Curtiss P-40, Part 2 | Why This "Mediocre" WW2 Fighter Was So Important

Today we're continuing our look at the long history of the Curtiss P-40. Last time we looked at the earlier models, and now we shall look at the later and more numerous variants of the P-40. We will also briefly cover its service history, and discuss why this "mediocre" aircraft became so important in the Pacific theatre of WW2.
Want to join the community? Visit our Discord - / discord
Want to support the channel? I have a Patreon here - / rexshangar
Sources:
Molesworth.C (2011), P-40 Warhawk vs Bf109 - geni.us/ufrR
Molesworth.C (2013), Curtiss P-40 Snub-nosed Kittyhawks and Warhawks - geni.us/pFPgtk
Molesworth.C (2013), Curtiss P-40 Long-nosed Tomahawks - geni.us/in6K0
Bowers.P.M (1979), Curtiss Aircraft 1907 - 1947 - geni.us/Mz5qA3
McDowell.E.R (1984), Curtiss P-40 In Action - geni.us/e8OPvyq
Ehrman.V (1998), Curtiss P-40.
app.aircorpslibrary.com/nav/a...
p40hawksnest.com/
www.awm.gov.au/
0:00 Improving the P-40?
2:22 Engine Limitations
6:00 Summary: Hawk 87 & P-40D
9:27 Summary: P-40E
10:10 Summary: P-40F
12:35 Summary: P-40L
13:28 Summary: P-40K
15:46 Summary: P-40M & P-40N
19:02 P-40 Service History: The Soviet Union
26:55 P-40 Service History: Africa & Mediterranean
33:59 P-40 Service History: The Pacific
46:11 The P-40s Legacy
48:52 Did The P-40 "ruin" Curtiss-Wright?

[@RexsHangar]

F.A.Q Section Q: Do you take aircraft requests? A: I have a list of aircraft I plan to cover, but feel free to add to it with suggestions:) Q: Why do you use imperial measurements for some videos, and metric for others? A: I do this based on country of manufacture. Imperial measurements for Britain and the U.S, metric for the rest of the world, but I include text in my videos that convert it for both. Q: Will you include video footage in your videos, or just photos? A: Video footage is very expensive to licence, if I can find footage in the public domain I will try to use it, but a lot of it is hoarded by licencing studies (British Pathe, Periscope films etc). In the future I may be able to afford clips :) Q: Why do you sometimes feature images/screenshots from flight simulators? A: Sometimes there are not a lot of photos available for certain aircraft, so I substitute this with digital images that are as accurate as possible. Feel free to leave you questions below - I may not be able to answer all of them, but I will keep my eyes open :)

[@PabloSanchez-qu6ib]

Service ceiling, not cervice.

[@akumaking1]

Can you review the history of nose art?

[@fallen_saint6939]

I am particularly interested in naval aviation; I have read footnotes about night-fighters on carriers, like the F6F-3/5N or the F4U-2. Will you cover naval night-fighters (like in overall videos on aircraft like the Hellcat or Corsair) or have good sources (books, articles) on naval night-fighting in WWII?

[@icewaterslim7260]

Kawasaki Ki100

[@josephglatz25]

Could you do a video on the MacRobertson air race, or if that's too much to cover in one or two videos, could you do a video on the de Havilland DH88?

[@mistformsquirrel]

'doesn't like high altitudes, has stability problems, a bit fat' - now I see why I relate to the P-40...

[@James-kk8dw]

Hilarious

[@sidewind131258]

As Meat Loaf would have sung "Two out of three ain't bad" I'm a scaffolder, the idiot running around 30-60' up in the air putting the scaffold together 😁😁

[@rubenomarbueno1134]

El avion de tribilin cuando era pobre .

[@danielmcgrane1615]

Could take a Beating!!!

[@dannycalley7777]

MFS .............but you worked hard , and provided for the good of others !!!!!!

[@menotyou7762]

The P40 was the workhorse, never got any attention but it just plugged away and killed many more than it lost. One of the greatest aircraft made

[@russell4718]

Kind of like the B-24 doesn't get the recognition and respect it deserves one heck of a plane

[@dbwindhorst1]

I don't know how you could get much more glamorized than having John Wayne play Claire Chennault.

[@ridleymain9234]

@@russell4718 agreed, and the B-24 was much more multipurpose than the B-17. Let’s also throw the b-26 in the underrated category.

[@russell4718]

@@ridleymain9234 Martin aircraft made one hell of a plane with the B-26 a true hotrod of the air not a plane for the faint hearted b

[@philvanderlaan5942]

@@russell4718 the liberator had better range , better speed and better bomb load compared to the fortress but could fall out of the sky if you looked at it funny whereas the P-40 is a folk hero.

[@MrEd2291]

The wildcat, P-40, and Sherman tank may not have been the best, but when needed in quantity it was all we had. They were good enough to get us through when we desperately needed them..

[@cattledog901]

There is a good argument to be made the Sherman was the best medium tank of the war. Specifically the M4A3 76 HVSS.

[@patrickgriffitt6551]

It's not so much the equipment,it's the men using it.

[@thegermanfool8953]

Just like a living situation before you get your stuff together. Not the best conditions or most favorable, but it got you through those rough days before better days came with improvement.

[@Grebogoborp]

@@cattledog901 all variants of the Sherman were quite good but if we are deciding the best I would go off of the best for its time as the M4A3 76w HVSS large hatch with the one piece transmission casing came in really really late and was competing against the Pershing (admittedly the Pershing in its initial deployment had a significant number of issues but the vehicle was a significant improvement in firepower, range, and protection) and for its time the early M4 variants were the best in the world (all M4 variants were produced effectively simultaneously with the M4A2 actually being the first variant to enter production baring that except for the A1 with its cast hull the only thing the A2/A3 etc designated was the engine it was using) as at the time of introduction it had a very potent gun in comparison to anything else in the world. Incredibly thick armor for a medium tank and excellent mobility and reliability. In 1942 the M4 was an incredibly potent vehicle especially for its primary use and in fact the primary use of all tanks that being infantry support. The later variants with 76.2mm guns were an improvement against tanks but the HE shells the 76 fired were less potent (higher velocity and more spin forcing the projectile to have thicker casing therefor reducing its capacity) I think in 1942 there was nothing in the world better than a Sherman but by 1945 even with all its improvements there were some things there were at least as good if not better

[@mbuchart2927]

Great analogy. All three examples were easy to build and maintain in large numbers, and were tough and reliable. (I would include the Hurricane in that list.)

