P-40 Warhawk Allison vs. Merlin

[@christopherpabsst7260]

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.

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

Thanks Christopher.

[@donaldelfreth553]

Absolutely agree. Greg is the best.

[@rafaeltorres2886]

​@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Greg you are #1

[@philswift791]

concur

[@oceanhome2023]

For a. Gearhead like me I soak everything up from his videos !

[@gadgethunter5732]

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.

[@bobsakamanos4469]

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.

[@kenneth9874]

It was carnage..for the luftwaffe

[@roscothefirst4712]

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.

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

Thanks Rosco, and I'm glad he made it and could tell you the story.

[@user-so8nj3ln7m]

Did he have top cover from Spitfires? The P-40 couldn't out run or outclimb the 109.

[@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935]

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.

[@edwardpate6128]

@@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.

[@user-so8nj3ln7m]

@@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.

[@Th0nky]

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.

[@Jbroker404]

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?

[@patrickshaw8595]

@@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.

[@Renshen1957]

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.

[@Th0nky]

@@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.

[@SoloRenegade]

@@Renshen1957 P-40s could out turn the Me109 down low too

[@gooraway1]

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.

[@abjectt5440]

Don't forget North Africa. Tough and reliable.

[@paulchandler9646]

Don't forget the Beaufighter .

[@alanpattinson6211]

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.

[@alanpattinson6211]

@@paulchandler9646 Not possible to forget something you have never heard of just look where the comments originate from.

[@johnphillips519]

The plane that saved Darwin

[@bobteachesphoto6379]

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!!!

[@treypeters1087]

So cool

[@diffened]

Thanks for the comment. Those people were certainly at the top of their game and deserve more credit for their efforts. A new plane today seems to take decades to develop.

[@Machia52612]

A shining example of this was the P-40Q. At 422 mph, it would have been right up there with the more celebrated aircraft. Still, when one looks at the P-40’s service record, it’s hard to imagine how this wonderful bird is often considered mediocre. The Japanese pilots over the skies of China certainly got a taste of what this airplane could do!

[@prreith]

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!

[@Bullittbl]

Greg Boyington said in his book that for what faults the P40 may have had, nothing could catch a P40 in a dive.

[@Niinsa62]

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!

[@johnedwards1685]

Hans-Joachim Marseilles alone shot down 101 of these in North Africa.

[@edwardpate6128]

@@johnedwards1685 That speaks more to the ability of a very experienced pilot often facing those just getting into combat for the first time.

[@johnedwards1685]

@@edwardpate6128 Marseilles shot down five of these aircraft in six minutes. Three of the downed P40s were flown by aces.

[@drstrangelove4998]

@@johnedwards1685 hmm, I’ve always liked the P40, but thanks for the balance, some in this thread are getting a bit carried away. 👍🏻

[@simplicius11]

@@johnedwards1685 the German fairy tales kzbin.info/www/bejne/hKK5hapjjNqJm9U&ab_channel=TinusleRoux

[@silverstreettalks343]

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.

[@geoffreyherrick298]

It's amazing what the Australians did with the Harvard, turning it into the Wirraway and Boomerang!

[@BobSmith-dk8nw]

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. .

[@Spectre407]

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.

[@Jigaboo123456]

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!

[@BobSmith-dk8nw]

@@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 .

[@Jigaboo123456]

@@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. :-)

[@BobSmith-dk8nw]

@@Jigaboo123456 No Sweat. .

[@paulmillard1130]

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.

[@johnphillips519]

Dido to that👍

[@whalesong999]

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.

[@SoloRenegade]

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.

[@michaelshore2300]

Dive ?? by far a worse Tactical Mach number

[@whalesong999]

@@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.

[@johngregory4801]

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.

[@katherinespezia4609]

The Allison could indeed run in either direction, which was used to great effect in the P-38.

[@btpcmsag]

​@@katherinespezia4609 How's that? Did P-38s have their two props turning in opposite directions???

[@katherinespezia4609]

@@btpcmsag Yep! That way the torque of both props cancel each other out and the plane won't pull to one side the way most propeller planes do.

[@LJSpit]

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.

[@vumba1331]

There is a restored Merlin powered version being flown in OZ.

[@SoloRenegade]

The P-40 also gave the Japanese their first taste of air losses against the US at Pearl Harbor.

