at a time" then back to work. He said "it was the most exciting and exhausting time to be and engineer" as they sometimes would make an improvement to a part and have it ready to be installed on the plane the next day!!!
So cool
The mighty P-40, helped give the Japanese there first taste of major land/air losses in New Guinea. It with all the other valiant AUS/USA forces and equipment halted the invasion of NG and then pushed the then enemy back, opening the way to the difficult but amazing Island hopping campaign of the US forces. It in no small way help save Port Moresby. The Japanese went from offence to defence at this place. Here in AUS the mighty "Kitty Hawk" is a revered aeroplane. There is at least one still flying. A serious thrill to see and hear at air shows.
There is a restored Merlin powered version being flown in OZ.
The P-40 also gave the Japanese their first taste of air losses against the US at Pearl Harbor.
Also NZ forces. Which included, among various aircraft types in the South West Pacific. - IE / Solomons / New Guinea area. RNZAF P40s. Anyway, 'apparently' they never existed! - And the Aussies think they are overlooked! - As indeed, at times they are! I guess in the end. You just have to speak up for yourself!!
My Dad worked at the Curtiss-Wright plant here in Buffalo before joining the military. He went to University of Buffalo nights for engineering, and days at the Curtiss plant. The P-40 was a big deal to him. He had more stories about pre war Curtiss than he did about his war exploits, kind of understandable, huh.
Thank you Greg .....after quite a few years, "greetings this is Greg " still gets my undivided attention. Hoping this is the start of a deep dive into the P40 a truly underlooked aircraft
In my mind i respond with a deep british accent with hello gregf
Just like hearing battleship guns firing to naval music, the hilariously named "5 Minute Guides" that can be up to 30 minutes long. Drachinifel and Greg, two of my favorite notifications.
The P40 was a good looking plane. Better than the Spitfire IMHO.
My recruiters grandfather was a Tuskegee P-40 pilot. He said he'd have to warm up the engine a little and "get it to wake up" before taking off. said his friend disregarded that and then proceeded to crash into the fence at the end of the airfield.
accumulation of lead deposits was a problem with the Allison.
The P-40 is my favorite war bird. I think that stems from seeing the movie "God is My Copilot" back in the 40s. I also think it's the most aesthetically pleasing to the eye of all the WWII aircraft. As to the Allison, I remember reading an article that cited reliability testing on the design consisted of running one to destruction, strengthening the failed part(s) and doing it all over until a very reliable engine was developed.
i love the post war insanity of the Allison the hp numbers for 30seconds or less is truly nuts the tractor pulling guys sure push things hard
Perfect. Turkey leftovers football and Gregs Airplanes! What a great day
I think the P-40 is a clear example of "judging a book only by it's ending" in aviation/military technology. It seems the P-40 was a quite worthwhile concept in itself, just didn't receive the development that it's closest competitor P-51 got, and was then judged as "not competitive in 1945 - must have been a worse concept". To change perspective: It's a bit as if the Germans had stopped development of the Bf109 past, say, early G-variants.
it's essentially the warhammer mech from the battle tech universe kzhead.info/sun/a72smb2GgXivhIk/bejne.html
The P-51 design team was much superior to the Curtiss team and took years to develop. Edgar Schmüd had been playing with his new fighter concept since Meredith published his paper on radiator cooling drag in 1935. Jacobs at NACA had been chasing low drag airfoils since 1929 and NAA Ed Horky, who extrapolated a wing from that, had studied aerodynamics/boundary layer at CalTech under Theodore von Kármán, Millikan and others on the leading edge (so to speak) of boundary layer science. It wasn't until early 1943 that the Mustang evolved into a superior fighter as the P-51B. By contrast, the Curtiss team took a P-36 and plopped an Allison out front with much indecision over cooling drag.
@@bobsakamanos4469 Well, put like that I'm sure you have a very good point, and especially the aerodynamic concept of the P-40 was propably outdated in comparison. It still very much reminds me of the Bf-109's position - a small, nimble, pre-war design facing obsolescence in around 1942. In the latter case, they stuck with it (due to manufacturing concerns, and Willy Messerschmidt quite masterfully using his influence within the RLM), even though other designs were arguable way more capable. Though the Luftwaffe was facing a different problem, and of course the long range bomber escort role that became it's main concern in Europe was where the P-51 made most sense.