[@BeachcomberNZ]

My great uncle flew P-40's in North Africa (260 Squadron RAF), but disappeared on a mission in 1942 and was never seen again. He was, however, awarded the DFM, (Distinguished Flying Medal) posthumously, for his previous actions in battles, some of which they were outnumbered in by four to one.

[@ShamanActual]

I heard they found his aircraft, was your grandfather Dennis copping?

[@ShamanActual]

Edit: sorry, saw your comment on the related video. Same squadron, I hope they find his too one day.

[@Docthewrench]

What was your great uncles name????

[@bobsakamanos4469]

When did he disappear? Before El Alamein? Battle of Tobruk or Marsa Matruh?

[@steveball2307]

The P40 was a good example of success in warfare being a combination of what you've got and what you do with it - look at the Finns and the much derided Brewster Buffalo

[@thebighurt2495]

Training and Doctrine are much bigger factors for success than people give credit for

[@randywise5241]

The Flying Tigers would not look the same without them.

[@tbjtbj7930]

True. It certainly looked the part.

[@dongeorge4037]

And it took only 4 P-40E's one day to completely stop Japan's 56th division at the Swaleen Gorge.

[@bobsakamanos4469]

The Flying Tigers had higher performing hand built engines than the normal mass production variants, which served them well.

[@Farweasel]

@@bobsakamanos4469 They probably REALLY DIDN'T - They were begging for latest varients, promised them by Roosevelt too - But they were off-loaded in Oz for the RAAF because of the fear Japan could go into Oz. What they DID do was work out the only good way to outmatch the far more nibble Zeros & Oscars was a 'Zoom Bounce' They TOLD the USAAF in good time too The USAAF ignored them & tried to dogfight. They were mauled.

[@corsairsofnarshaddaa]

"The P-40 was a high speed, low altitude sledgehammer of a plane." -Best description ever. I have for many years been smitten by this plane. Thanks for the in-depth review, as well as the defense of her honor.

[@bobsakamanos4469]

Not really high speed, but good roll rate and good fighter bomber.

[@SoloRenegade]

P-40N could reach 410mph at 2200HP in 1944. P-40 was not that bad of an airplane. the XP-40 flight test data was tested at only 1000HP. And yet she was still 10mph faster than aP-47B at 5k ft. And in 1942 the US and UK pilots were already pushing their engines to 1800HP in combat, at 72-75" MAP. Allison then tested their engines at 70" MAP upon hearing this from both US and UK officer's reports. And Allison ran the engine at 70" for 20min and 1800HP for 20min without issue. Inspection of the engine showed no abnormal wear. If flown to her strengths, a P-40 could defeat any Japanese fighter (and did), and could defeat a P-47 or Me109. The P-40 was the RAF's 3rd most successful fighter of WW2, behind the Spitfire and Hurricane for total number of kills scored in RAF service. And this while the RAF bad mouthed the airplane and claimed it was crap. Yet they shout down thousands of airplanes with them anyways.

[@bobsakamanos4469]

@@SoloRenegade 2200 HP? not reliably from any Allison. The high MP used by the Aussies also blew the engines, caused engine fires. The pilots requested that boost because they needed more performance out of the high drag, heavy P-40's to save their lives. A reasonable exchange - lives trumps engines.

[@SoloRenegade]

@@bobsakamanos4469 cite your sources, as I know of no such cases nor reports. AVG and USAAF had no issue killing zeroes in China, New Guinea, Alaska, etc. The RAF and US also slayed Germans in North Africa. P-40 was the 3rd most successful RAF fighter plane of all of WW2. I guess the Aussies were incompetent pilots according to you.

[@bobsakamanos4469]

@@SoloRenegade you're not listening, and putting lies in my statement reveals the true you. The drag of the P-40 design rendered it heavy and slow with lack of climb and acceleration, so starting in North Africa they began to overboost the engines to give the pilots a fighting chance, but it also caused engine fires and blown rods. They continued the practice when returning down under. You don't seem to understand that the USAAF commandeered the better P-40F deliveries for Op Torch. They also flew Spits in the Med, both of which provided better alt performance and top cover for other P-40k's. At least the K finally had auto boost control, although the pilot workload was still a pain with constant trimming and gill flap management. Nevertheless, the US has always shied away from publishing the USAAF/Army deeds in N.Africa because it was they who were less capable, even against a retreating Afrika Corps. They flew bombers at 12,000' where the Allison powered P-40's could provide escort. Wright engines weren't the best either. I wonder how many poor lads were sacrificed under that strategy. Once they received the -81 engined P-40, overboosting wasn't authorized because of higher CR. Also nice that Curtiss finally installed dust filters on the M model. That only took several years! Now do some proper research and stop with the jingoism.

[@RustyDroid]

I've had a soft spot for the P-40 since I was a kid, and I'm glad you've given it the recognition on a platform with such wide reach that it deserves.

[@scottyfox6376]

Sadly this iconic fighter workhorse is overlooked these days. I visited a workmate a few months ago & he had inherited his father's model aircraft. When I commented on the P40 model he said I was the only person who had ever identified it.

[@georgeburns7251]

Was the soft spot on the top of your head?

[@paulslevinsky580]

I just re-watched an old movie called "Death Race". A classic chase movie that pitted a flack-damaged and ground-bound P-40 against a German tank. The P-40 could taxi at high speed and even do short hops, but it had a damaged cooling system that limited it's run time. It was almost as good as I remembered it at the age of 10. You can find it free on KZbin,

[@sim.frischh9781]

The P-40 is one more evidence how underappreciated "good enough" often is. It was a solid performer, shining trough those qualities most only value when they really needed it. Brings to mind the Focke-Wulf FW 187, another plane not recognized as what would be truly necessary.

[@vumba1331]

Hurricane another example of this, PR spin not matching reality leading to misplaced history.

[@Miles26545]

Done is better than perfect is what I always say, and this is a shining example of it

[@lindabutler4903]

The American Volunteer Group (The Flying Tigers flying the P 40 did a great job in China holding the Japanese back before Pearl Harbor. Great flyers with a plane that did the job. 🧐 just knowing 🇺🇸

[@sim.frischh9781]

@@lindabutler4903 I watched another video specifically about them. The chinese crews and even the citizens helped making mock fighters to the point where the japanese believed there were over 100 Flying Tigers in China instead of the merely two dozen at that time! Sadly i don´t remember which video, it´s been a while since then.

[@strayling1]

"Good enough" is sometimes a way of saying "precisely appropriate".

[@sergeipohkerova7211]

I think it was general mismanagement at Curtiss that ruined the company. They had some good ideas but just didn't invest enough in research and development to keep abreast of new tech. The P-40 was a good plane but Curtiss relied too much on that contract. I think the SB2C damaged Curtiss more than the P40 ever did.

[@Idahoguy10157]

During the war years contracts were assured. So money was always coming in. At the end of the war money was no longer assured and competition returmed

[@khaccanhle1930]

Like Colt. They rely exclusive on producing the M16 for the military. Once that contract dried up - bankruptcy

[@pandoranbias1622]

@@khaccanhle1930 does Colt even exist beyond revolvers today?

[@boomslangCA]

@@pandoranbias1622 They're trying to rebuild. They had no R&D so purchased Diemaco Ltd, a first class design house, as Colt Canada so they have improved their ability to provide for militaries around the world. So they still produce a wide range; whether that will be successful remains to be seen.

[@pandoranbias1622]

@@boomslangCA Interesting. Hoping they continue for at least a few generations more, a name like Colt is as American as it gets.

[@foxhoundms9051]

I was once fortunate enough to see a P-40, a P-51 and an F4U all fly together in a V formation at an airshow, all three of my favorite warbirds at once, a real treat to see and hear!

[@cheesenoodles8316]

The story of the Australian 75 squadron was impressive, a rough start ...rough conditions..... tough enemy with excellent planes and experience.

[@radiosnail]

Both P40 videos have been excellent. Many thanks.

[@erikmerchant567]

This was probably the best video I've ever seen on the P-40. Outstanding work!

[@Maxtowers71]

True

[@gar6446]

Very true

[@bobsakamanos4469]

agreed. Very accurate description of its operational capability, rather than chest thumping jingoism.

[@1dxvictor]

My father was a frogman and my mother was an army nurse, both during the Normandy invasion. They never talked much about it. It made me endlessly curious about the 2nd world war. I am fascinated by everything. But aircraft especially. So thank you so much for such well-produced videos on these aircraft. I've very much enjoyed them.

[@keithstudly6071]

My Uncle was in the engineering department at Alison for his whole career and the question of the limits of the non-turbocharged V-1710 was a question he was asked many times. General Electric had sold the Army Airforce on turbocharging but then could not supply demand and also there were more problems involved in the turbocharged version of the V-1710 then had been expected. This was shown in the early P-38 Lightning which had problems with that engine. The P-39 was also to have had a turbocharged engine but that was changed before it went into production. Alison wanted to build a two stage supercharged engine but that was delayed until late in the war and finally ended up in the F-82 twin Mustang. This was the V-1710-143 (Right hand) and V-1710-145 (left hand) with 2,250 HP each in War emergency. FYI Alison was a division of General Motors since the 1930's. General Motors also owned a controlling interest in North American Aviation who built the Mustang under contract for the RAF. That goes some way in explaining why the Mustang I was Alison powered and the English had to put the RR Merlin into them after taking delivery. Another General Motors connection was that the head of the War Production Board was the recent president General Motors, William Kundsen.

[@nickdanger3802]

"That goes some way in explaining why the Mustang I was Alison powered and the English had to put the RR Merlin into them after taking delivery." That does not make any sense, why would they do that instead of ordering them without engines and fitted to accept Merlins? Almost two years after the first Mustang flew an RR test pilot recommended fitting it with the Merlin. A few weeks after that was done NAA had two prototypes in the air with Packard Merlins. Mustangs for the RAF (P-51A) kzbin.info/www/bejne/q6TUh5KwitV6edU

[@dukecraig2402]

General Electric didn't sell the Army on using turbos for the 2nd stage of supercharging in aircraft. First off in 1919 the US Army drug a Liberty engine that was known to make 300 HP at sea level to the top of Pikes Peak with horses that had a turbo on it that made 305 HP up there, it was a proof of concept test. But engine's don't like to throttle off of a turbocharger, "turbo lag" being the issue, so the supercharger/turbo configuration was selected after the NACA tests of the mid 1930's, that way the engine was always throttling off of the supercharger, at altitudes where the single stage supercharger could no longer provide maximum boost to the engine the turbo starts feeding the supercharger, that system is more powerful at altitude because unlike a 2 stage supercharger you've only got one supercharger stage being driven by the engine causing half the parasitic power losses as a 2 stage supercharger, the Army selected that system because of the NACA tests not because General Electric had some kind of influence over them, of course they wanted them to select it but the Army chose that system because the NACA tests showed that configuration made the most HP at all altitudes, not because GE "sold" them on the idea. The US Navy for their own reasons selected the 2 stage supercharger configuration for high altitude performance in their aircraft, simplicity being the biggest reason they were willing to accept the additional power losses of a 2 stage supercharger. The supposed "problems" with turbos is grossly overstated, the engine problems with the early P38's had nothing to do with the turbos, they worked perfectly fine, they had to do with the pilots running the engine's incorrectly and with the engine oil jelling because of the oil coolers and no one ever having operated aircraft at those altitudes before, but the issues weren't with the turbos. Everyone always wants to blame every development issue on the turbos when it comes to the P38's, P39's and the P40, but B17's had been flying before any of them and you don't hear anything about problems with the turbos on them do you? The fact is GE made the turbos and the superchargers both, every single US aircraft engine of WW2 had a supercharger system made by GE despite what configuration it was so ultimately they didn't care who used what system because they made it either way, they made every single centrifugal supercharger made that were on every US aircraft engine.

[@keithstudly6071]

@@dukecraig2402 GE was the sole source of turbochargers. GE had large investment made in trying to meet production goals for them. Turbosuperchargers were much more costly than superchargers and needed replacement more often in service. The army had agreed to support turbo use and was not interested in paying for multi stage superchargers and supercharger/turbo development both. One of the reasons the P-39 went from being turbo to just supercharged was supply concerns. Recognizing that turbocharging was riskier than 2 stage supercharging, the army committed to turbos and told GE as much. Interesting that the final version of the engine, V-1710-143/145 used in the F-82 Twin Mustang was 2 stage supercharged. The early history of the V-1710 in the P-38 was, much as you say. My opinion was that Alison felt the they were giving the army what they asked for and the army didn't understand how to operate it properly. Intake charge was not getting to all cylinders equally as fuel was condensing in the intercooler. Some cylinders were getting rich mixtures while others were going lean. This caused plug fowling in some and detonation in others. In order to avoid detonation the normal action was to enrich the mixture and cool the intake, which made the problem worse. it took years and Charles Lindbergh to teach them otherwise. It was difficult for the army to admit they were most of the problem.

[@NielsenDK-1]

A magnificent biography, "One Dollar Man", has recently been published about Mr. William Knudsen, who started his career as a bicycle smith. The author is "Ole Sønnichsen".