@@decnet100 yes, interesting evolution of the 109 up to the K version. A tribute to the effectiveness of the original design, although Willie was of course involved in other advanced aircraft (Me262, 210, 410, 209, etc), not just the 109. Incredible despite the increasing shortages of strategic materials and bombings. By contrast, the P-40 was a cash cow without much development. Sadly, they started with the rad in the right place (belly mounted), but did not improve the ducting IAW the Merredith effect. However, I did like their effort on the XP-42 stabilator.
I think you might be surprised just how much development Curtis actually put into the P-40 airframe and successor single engine fighter designs.
I love the p-40. Maneuverable, tough, dove well etc. The circumstances it fought in in 42 are prob 90% of the 'bad' rep it has.
Thanks for this interesting discussion. I know that some earlier scholars have called the P-51-B, basically, a P-40 that "Dutch" Kindleberger pulled out of a hat, when he shifted from working for Curtiss to working for North American. [And, in association with that: both the P-51-B and the P-40 were notable, mostly, for their operations at lower altitudes.] Your commentary tends to show that, although the P-40 in all its variants proved to be a [DAMN!] useful aircraft type, everywhere from the deserts of Northern Africa to the aerial "winter war" over the Aleutian Islands, and especially in the hands of Aussie and Kiwi pilots in the South Pacific, it nevertheless, whether fitted with a Merlin or an Allison engine, was never a high-altitude competitor. So, if that sort of high-altitude performance is in fact the measure of an aircraft design, then: the P-40 never made it. But, that raises the question: if an aircraft type is so darn good, and reliable, in delivering its mission at lower altitudes, then doesn't it deserve some aviation "stardom" from that? And with that analysis, rather like the ground-attack versions of the Hawker Hurricane that were used so successfully in North Africa (as well as doing most of the heavy lifting in the Battle of Britain while the Spitfires were doing their celebrity performances at higher altitudes), the various variants of the Curtiss P-40 did a damn good job, at the altitudes at which they were effective. [And, good air leaders learned to train pilots to operate them in those effective altitudes, and not those in which they performed less well. Perhaps the classic example of leaders training pilots how to use the P-40 to do what it did well (and not try to do what it didn't do well) remaining General Claire Chennault, leader of the American Volunteer Group (better known as "the Flying Tigers," over China, when there was little defending China against Japanese aggression in the air.] Anyway, let's hear it for the P-40, in all its many manifestations, and what it accomplished for deterring Axis aggression, before all the famous, wonderful, and revered later aircraft types appeared on the scene and overshadowed the good old P-40. [Similarly, I'll note, to the tough, rugged Grumman F-4-F Wildcat, which did an honest job of confronting Japanese aggression in the Pacific Theater before more modern aircraft types were introduced to totally outclass most of what Japan could produce during the Second World War in the Pacific.]
Well stated! I am glad that in recent years both the P-40 and the Wildcat have been getting the serious reevaluation of their effectiveness that they deserve.
Both engines were only as altitude capable as their supercharging systems allowed, that was the limiting factor not the aircraft
My Uncle, awaiting his B-26's (sunk in transit), ended up flying the P-40F (and Spitfire, and 'Baltimore' bomber) out of Morocco in the '42 campaign. He wasn't a 'Fighter Pilot' at all. But, got one kill in the P-40F, Another in a Spitfire, and two more in his B-26.
Wow, that's quite impressive. Those are three seriously important aircraft.
At the time of the merger, Wright mainly built engines while Curtis built both. The key is that Curtis built liquid-cooled V-12s while Wright built air-cooled radials. So the air-cooled radials called are called Wrights. I work as a software engineer in Avionics. Last month I was reviewing spec sheets for some SBCs made by Curtis Wright which I admit is very cool. I do agree that the P-40 is kind of underrated much like the Hurricane. Now here is one thing I have wondered about for a while is since the P-40 was based on the P-36 why didn't Curtis Wright build a version of the P-40 with the R-2600? Could have been a very good ground attack machine.
As always, a very interesting video. I have to confess I wasn’t aware that there were Merlin powered P-40s. Regarding your comment about your “math-y” videos not doing as well as others, I understand but also want to put in a plug for them. I was never fond of math as a student, but to understand the details you have to confront the math, and I appreciate you taking the effort to do that.
Agree. More math-y videos, please.
Agree. The mathy videos are the ones with the most interesting learning.
Agree, the Maths are like the proper tools (for truly understanding) a technical aspect. Please include as much as necessary!!!
I get the distinct impression that Greg could probably offload some video and graphic stills pre-production onto his willing fanbase precisely to give the math-heavy videos more appeal to viewers who don't much care for slide rules and graphic calculators.
Agreed! I have no problem with math as long as I'm not responsible for the calculations!😅
Claire Chennault and his Flying Tigers showed what the P-40 could do; he showed his pilots how to take advantage of its capabilities and minimize its limitations.
And TACTICS. Chennault trained his pilots to NEVER get into a dogfight. That was the Japanese aircraft's advantage. Gain altitude, high speed pass through, and if you didn't knock the aircraft down... peel out and gain altitude for another high speed pass. THAT was the P-40's advantage. He also made the lead - wingman formation the bible of air combat. The morons in charge of the Army Air Force and the Navy ignored his advise for way too long, wasting many many fighter pilots and aircraft. Once his tactics were incorporated as standard practice... the F4F had MUCH better results as well. And, even the P-38 was limited to high speed pass through. It make common sense... which is why it took so long for the brass to finally "get" it.
The final requiem for the P-40 in the Ballantine Books Weapons Series of WWII was given by an old RAAF Flight Lieutenant who used to clean brand new USAAC P-51 pilots' clocks in mock dogfights wit it: "The Curtiss P-40 puts me in mind of an old beat up Tom Cat. Ugly. Not Glamorous. But tough as nails and always dangerous."
An experienced pilot flying an inferior plane would always clean the clock of brand new pilot flying a superior plane...
My Dad was the Chief Engineering Officer for a squadron of P-39's in Panama. The Allison was fine at low altitude as Greg discusses. Interesting, their Colonel Group leader had commandeered a P-40 for his own non-combat use. It was polished and lightened and easier flew rings around his men in their P-39's. Later, Dad's squadron was sent to Burma with P-51's. He said there was simply no comparison to the P-39's or the P-40.
The P-39 had severe handling problems and was not a good weapons platform during manouvers.
All your videos are first rate. Very informative and easy to watch. Thank you!!!! I’m an RC Aviator and finishing my F6F Hellcat for next season. I like watching videos of the planes I’m working on. Helps me learn about them in a real world environment. Not just the Model Aviation end. EXTRAORDINARY MACHINES!!!! And the HEROES that flew and maintained them.
I have never watched a Greg’s Airplanes video that I didn’t finish. When he throws those charts up I end up pausing and staring at them for minutes and replaying that section. Thank you for your research and detail. The best WWII engineering channel I have found for several years.
I love your analytical approach to comparing the various engine versions and 'field adaptations' etc. As a Brit I have a soft spot for the RR Merlin, but I also appreciate the Allison engine and the P40 for all it's pluses and minuses, it's very overlooked/underrated when compared with the P47 and P51 etc. Very much like the beautiful 'Spitfire compared with the more conventional 'Hurricane, I recall an RAF fighter ace asked about his favourite aircraft, he said, "to fly in a Spitfire, but fight in a Hurricane".
Good to hear the ‘shout out’ to the RAAF and the Australian’s usage of the P40 throughout WW2. The RAAF certainly maximised the P40s war fighting potential in North Africa and in classic - and vital to the Allies - early 1942 battles in Papua New Guinea - Milne Bay and Port Moresby and in the air defence of Darwin. RAAF ace Clive ‘Killer’ Caldwell was the highest scoring P40 ace of any airforce in WW2, with over 20 confirmed kills.