[@dukecraig2402]

@@keithstudly6071 GE was also the sole source of the centrifugal superchargers on Allison engine's, they were making money no matter what, and as far as your claim about turbos needing to be changed more than superchargers I suggest you try taking a look at the service life of the turbos and engine's, they both had a 500 hour life under normal operation with the engine's being shortened if run in WEP. It's a myth that turbos were a problem and had some kind of short life that required frequent changing. And your claim about the Twin Mustang is just stupid, Mustangs themselves only had the supercharger type they did because the British ordered the plane and mistakingley believed that turbos had a short service life, that's what they got for believing the French who'd dabbled with them in the 30's and couldn't get them to last over 50 hours, that's their problem for not knowing what they were doing not General Electric's, since a Twin Mustang is literally 2 Mustangs married together where would they have put turbos in them? That's why it didn't have them not because of your incorrect theory that a 2 stage supercharger is better, the only reason the 2 stage 2 speed supercharger was developed for the Allison is because the moment the war ended the US lost all rights to the Packard built Merlin's and would have had to pay a royalty to Rolls-Royce for each one used, they got away with seizing all of Packard's production of them because the US entered the war and didn't have to pay royalties on them. If you knew how they worked you'd know that 2 stage 2 speed superchargers suffer from throttling power losses at the altitude that they shift into their high range, then power is down until they climb to an altitude where the supercharger won't overboost the engine and the throttle can be run wide open again like it could right before shifting into it's high range, with the turbo system most Army aircraft had once the single stage supercharger can no longer produce maximum boost around 10,000 ft then the turbo starts feeding it slowly the more it gains altitude to keep it's inlet pressure the same at all altitudes above that, they don't suffer from throttling power losses until an optimal altitude. That was developed and proven by NACA with their tests in the mid 30's, THAT'S why the Army selected that type of supercharging configuration not because "GE sold them on it", whoever told you that didn't know what they were talking about, it's a well known fact that the Army chose that system based on NACA's recommendation. And once again the big problem with the P38's when they first went to Europe was the engine oil jelling, since US engine's had iridium coated bearings they couldn't use the RAF's engine oil that had anti jelling agents in it but wasn't compatible with iridium coated bearings, so they had to wait for compatible oil to be developed in the US and shipped over there. And what Lindbergh did had absolutely nothing to do with that, he simply proved to Allison that the engine's could be run leaner than they said without burning up, the leaner you run an engine the hotter they run, I've actually gotten them into my shop that people ran with major vacuum leaks and thought it was dirt in the carbs and kept running them leading to holes melting through the tops of pistons, inside the cockpits of all of those aircraft was a chart telling the pilots how to run the mixture under different throttle settings and conditions, Lindbergh got permission to run them differently and engineers and technicians from Allison went to where he was and did engine tear downs to inspect the engine's and verify there was no damage from him running them leaner to increase range, what he did had nothing to do with what you claim, it's all very well documented and you should try reading up on it.

[@walterzoomie]

A most excellent video! I grew up in Speedway, Indiana, home of the Allison plant that made the aircraft engines, and a stones throw from the Indianapolis Motor Speedway. We have a street and a elementary school named "Allison"...a tribute to James A. Allison...one of the town of Speedway's founders.

[@rossanderson4440]

Most front line units replaced every "weight-saving improvement" on the 'N' model, from spindle on the landing gear to the older instrumentation, essentially rebuilding it to the 'E' standard, i.e. the reliable workhorse they needed.

[@l1a146]

Thanks for an excellent rundown of probably my favouritre WW2 era fighter. Probably the fighter that helped save Australia. Something which has sadly been overlooked.

[@kensvay4561]

Yes so true.

[@workerdroid290]

I watched a video from Kermit Weeks flying his P40… he mentioned it is so easy and intuitive to fly…he rates it highly…and he has many similar aircraft to compare. It is great to fly, and that’s a huge plus for the pilots fighting with it. I love the warbirds from WWII….amazing, beautiful, powerful and built for purpose

[@rodneypayne4827]

Minor correction: Australia only had a 4 P38s and were recon versions for testing, the P40s were replaced by Spitfire Mk VIII and CAC( Commonwealth Aircraft Company) built D/K model equivalent Mustangs ( CA-18)🇦🇺

[@towgod7985]

Well said, you beat me to it! Cheers.

[@MartintheTinman]

They were operated out of Coomalie Creek

[@paulmeilak9946]

The CA-17s were P51Ks - 80 from put together from kits manufactured in the US and 84 direct lend lease P-51Ks. These were replacing the P40's in RAAF front line service in mid to late 45 with No 84 and 86 Squadrons. Post war production of CA18s with production of 120 aircraft with Packard and RR built merlin engine's in fighter and PR versions started in 1946.

[@rodneypayne4827]

@@paulmeilak9946 I was trying to keep it short, my source is the brilliant book by Australian historian Stewart Wilson Spitfire, Mustang, Kittyhawk in Australian service.

[@paulmeilak9946]

@@rodneypayne4827 Really good answer. I though a little bit more detail would supplement your answer. Cheers.

[@stulynn2005]

As aviation was evolving at such a rapid pace I feel like it was the first really cool and tough looking fighter of that time. Being so cool and versatile it flew in every theater of the war from day one to VJ Day and beyond

[@muttley00]

Does anyone else remember buying 2D polystyrene models of ww2 fighters, the wings slotted through the fuselage and they had a clip on plastic propeller. There were about 10 of them. Flying tiger P40, zero, spit, Hurricane, p51,109, fw190, and a 4 piece P38 I think. not sure what the others were, can't remember, possibly Hellcat and Corsair, would have been early 80's. Edit: googled them, Henbrandt Pack Of 12 Classic World War II Flying Plane Gliders, brings back memories, no P38 though, must have got that wrong.

[@exocet1]

broke so many off them..lol

[@mikeynth7919]

Yes, I had those back in the 1970's.

[@Blazcowitz1943]

I had a few of them wow.

[@davidmuir7711]

I learned to put a Black Kat in the fuselage, and when we were through playing with the plane I’d light the fuse and send it up one last time. Sayonara Zero!

[@muttley00]

@@davidmuir7711 That reminds me of when I was slightly older, I got a piece of thin A3 card. Made a paper aeroplane with it and cut two steps out of the rear of the vertical "fuselage." These were long enough and staggered so that the two small firework rockets I had come into possession of(wasn't old enough to buy!)could be held underneath with loops of tape. That way one could be lit without igniting the other. Think I used blu tac in the nose as a counterbalance and gave it a few hard test throws to test the balance at speed. Didn't think I'd get it right. Lit the rear uppermost rocket, waited till the fuse had burned almost to the point of ignition, then lit the second and threw it. Holly crap! it worked perfectly! On the rearmost screaming rocket the thing climbed up just above the streetlights! which then burnt out, a second later the second ignited and it kept going. It Made it halfway down my street, at least 200 metres, was shouting "yes.. yes!" as I ran after it. Was pumped! Forgot to mention I used tinfoil in an effort to protect the cardboard, that didn't work, It was to damaged to use again. Not that I had anymore rockets anyway, couldn't buy any myself. The tinfoil might have allowed the thing to finish the flight though, might have stopped it from burning up mid air, can't say for certain. No phones in them days, as you know, otherwise it would have made a great video! Never tried it again. Was awesome! Even if I do say so myself!

[@thibaudduhamel2581]

Hey Rex, if you ever decide to cover historical squadrons instead of just planes (kinda like Drachinifel covering entire battles or campaigns), i suggest you do a video on the Normandie aviation regiment of the free french air force, a squadron of absolute madlads who went to fight with the soviet air forces from 1943 onwards.

[@zeigfried007]

Yes, that would amazing.

[@rileycpo]

I watched both parts 1&2 and was amazed by the research you put into these videos. I am originally from Rochester, New York and have made the trip to the Curtis's Museum many times. The early days of Curtis's were amazing.

[@paulcroshier6708]

5:35 "Allison was not a huge company" ... Err ... Allison had been a division of General Motors since 1929, which was about as huge a company as you could come up with.

[@paulfrantizek102]

Probably better to say that Allison was a neglected division of a large company. GM probably found it much more profitable to build well-sorted Grumman aircraft than do the hard work of developing an aero engine.

[@Uncle_Torgo]

Yeah, I wondered about that statement as well, I always associated Allison with GM and with dragsters and drag racing boats in the 60s, i.e., plenty of dough even for silly things. But GM was building a lot of stuff during WWII and I don't know where Allison stood as far as resources and money go. However, given the amount of cash being thrown at defense industry at the time, I'd guess that any failures should be traced to incompetent management at GM rather than money constraints.

[@TheRougeSky]

Allison might have been under the GM umbrella but the thing to understand about divisions in larger companies is they don't always get access to everything the company that owns them has. So its not really correct to treat Allison as if it was actually GM, it wasn't.

[@user-so8nj3ln7m]

@@TheRougeSky GM approved large expenditures and railed at the fact that the USAAF wouldn't fund development costs to improve the Allison, despite the government procurement director being an ex-president of GM. GM also was approving authority for NAA new fighter designs. Board of directors rule everything.

[@paulmillard1130]

My Great Uncle Flew P40s ,Hurricanes,Spitfires Typhoons and Tempests. He said nothing could catch you in a dive and run away on the deck in a 40 and that was all that could keep you alive often. He's been dead 45 years and always remember how he loved his P40 .Took my up in his Stearman when I was 12 and my mother went to pieces. Miss you Allen.

[@GaryJohnWalker1]

A superb epic video - both episodes. And well structured - I've certainly gained a better picture of the P40's history than other worthy efforts I've seen. Thanks.

[@matthewrussell9417]

I second that!!

[@chris_hisss]

I don't know that it was underappreciated, it was my first plane loved, I mean the thing is beautiful! Films like 1941 (1976) and Flying tigers really had me, or maybe it was the shark mouth, I am not sure, but it really captured my imagination, long before the days of "high alt and range wins" Had no idea about the Brits using it so much back then, really nice to see how much it came through for so many nations when it was needed most. Nice look into this, great photos, and well told, chap. Thanks!

[@henrygill5550]

I once heard several Australian RAAF pilots sing praises of their P-40s during the war. Surprisingly, they said that they preferred their P-40s to Spitfires which they claimed were tempermental, prone to breakage and certainly not as tough or rugged as the P-40 while operating in the Pacific Theater. One pilot went on to say that the Spitfires were 'divas' while the P-40 was the good solid and reliable 'girlfriend' whom you could always count on. All said that the P-40's ruggedness kept them safe, alive and able to return home. As stated so many times, pilot skill/experience, while playing to the P-40's strengths and avoiding its weaknesses made all the difference - even against the vaunted Japanese Zeros. Great men all who survived some incredible times, and who were grateful to their P-40s.

[@Recitetheconstitution]

This is a great story

[@pimpompoom93726]

The Allison engine get's a bum rap from some folks. It was rugged, durable and had half the components of the RR Merlin-it was also far cheaper. If the flight mission was low altitude interception or fighter-bomber activity, the Allison was the engine to go with. Later versions of the Merlin engine like the Model 61 and beyond had the two-speed, two-stage supercharger and that gave them extended performance up to 30,000 feet, but that really wasn't needed very often in the Far East. You don't bring a racing Thoroughbred to herd Longhorn cattle, a Quarterhorse is much more effective.

[@whtalt92]

The Dutch NEIAAF used the P-40N they retained from 120 Sqn during the early phase of the Indonesian Independence war, remaining active until July 1949 when they were replaced with surplus P-51D/K's.

[@m.streicher8286]

1 hour video from Rex on the p40, amazing.

[@chitlika]

At least as good as and probably a bit better than the hurricane and it did sterling service wherever it went. as always many great previously unseen photographs Good work Rex

[@m1t2a1]

My first flying model airplane was a P 40. Cox .049 control line. So fun for a little kid.

[@ohger1]

I remember staring at the Cox P-40 and the Corsair for an hour in the store before buying the Corsair because my older brother had one when he was my age. I should have taken the 40 because I've always loved it.

[@m1t2a1]

@@ohger1 Either plane would be fun. I had the P 40 first because that's what the store had at the time. They had just introduced a Mustang, sort of wanted it.

[@kimmer6]

I was about 5 years old when my dad bought the Cox P-40 with the Wen Mac .049 engine. We were on the garage roof and Pop had the u-control and I launched it. He made about 5 turns when it took a dip and the control lines wrapped around my neck. It made about 4 more really fast circles around my neck before the prop cut the lines and it landed in the field. Pop thought it was pretty funny but I was scared to death. A lot of tears came out of this 5 year old that day. OK....it's hilarious now.

[@RWildekrav66]

@@kimmer6nice little memory .

[@jb6027]

One point of order: The Royal Australian Air Force P-40s were not replaced by P-38s. The RAAF only received 3 Lightnings, variously described as P-38Es or F-4 reconnaissance Lightnings.

[@parrotraiser6541]

The P-40s that served in North Africa were originally painted in tan csmouflage (to match the sandy terrain). The fierce sun of the area caused the paint to fade to a rather alarming pink. An heiress to the Johnson fortune used to fly a P-40 painted in the "faded" colour scheme, wearing a matching pink flight suit.