The Australians RAAF and Army were a HUGE contribution to winning the war in the Pacific theater during world war 2.🇺🇸👍
Another fantastic video Greg. Well explained and illustrated as expected. Thanks for also for mentioning us Aussies as well. We did our bit for victory too! We have both Alison powered Kittyhawks and a P40F flying in Australia. Cheers
The building I currently work in is the old Curtis assembly plant in Buffalo NY, now converted into office and warehouse space
A really good presentation as always. In Europe the RAF found that most air combat with the Luftwaffe was at higher altitudes, 20,000 to 25,000 feet. Were unfortunately the P-40 was considerably slower than the Me109E/F models. It was the same story with the early P-51s, which were very fast at low level but lost its edge at higher altitudes.
Excellent presentation of the P-40!
Always loved the P-40. My dad flew a Mustang once in IA back in the 60's. I read there are various supply ships that were sunk with new P40's in crates, 1 near a Japanese port not extremly deep. I learned to scuba-dive in Hawaii working on F-4J's (VMFA-232) and have always had a notion of trying to find one and recover it. If I ever win megabucks I may try, would take up to Greenville ME airport my family started and rebuild/hangar it :)
My grandfather’s squadron was equipped with Merlin-powered P-40Fs when it deployed to North Africa in late 1942. Great airplane. They used them quiet effectively to drive Rommel back into Tunisia, in the Palm Sunday Massacre, and in supporting the Allied drive up the Italian peninsula.
The USAAF kept those P-40Fs that were actually ordered by the Brits. The US knew that the F was better than the K, which they gave the RAF at that time. My old man flew there in RAF at the same time - El Alamein.
This has turned out to be one of my favorite of Greg's videos. Great job!
Great information on the P-40 that I did not know. Your video broke many of the old stereotypes about the P-40 which have been circulating around for many decades. Great job and I'm looking forward to the next installment in this P-40 series.
Some of that bad reputation was traced back to Curtiss-Wright management of the era and the government came down on them with several hearings about their business policies during the war. It led to them slowly evaporating as a substantial military supplier after the war. The P-40 rep took the flak.
Don't ever stop Greg. This channel is suuuuuuch a treat!
As always, great stuff! That answered my questions about the 2 different engines in the P-40! Many thanks
As a former C-W employee (not during WWII) I want to point out an exception to the C-W practice of labeling aircraft as "Curtiss" only. The Columbus, Ohio plant had its own design dept. and aircraft designed and manufactured there could be named as "Curtiss-Wright" aircraft, hence the "Curtiss-Wright CW-21 Interceptor" and the two-seater CW-22 using the same basic design. I can't say why this is so. The plant also played a primary role in the development and production of the Curtiss SB2C Helldiver, so go figure as they say. As to the use of "Curtiss" for aircraft, the name was well-known for seaplanes during WWI, as well as many other earlier Glenn Curtiss aircraft designs. He was famous for both engines and early airframes.
Out of curiosity, what did they make at the Buffalo NY plant? I'm from the area and have always wondered about that.
@@30AndHatingIt P-40s and C-46s for the most part. KZhead won't allow me to suggest online research sites but the info is readily available.
@@Redhand1949 Didn't Curtiss also do some building of other companies designs under license? Between Curtiss and Bell the Buffalo area had a pretty large aviation industry. Although winters down southern California beats the heck out of Buffalo.
Very interesting, especially the performance of the P-40N in 1943 was surprising for me, thank you!
In the late60's early 70's, I was a student at Estancia High school in Costa Mesa California. We did not have a 'Auto Shop' but we had a class called Power Mechanics. Electric motors,steam gasoline. diesel etc. We had a 4cyl opposed 2 cycle drone engine[ with prop] and an Allison V 12 mounted on a cart! We would start it 4-5 times a year, and the whole school would come out to see and hear it run!
Usually unmentioned is the saying "Any airplane is better than no airplane" Not all theaters needed the performance and range of the P-51. Or even the P-47. It was late 1943 before the P-40 was withdrawn from 12th Air Force Groups in the Med. The P-40 was the perfect airplane to operate halfway around the world, with a logistics tail just as long.
Thanks, Greg. Another great well researched video. I honestly think yours is the most criminally under-subbed channel on KZhead. I'm not sure what it is, but the way you present the material just cliques with the way I like to digest information. Thanks, again.
Thanks Russ.
My father used the Alison engine in his 1936 Chevrolet. He said it was more than enough. It was a problem keeping rear axles in one pice though. I forgot to mention, my favorite WW2 fighter has always been the P40 .
Heard of a feller many many years ago-- had a Merlin on a stand in his back yard- started it running-- it jumped out of the bench-- rolled across the yard onto a house stump-- ripped it out !
Greg it's said the Packard built Merlin is superior to the original. The Merlin powered the Democracies too victory. My Gramps flew a DH-98 Mosquito which had two Merlins. They were made in my hometown London Ontario. Gramps flew right out onto Lake Erie. He told me it was a killer with superchargers. 4 x .303's and 4 x 20 mm cannons. He said it would do 400 mph. My Gramps was a real hero. Sunk a U-Boat 520 I believe. He was in a B-18 out of Gander. He came home a FLT. Joined the fire department when he came home in 46 . Became Chief . What a man! Love my Gramps and all those who did their duty. Thanks
My great uncle Jim , worked on the P 40 at the factory in buffalo NY ! I remember the stories from him when I was young ! In the 1960s the factory was still there next to the buffalo airport
Lovely plane. Thank you for the additional information. One of the first models I built as a kid.
such a cool looking plane...iconic
Very interesting video regarding the P-40 with the Allison V-1710 engines and the Packard/Merlin. First of all the P-40 was an excellent fighter and was very tough that could stand a lot of punishment! I knew that the Allison V-1710 had better performance and more powerful than the Packard/Merlin at lower altitude whilst the Packard/Merlin had better performance at high altitude but I didn't know that the choice of engines was due to the logistics in the respective countries: the Allison V-1710 was preferred by the Americans and the Packard/Merlin by the British and the Commonwealth forces. It makes sense because the US knew well about their engines and the British and Commonwealth had better knowledge of the Packard/Merlin, that said, I read a book that said that the Allison V-1710 was easier to work on and to maintain then the Packard/Merlin. Good job again and looking forward to see your new videos 👍👍👍
The altitude power characteristics depended on what the supercharger was set for. There were low, medium and high blown engines. Spitfires, say a MkIX came in HF (high altitude) FR (medium high) and LF (low altitude) versions, the latter normally with clipped wings to improve roll rate. The Merlin 70 series was very high blown for high altitude reconnaissance.
@@SvenTviking yes, it was the the supercharger was setting for that made the difference. If my memory serves me correct the late versions of the Rolls-Royce Merlin had a barometrically controlled supercharger, similar to the German DB 605 series. The German supercharger had a barometrically controlled that was hydraulically actuated. It was very convenient as the pilot had only to control the throttle as all the rest was automatic....
The British pilots and mechanics in North Africa were disappointed at first to receive P-40's to use then had a fast change of mind after using them for a while. They did a lot of low level strafing and discovered that the Allison wasn't bothered by multiple hits of rifle fire compared to the Merlin's which could be disabled by a single bullet. Their mechanics were pleased to find that the Allison used 50% fewer parts than the Merlin plus their replacement parts were identical to what they took off so no time consuming hand fitting was required.
@@SvenTviking The Allisons the P-40s were equipped with only had superchargers. It maxed out at about 20,000 feet. The same said engines equipped with turbo-superchargers, powering P-38 Lightnings enabled them to operate efficiently as high as 38,000 feet.
@@billwilson3609 sorry if I'm replying only now but but I find it interesting that you gave about the Allison V-1710 and the Rolls-Royce Merlin particularly that the Merlin could be disabled by rifle shots and that the Allison had 50% fewer parts. No wonder that the Allison was easier to maintain and repair. Thanks for the heads up 👍👍
excellent video, didn't know that P-40 was so competitive and worthy thank you very much :)
Thanks Greg! Very detailed treatment of interesting question.
Fantastic video, and thank you so much for this content. The P-40 and the Allison were much more capable than their bar room reputations. It is no wonder that they were produced in such large numbers.
P40 was and still is my favorite war bird. This was an excellent vid.
Very well described. I spent a LOT of time in the military and with F-18s, EA6Bs and A-6s. But I have a fascination for the aviation of WWII. So my thanks For giving a great review of the P-40.
Thanks, Greg - you hit another one out of the park !