[@Eloraurora]

Thank you for letting me know that this surreal bubblegum shark plane exists.

[@akmzd6938]

Apparently pink is a pretty good desert camouflage colour, which is why the SAS used pink Land Rovers (so-called Pink Panthers) post-war.

[@guaporeturns9472]

P-40 was my first love.. I love many other planes as well but this one is special. (As a history buff , not pilot)

[@kryts27]

Thanks for this extensive briefing of RAAF Kittyhawks in New Guinea. In particular with their important role in the Battle of Milne Bay. Your reporting of this was good, except one important factor that the presence of the Kittyhawks had on Japanese tactics, which was essentially a poorly coordinated amphibious landing and assult by the IJN (many of the Japanese soldiers were Marines). Because of the number and effect of the Kittyhawks, the Japanese were forced to land troops by ships and barges, much further from their main objectives than they liked, which was the main Australian air fields. This was a definitive disadvantage for them traversing difficult terrain over a considerable distance, making the troop concentrations vulnerable to the Kittyhawks by day. Essentially, most Japanese infantry movement and attacks occurred at night. By and large, the Australians were well entrenched and able to withstand these Japanese night attacks and had the numbers to send ground reconnaissance and patrols out harass the retreating Japanese. The Japanese also deployed light tanks which had largely proved ineffective due to the Australian fire-power, also supplied by Kittyhawk strafing and bombing attacks.

[@peterasp1968]

Would you be interested in doing a series on the LaGG-1 & LaGG-3 ? Another relatively unknown aircraft that did its best to defend its country and formed the basis of formidable successors.

[@SK-tr9ii]

Were these the wooden Russian fighters?

[@peterasp1968]

@@SK-tr9ii Yes. Despairing called by its pilots the Lacquered Guaranteed Grave.Which was a spoof on its designation

[@christophermancini7380]

Thanks Rex for yet another well-researched study that goes above and beyond; in this case a workhorse fighter-bomber that held the line when the Allies needed it to do. I will always think of the P-40 with that distinctive sharks' mouth trim of North Africa and China/Burma. No other aircraft wore it as well, with the P-40s prominent chin.

[@topturretgunner]

Very well done Rex’s Hangar! 👍👍👍. The P-40 was the airplane that fueled my early love affair with WWII military aviation.

[@Ensign_Cthulhu]

"A high speed, low-altitude six-gun sledgehammer..." It's turns of phrase like this that keep me coming back. I feel you could easily become the Drachinifel of the Skies, in this respect at least. 41:59 I note what look like Beauforts in the background. One of the songs on Icehouse's "Code Blue" album ("Charlie's Sky"), and the focus of the cover art, was IIRC a reference to lead singer Iva Davies' grandfather, who flew in Beauforts in this theatre of the war. Makes me wonder if one of the aircraft in the background might have been his...

[@SoloRenegade]

the P-40's true Achille's Heel: Drag

[@demonicsquid7217]

Got to love the drop-tank improvised bomb. Makes you think there could have been something in that for the idea to be pursued in a safer way. Hollow bombs with fuel inside gives you the best of both worlds 😂

[@CharlesStearman]

The first napalm bombs were improvised from drop-tanks with a phosphorus grenade attached to ignite them after dropping.

[@fredrickmartinez7047]

Awesome 👍

[@fredrickmartinez7047]

that Merlin engine was something else.

[@scipioafricanus4328]

Great video. I think USAF also used 3 squadrons of P40’s as interceptors to defend Darwin, Northern Australia from regular Japanese raids from Timor in 1942, until they were relieved by a spitfire wing in 1943.

[@davidtaylor351]

At the time of the first Japanese air raid on Feb 19th 1942. USAAF P40s were in Darwin. They had recently been transferred down from the Philippines. A number were out on patrol. And were returning back to base ( literally landing ) when the raid came in! Consequently, being short on fuel, many were destroyed! There is an account of 1 being strafed while trying to take off again. It exploded and cartwheeled down the runway! A Royal Australian Airforce ( RAAF ) Coastwatcher out on the northern beaches also radiod in a warning to Darwin Airbase. That he had just witnessed a dogfight between some P 40s and Japanese aircraft! He described how the P40s and pursuing Japanese aircraft, came across the coast like bats out of hell!! However the authorities didnt believe him!! They thought he had gone "troppo!" - ( An expression for nuts in the tropics! ) - And had mistaken returning US P40s for an air raid! Therefore, some valuable time to act was lost!! Anyway, they soon found out otherwise!! Another factor at work was... At the time of the raid. People in Darwin were expecting the arrival of more USAAF aircraft. And since Feb 19 was a fine sunny day, as is common in the north. Many people were out and about around town. So when they saw these incoming waves of Japanese aircraft. - Right up to the first strafing and bombing attacks!! They thought they were US aircraft!! As a result many were caught and killed out in the open!! - PS. The aircraft carrier battle group that attacked Darwin on Feb 19th 1942. Was the same battle group that attacked Pearl Harbour on Dec 7th 1941!

[@blueycarlton]

My uncle was in the RAAF as an electrician. He told me of the time he and a couple of others were working on telephone lines south of Darwin. They were up on a telephone pole when they heard a rumble coming from the south. They thought it was a convoy of trucks. Seconds later a Japanese fighter that had throttled back was alongside them and the pilot was grinning and waving to them. He said you had never seen three men get down so quick and scatter off into the bush.

[@exocet1]

Have always liked the P-40 and there were so many countries that used it. Two months ago I got a really cool book called "Curtis fighters: 1917-1948" really big book with lots of good info and photographs.

[@steppedtuba50]

I ordered it on Amazon, thanks.

[@wilburfinnigan2142]

You must realize that the P40 (14,000)was the third most produced US fighter behind the P47(16,000_ and P51(15,000) So it could not have been that "bad" a fighter" !!! Remember too it was AVAILABLE and inexpensive in large quantities, and when war starts you fight with what you have !!! In 1940 the Brits considered the P40 to be the best AVAILABLE fighter, why they wanted North American to build them, but Dutch Kindelberger refused and OFFERED HIS new plane he had been working on the P51 Mustang why he was able to deliver the P51 Mustang prototyped in 112 days from contract signing !!!

[@Simon_Nonymous]

This is a very professional and comprehensive look at this very important aircraft. Thank you Rex!

[@grrlpurpleable]

Let's not forget the most important fact for any instrument of war, the P-40D 'looked' so much better with the bigger chin! :) The name Kittyhawk was better too! Awesome work on this unsung hero Rex - epic detail and excellent use of photographs/etc as always!