Thank you for the video. I have always thought the p40 and p39 were underrated as ww2 fighters. I wonder how they would have been viewed now if they had the turbo Allison from the p38 as originally planned.
Splendid stuff Greg, and it's given me a new respect for Curtis planes. Thanks!
so much detail presented so well and clearly - thanks Greg - 🛸
Thanks for all the work you did.
Thanks Greg, I've always wondered what the differences were besides the supercharging, and the fuel efficiency. I seen a video recently about the Messerspit. I wonder if you would conciser doing a video on that plane. I thought it was and interesting concept, and a small piece of history vary few are aware of.
That Australian p-40 with the clipped wings carrying what looked like 2 500lbers and a 1000lber, you should do a video on it and the other Australian modifications.
Fascinating and very interesting account of the various P40 versions.
Just came across your channel. Very nicely presented. Thank you
p-40 is underrated. I would be happy to fly one any day of the week.
From what the Aussies and New Zealanders have done with them and reported, they are and were decent, even fun airplanes to fly. Only stall/spin precautions must be adhered to, especially the short tailed versions prior to the N. Rudder blanking by the horizontal stab was their achilles weakness, just don't go there.
For those that always seem to be confusing the Packard PT Boat engine with their version of the Merlin this is a great video on the PT engine.
Thank you for your work and wonderful contributions to the knowledge base.
As a patron I'd like to say that the more math and gritty detail heavy videos are part of why I pay for your content, expecting it to be harder to monetise by advertising.
When I said that I meant they don't do well with Patreons. Maybe I'm misjudging, but when a video is released to Patreons only, during the exclusive period I watch the views vs. likes ratio. In any case don't worry, the next video is quite mathy.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Yeah I'm sure there's a diversity among us as well as the general audience but that's part of my own motivation anyway. I also don't always get around to watching the videos during the patreon period. I've trained the algo-feed front page of youtube so well by now that I often don't think to watch things until they show up there.
That makes sense. I promise some math in the next video, which is coming soon.
The RAF pilots and mechanics were happy with their early P-40's. The pilots found those could take a lot of punishment and didn't come apart when doing belly landings. The mechanics liked the Allison engines since those used 50% fewer parts than a Merlin plus their replacement parts fitted perfectly straight out of the box. They found the same when placing anything on the P-40. The Spitfires and Merlins used components that were hand fitted so took much longer to repair. The RAF mechanics also noticed that the Allison could withstand multiple hits by ground fire without being affected like the Merlin, that could by a single rifle bullet. Rolls-Royce was painfully slow producing Merlin engines so the British Government ordered them to get help making more faster. RR first asked Ford since they had factories in England. Henry turned them down since he was trying to sell his own aero V-12 to the USAAF. He sent the prints to Packard who told RR they'd need to redesign the motor to US manufacturing standards for mass production. Ford ended up producing Packard Merlins in England. I suspect sll of the the Packard Merlins used SAE fasteners to simplfy production.
P-40 pilots from the RAF were happy to have switched from Hurricanes in the Middle East, despite some of the performance limitations of the D,E,K models, but at least they rolled and dived well. Americans were more fortunate in the MTO, as most were flying the F model in N. Africa.
It’s been too long Greg! Thank you
It sure has. Real life put a big dent in my video production. The good news is I have a 50/50 chance of getting another video up by Monday.
Thank you, Greg!
Thank you for answering the questions I’ve had all my life
One of my favorite aircraft. I was visiting a friend at Lycon on Pontiac Airport, Pontiac, Michigan, years ago. His shop was a top rated engine rebuilding facility. WWII warbirds like Mustangs, Avengers, and Texans passed through routinely. I was thrilled to find a Warhawk and questioned what was being done; he was converting the engine mounts to accept the engine out of a Lightning. He told me: "It's not classic, but it'll be the fastest P-40 ever flown".
To give an answer as to why the Curtis-Wright airplanes were referred to as Curtis and the engines were referred to as Wright was due to the series of mergers of the Wright Company after Orville divested himself of the company. The Wright Company was bought from Orville by Glenn Martin in 1916 to form the Wright-Martin company. One of the things that Glenn Martin did differently from the Wrights was that invested more money into engine development. All credit due to the Wrights, their engines were never that sophisticated or powerful, just powerful enough to get the job done. This is where the company started go gain a reputation as an engine manufacturer. The Wright-Martin company was re-named Wright Aeronautical in 1919 after Glenn Martin also divested himself from the company. He would go on to form a second Martin aircraft company that would ultimately merge with Lockheed. After Martin left, the engine division continued to perform better than the airplane division and ended up primarily focusing on engines. When the Curtis Airplane Company bought Wright Aeronautical in 1929 it was pretty much solely an engine manufacturer, which is why Curtis was interested in the acquisition. Curtis-Wright kept the two name brands for its separate divisions, airframes and powerplants respectively, as both had their own brand equity and Curtis didn't want to mess with that.
The two distinct brands allowed the continued selling of Wright engines to other aircraft makers (Grumman, Boeing, consolidated) and for Curtis to use Allison and RR engines.
Glen Curtis was a great American. Absolute Mad Lad as well what with flying box kites with engines and a bicycle with a V-8 aircraft engine strapped inside the frame... The good old days.
Very often the 'N' was rebuilt to 'E' standards: wheel spindles, different instruments, reinforced frame elements... The scunning done of the 'N' made for a more fragile airframe, for an insignificant performance bump.
Yes, the specs promulgated for the N were always, the lightweight, undergunned version, which was rarely used in combat.
Superb research and presentation as always Greg. So informative!
and nice point about the RAAF...worlds 5th (?) biggest airforce by 1945 after starting off with 50 hawker biplane fighters in 1938
Great job , thank you so much for this kind of videos ,its preety hard to find something so interesting and so accurate and informing at the same time , I'm talking bout aviation of course, Just keep doing this , and once more, big Thank you
Thansk for the video, Greg! I just checked out an overview of the P40 vs. A6M by PeninnsulaSrsVideos, from pilots who fly surviving examples, and it gave me a new appreciation for the Warhawk. Hearing it could attain those eye-watering horsepower ratings definitely builds on that foundation. It seems odd that the P40 gets so little love, while the exploits of the AVG, who flew it, are legend.
And when it comes to "looks" the P40 had it from the start.... One of the best looking fighters hands down.
The 57th Fighter Group had both P-40E/KS, and Fs. Evidently, all of the "F"s were in one squadron. During the "Palm Sunday Massacre", the F models took on the fighter escort, while the E/KS went after the transports.
Greg this has been delightful........so informative and a pleasure to watch
Great vid, as usual. I love it when you correct the record. Thanks to your outstanding series on it (and to Reflected Simulations' amazing campaign), I fell in love with the P-47 in DCS. I do recommend it, if only for the joy of a big rugged radial. Between P51, Spit and Mosquito, one can wish for just any other engine than the Merlin. :))))
Great! Thanks Greg. I don't mind the math; good reason to get the old rusty cogs and gears turning.
I was lucky enough to see the P40 (I think there is only one flying in the UK) at a small ex WW2 airfield, Wellesbourne, Warwickshire, a couple of years ago. There is a small café, The Touchdown Cafe, on the airfield open to the public. It has an outside seating area where you have an excellent view of the light airplanes. I was sitting there having a coffee, looking at the P40, only 20m away, when a guy in a leather jacket, who was two tables away, gets up and goes through the gate to the P40, puts on his leather helmet, climbs in, starts up the engine and warms up, giving plenty of time for photos. He gives a wave and taxies out and takes off. You don't get chances to see that sort of thing so close that often! Brilliant! While I'm here, I'll give a plug to the Touchdown cafe. Well worth a visit. Look it up. The airfield itself is in danger of being developed into a housing estate which would be a damn shame. I only pop over every once in a while, but it is always fun.
I remember reading that the engines that were used for the Flying Tigers were factory rejects, that Chennault had a team of engineers rework to functional condition. These ‘Blueprinted Engines’ were hand fitted and machined to work properly, and while this was very labor and man-hour intensive, it resulted in engines with a much tighter tolerances and as a result, were rated for much higher power output
The Allison V12 became a favorite of tractor pullers in the 70's and 80's and were cranked up as much ad 2,500 HP, with turbos and fuel injection while running on alcohol. They proved to be quite reliable but these are short duration events rather than prolonged cruises and dogfights.