[@martijn9568]

You three are on your own on that. The earlier P-40s looked much better if you'd ask me.

[@haggis525]

I've always loved the P40. An amazing aircraft... just understand and work with its strengths and, as they say Bob's your uncle! And those are some sexy lines on that beautiful plane, too!

[@Recitetheconstitution]

If anybody living in London wants to see a P-40 in real life, take a trip to the RAF Museum in Edgware, they have one at the entrance near hangars 2, 3 and 4. Unfortunately they don’t have the small model die cast Warhawks with the desert camo print anymore, I went there yesterday just to get one but had to settle for a Lancaster.

[@jeanbonnefoy1377]

kudos for this very comprehensive (and probably definitive) two part survey of this unfairly underrated fighter bomber of WWII (and personally one of my favourites).

[@lukeskywalket2894]

I volunteer at the American Heritage Museum, where that sole surviving P-40B from Pearl Harbor is located. Thank you for making these videos, cause I've always felt the P-40 is one of the most overlooked aircraft of the war

[@kirkmooneyham]

Rex, your videos were interesting and well made, now they are moving into the realm of excellent. The P-40 was my favorite WWII fighter as a kid, and I appreciate the workup you gave it.

[@dr.frankenphoon6254]

Thank you for the fantastic work on the P40, and giving it the recognition it deserves. Though not the best fighter of WWII, I think it was the most beautiful, fighter of them all. The Spitfire and P51 come in second and third, but the P40 had the most graceful lines.

[@garryferrington811]

A truly exceptional video, virtually a televised documentary.

[@johnkuechle9563]

Thanks for the great follow-up video on my favorite WW2 aircraft Rex. Only one error I noted - the Desert Air Force Tomahawk/Kittyhawk 3 Squadron was RAAF, not SAAF (which were 2, 4, 5 Squadrons).

[@zachweibel3716]

Thank you so much for these videos. The amount of quality content you put out is staggering. Been fascinated with the topic since I was in 1st grade. I'm 26 now, and my fascinations have since broadened, so I don't have as much time to dedicate to each and your videos are perfect length and detail for me. Great work, massively appreciated.

[@Miles26545]

P40 has always been one of my favorite aircrafts

[@georgeburns7251]

Do you also have a favorite pair of pink panties? If so, keep it to yourself. And don’t tell your boyfriend.

[@olivercook4950]

I have to say, you are the best narrator on KZbin. Love the dry sense of humour - really, you nail it every time.

[@Truminashadepressure]

It’s pretty incredible to read of the Bataan p40 pilot Buzz Wagner, as well as the Pearl Harbor P40 pilots George Welch and Kenneth Taylor, who, while flying “obsolete” fighters during surprise raids had quite excellent kill counts.

[@SlavicCelery]

All things considered, tactics proved time and time again to be superior to strict technological superiority. At least in WWII air combat. That said, better tech and tactics is a winning combination.

[@steppedtuba50]

Did the Japanese ever fly captured p40s?

[@MichaelCasanovaMusic]

@@steppedtuba50 I've seen a few Japanese propaganda newsreels from India/Burma/Thailand campaign where they're flying some captured P-40s, but i'm not sure about flying them in combat.

[@andyharman3022]

You have a serious mental block against the Allison V1710. You keep saying Allison was a small company with limited resources that couldn't keep up with production and increase engine power at the same time. Allison was a division of General Motors (you may have heard of them) from the mid-1930's and had plenty of resources. You go on about the engine's lack of altitude performance, but never mention the fact that they had an auxiliary stage supercharger and an intercooler on the G-models. You say that Allison finally developed turbocharging late in the war, but seem to be unaware of the fact that the P38 Lightning was originally designed for turbocharged Allisons in 1937. And the P39 Airacobra was designed as a mid-engine aircraft with the idea that it would be turbocharged for altitude performance. How many turbocharged aircraft engines did Britain develop during the war? Army Air Force doctrine dictated that the Allison only be equipped with a single-stage supercharger, and would use the GE turbocharger to get altitude performance. Unfortunately demand for the GE turbochargers for bombers with a limited supply of Vitallium material to make the turbine blades meant that not enough were available for Allison engines. Therefore Allison was prevented from developing their 2-stage supercharger until it was too late for installation in the higher performance fighters late in the war. The G-Model Allisons powered the P40Q that you mentioned, the P/F-82 Twin Mustang, and P-63 King Cobra. G-model Allisons qualified for the USAAF War Emergency Ratings at 7.5 hours at 3200 rpm rated speeds. Their connecting rods are prized by Unlimited Reno air racers and are in all of the highest-power Merlins. And then there was the turbocompound Allison that had 3200 hp. Oh, what might have been.

[@bobsakamanos4469]

Allison never made a reliable high altitude V12. Even with their new intake manifold in late 1944, the Allison was not up to the task. The Allisons in the P-82 were a maintenance nightmare.

[@john.rc.3274]

Your voice was fine throughout the presentation! Great job.

[@freman007]

My Dad worked for a company in Auckland, New Zealand, that was rebuilding Kittyhawks. The job didn't last that long because the company had financial difficulties due to customers not paying on time.

[@nickdanger3802]

Churchill "Our most vital need is therefore the delivery at the earliest possible date of the largest possible number of Curtiss P-40 fighters." page 86 The Burning Blue Addison and Crang

[@camrsr5463]

7:21 wow New background pick!

[@keegantripp1245]

Supposedly there are approximately 30+ P-40s in known models flying, with multiple being located and in states of various repair, but with most hopeful that they’ll be airworthy again.

[@MrBarrySell]

I came down with Covid this week. Your voice is so soothing it helped me to sleep. Just thought I’d let you know.

[@MichaelCasanovaMusic]

The P-40B is one of the greatest looking fighters of all time, imo

[@joebuchanan3808]

Thank you for an absolutely outstanding video. Your 2 videos confirm an opinion about the P-40 that I have long held.

[@robstone4537]

My grandfather flew Douglas Bostons in North Africa in the South African Air Force. I remember him telling me how he watched P40’s throwing themselves into the fight against 109’s to protect the bombers and how grateful he was for their bravery.

[@donjones4719]

This is far and away the best treatment of the P-40 I've seen, and I watch a lot of YT aircraft videos. You present a great mix of technical and historical info, putting both in context. P.S. The C-46 Commando may have had a big role in the demise of Curtiss. An ambitious and capable design that may have been too much for a small company to finish off properly.

[@mbryson2899]

You've hit another home run. Thank you for sharing your hard work and research.