+ Jonathan Stancil Running those engines in boats and tractors has ruined hundreds of them. The RPM and temp swings warp them all to hell. Some want the boats to go back to piston, but the operators need to come up with another engine solution.
Years ago a favorite bar was torn down for new apartment buildings. Rumors told of an Allison engine discovered in the basement. Name of bar was The Red Baron in New Jersey...
Caught this last night and like everything you produce it was fantastic! I don't know anywhere else one can go to to get an in depth discussion on subjects such as Wildcat superchargers, the plumbing of P-47s and the effects of octane on German fighters. Only here and thanks. The P-40 has always fascinated me and, since I was a kid, I have wondered how the Merlin engine stacked up against the Allison in the P-40 airframe. Obviously, the Merlin wasn't a magic bullet as the P-51 story would have us believe. On the subject of the P-40, I would like to hear a discussion on its predecessor, the P-36, and how that plane might have faired against the Zero had we pursued a more simpler modification of the airframe with a more powerful radial engine and not the Allison as in some ways the Hawk was a better plane and one that might have held its own against the Zero if the pilots made the Japanese pilots fight their fight like the latter often did with the P-40. Thanks again for your great videos. They do an airplane junky's soul good.
I'm glad someone mentioned the P-36. The P-40 was basically a P-36 with a V-12 instead of a radial.
Thank Greg! I’ve always been curious about this one.
Excellent research as always
Dear Greg, we have corresponded some before. Anyway I want to tell a thing about my late friend Hans Pancherz, a German "Versuchflieger" at Junkers. He worked for my father many, many years in Sweden after the war. Hans Pancherz was assigned to test fly an emergency landed P-51. Hans Pancherz did not think much of the performance of the P-51 and wrote that in his report. Greg, I guess you know where I'm going. The P-51 Hans Pancherz flew had an Allison engine, the rest is history as the say. As always, best Greetings from Sweden.
love the content on one of the "less glamorous" fighters of WW2. Would also love to hear more on the P-39, especially in Soviet use. The "less armour" comment on the P-40N sounds like a scary refinement for a pilot. the comments about running 70 inch pressure reducing engine life, my response would be that it probably prolonged pilot lives. It takes much less time to build an engine than to grow and train a pilot.
A song quoted from Martin Caidin's novel, "The Last Dogfight": 'Oh, don't give me a Peter Four O, It's a hell of an airplane, you know, She'll gasp and she'll wheeze, And make straight for the trees, Don't give me a Peter Four O'.
My father flew with Shunolt with the hells angels squadron. Love the old stories.
Would be interesting to know if there is any flight performance data on the XP40Q. Its arguable a different plane as an intended superprop but still interesting aspect of the end of p40 development
I had always thought of the P40 as having been obsolescent even by the war's start. This video was a real eye-opener, thanks. And, somewhat relatedly, it seems that the Spitfire's overall appeal, and assumptions by so many that it was far in advance of the P40 in concept, design, and performance, was/is due to its unmatched aesthetics: "Pretty and precious-looking as a cavalier's jewelled rapier." --Sorry, I'm too lazy right now to look up and attribute that quote. Others no doubt will do so.
That spitfire wing , thoughts to been taken from heinkel design never put in production.,it's on utube
@@lawrencefox563 I've heard both--that it was based on a Heinkel design, and that it was not.
The more I read about fighters of the early years, the more clear it becomes that the most important single factor in the success or failure of any fighter was the familiarity of its pilots with the machine's strengths and shortcomings, and with the tactics and capabilities of their adversaries. A quote from a P-40N pilot in South China, Captain John Herbst: “Our boys had been flying on the deck for so long-strafing and dodging hills in bad weather-that nobody thought twice about racking around in vertical banks ten feet off the deck. It was just our ‘meat’.”
+ Flecto Varathane I think post-war comparison testing of captured examples of the late-war 3rd generation fighters had the same conclusions. The advantage depended on the skill of the pilot knowing his aircraft and the opponent's aircraft.
Very well done and informative. Thank you