[@B0M0A0K]

This has been an amazing series. Great work on reporting the story of the Curtis P40, the first WW2 fighter I fell in love with.

[@afishynado6812]

My Grandpa was a mechanic with the 75th Squadron in Milne Bay. Always nice to see the Kittyhawk getting some love. :)

[@wildancrazy159]

The P-40 has always been my very favorite aircraft. It's angry looks, even with out shark teeth, had always been a factor. I really liked this video Rex, as always superb job.

[@wesdowner5636]

Curtiss-Wright still exists. They just don't make aircraft anymore.

[@danolin6588]

I would love to see a video about the Grumman f4f and f6f. Those are my favorite aircraft of the war. I thoroughly enjoyed these two videos, you did a great job!

[@tazzie165]

My great grandfather was a mechanic for p40s in PNG during the war, it'll always be a special aircraft to me. So so so underated.

[@robertsansone1680]

"You must use the strong points of your equipment and deny the enemy the advantage of his. Each type of plane has its strong points and weaknesses . . . . You can count on a high top speed, faster dive and super firepower. Japanese planes have a faster rate of climb, higher ceiling and shorter radius of turn. If they can get you into their kind of fast-turning combat, they are deadly. Use your superior speed and faster dive to make a pass at your opponent, get in a quick burst and then break away. You have the edge in that type of combat". "Our planes can take a beating and still be patched up to fly again. Many times the ruggedness of our airplanes has been all that has kept us in the fight". General Chennault to his "Flying Tigers". Excellent documentary. Thank You

[@SoloRenegade]

P-51 = what you get when the drag issues of the P-40 were properly addressed

[@Miles26545]

Nah they are meant for pretty different things, one is meant for rough conditions, medium altitude and toughness. The p51 is meant for speed, Grace, And touching the stars. It’s like a cavalry horse versus a purebred racing horse

[@martijn9568]

​​@@Miles26545 Because the P-51 only served on nice airfields right? Would you believe me if I'd tell you that P-51As and A-36s also server in the monsoon ridden theatre of operations called Burma? Yeah no nice optimal airfields there.

[@skyadsAu]

Thank you so much for your description of the action at Milne Bay. such an important battle and so often ignored - which is such a shame as it was the first time the Japanese army was defeated and without which other actions would have failed IMHO - Guadalcanal Canal was a close-run thing; if the Japanese had an airbase at Milne Bay supply lines to Guadalcanal Canal would have been very different. - Thank you for your work

[@djpenton779]

Excellent pair of videos. Very convincing rehabilitation of the reputation of the P40. Being useful, and indeed successful for such a long time in multiple theatres surely tells a tale of success. Good work, Rex.

[@paulsmodels]

Thanks for an excellent look at the venerable P-40. Keep up the good work making these videos!

[@stevewadman4166]

As a lifelong p40 fan I just have to say thank you for providing this vindication

[@chandarsundaram1394]

Great Video. You combine technical developments with good anayses of the plane's service record. However, ypi cold have said more about the P-40's service in the CBI theatre

[@svenhillring3275]

Extremely well done! I will definitely be watching part 1 and part 2 over and over. Not only are your programs well written and easy to follow your delivery is very clear and erudite.

[@AaronStuartHall]

This a superb overview. Such good research across so many fronts. I love the time you devoted to the RAAF and you captured the attitude of Australians to this plane.

[@stuarthannay3370]

I really enjoyed these videos. Many thanks for a fascinating study on an underated subject.

[@neillupton]

I have seen all your videos, but never noticed before, but Shouldn’t it be service ceiling, not cervice ceiling on the specifications?.

[@AgnetaNord]

All the respect and gratitude for excellent videos. Thank you for not pester them with music. Wonderful narration and I think the embedded wits were perfect. You earned a subscriber. Looking forward to more. Thank you.

[@rodroper211]

excellent vid. nice to hear battle of Milne bay given the attention it deserves

[@brettcoster4781]

Yes, Milne Bay was an important one for the RAAF, P-40, and Hudson bombers. And the defending AIF battalions, too. Nos 75 and 76 Squadrons flew the Kittyhawks, and the Hudsons started their bombing runs, in some instances, BEFORE they'd fully retracted their undercarriage.

[@icewaterslim7260]

I think what doomed Curtis Wright was the early version of the R-3350 in the B29 and the infighting and jealousy of the power-plant's design team that resulted in initially nixing the modifications that were eventually used anyway to keep the damned thing from being a firetrap. But only after the loss of more B29s from engine fires than anything the Japanese could do.

[@WALTERBROADDUS]

Problems with other projects did not help either. The c-46 and the helldiver.

[@petergray7576]

Actually what really doomed the company was bribery. In 1943 their management and several military procurement officers were implicated in a pay-for-play scheme that had been cooked up by several members of the former, and Congress and Joint Chiefs went ballistic. Curtiss was allowed to complete their wartime contracts, but they were permanently tarnished.

[@13stalag13]

Wonderful job on this video. Excellent.

[@Mrjonblakely]

Thanks for this great review of a great aircraft. My dad flew 189 missions out of Port Moresby in New Guinea with the 7th Fighter Squadron of the US Army Air Corps. He had many stories from those days in 1942-43. He landed after a particularly difficult mission and he was able to put his finger through nine holes in the fuselage while remaining seated in the cockpit. He went on to fly P-38s and P-51s but it was in the P-40 that he had the most dogfighting and it was the plane that saved his life many times. The P-40 was the plane that was closest to his heart.

[@johnbiddle1829]

Someone else may have mentioned this - the airport in Port Moresby is now named Jacksons International Airport.

[@merafirewing6591]

Imagine if the P-60 had the chance to enter into service.

[@skrble]

...then it would've probably been outclassed by P-51s, which were already being mass produced.

[@calvingreene90]

Curtis tendency to evolve designs rather than innovate is the death of Curtis.

[@Ensign_Cthulhu]

It was sort of the death of Supermarine as well. They might have lingered on into the Cold War with the Swift and Scimitar, and their flying boats did sterling work, but as a first-class fighter firm they really were a one-trick pony (even if it was one hell of a trick). The one thing Supermarine DID manage to do which kept them in the forefront from the start to the end of the war was put a couple of quantum jumps into that evolutionary process; but even then, that was a matter of the powerplant as much as the airplane. One wonders what the P-40 would have been like with a Merlin 61 or Packard equivalent thereof, but the P-51 was always going to get priority for those.

[@calvingreene90]

@@Ensign_Cthulhu Griffin, I want Griffin.

[@zeigfried007]

Wow, such thorough research and well presented. Thank you for the work you do.