[@davidtaylor351]

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!!

[@dlkline27]

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.

[@briantincher9284]

Perfect. Turkey leftovers football and Gregs Airplanes! What a great day

[@alexanderrswaim5142]

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.

[@justcarcrazy]

Agree. More math-y videos, please.

[@nomar5spaulding]

Agree. The mathy videos are the ones with the most interesting learning.

[@alfredomarquez9777]

Agree, the Maths are like the proper tools (for truly understanding) a technical aspect. Please include as much as necessary!!!

[@jamespfp]

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.

[@jaidillon1790]

Agreed! I have no problem with math as long as I'm not responsible for the calculations!😅

[@bpitotbrett5839]

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.

[@nickdanger3802]

"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

[@julianneale6128]

I understand that all production Merlins were built for a while with these materials for bearings. Rolls-Royce then quickly developed their own alloy for bearings, that then Packard also used.

[@nickdanger3802]

@@julianneale6128 Source ?

[@julianneale6128]

@nickdanger3802 oh I read that years ago. I believe it might have been in the book 'Not Much Of An Engineer', by Sir Stanley Hooker, but I'm not 100%. I think it was Rolls-Royce using known technology for the bearings. Then, after seeing what GM had developed, were impressed and also used it. But after that Rolls-Royce engineers went to work and developed their own bearing materials that were even better than what GM had done.

[@peterszar]

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.

[@ncktbs]

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

[@billballbuster7186]

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.

[@defender1006]

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".

[@scottdewey3544]

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.]

[@edwardpate6128]

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.

[@kenneth9874]

Both engines were only as altitude capable as their supercharging systems allowed, that was the limiting factor not the aircraft

[@thomasshoff6512]

In the hurry up stress of war, it is amazing to me how well the American companies did with production of war materials.

[@robmarsh6668]

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.

[@canusakommando9692]

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

[@arthurrobertsoniii6073]

Thanks for this post. Dad also briefly flew B-18s out of Miami Beach on anti sub patrols, 1942, before '24s that he flew outa Galveston in '43 and with the 15th AF in Italy '44-'45. 👍

[@merlin51h84]

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

[@decnet100]

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.

[@Globalscanningeyes]

it's essentially the warhammer mech from the battle tech universe kzbin.info/www/bejne/borWmoyEf6ush7M

[@bobsakamanos4469]

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.

[@decnet100]

@@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.

[@bobsakamanos4469]

@@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.

[@jimlowther2453]

I think you might be surprised just how much development Curtis actually put into the P-40 airframe and successor single engine fighter designs.

[@DavidSiebert]

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.

[@frenchroast1355]

P40 was and still is my favorite war bird. This was an excellent vid.

[@andrewmetcalfe9898]

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.

[@jackdaniel7465]

The Australians RAAF and Army were a HUGE contribution to winning the war in the Pacific theater during world war 2.🇺🇸👍

[@wmater1615]

Excellent presentation of the P-40!

[@paoloviti6156]

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 👍👍👍

[@SvenTviking]

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.

[@paoloviti6156]

@@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....

[@billwilson3609]

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.

[@markkover8040]

@@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.

[@paoloviti6156]

@@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 👍👍

[@jwollivier55]

my father was fighter pilot during WW2 first serving in England flying Spitfires amongst others then being recalled to Australia when the Japanese were advancing to New Guinea. He flew Kittyhawks in No75 squadron then No80 squadron. He said he much preferred the kitty over the spitfire. the spitfire was very responsive in flight but didnt take damage well but the kitty was super rugged and the P40N was faster under 10000ft than the spit. In the late part of the war they rigged the kitty to take a 500lb bomb under the belly and a 250lb bomb under each wing. they only tried that a couple of times as the kitty could hardy get of the ground but it did pack a wallop. after the drop the kitty would dance around the sky like a gallah.

[@darrellseike3185]

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.

[@whalesong999]

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.

[@whiskeytuesday]

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.

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

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.

[@whiskeytuesday]

@@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.

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

That makes sense. I promise some math in the next video, which is coming soon.

[@interman7715]

American engineering is top notch.

[@keithwalden7718]

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 :)

[@ericbrammer2245]

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.

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

Wow, that's quite impressive. Those are three seriously important aircraft.

[@knutdergroe9757]

Ok Greg, A little post WWII Detroit engine history. My father moved to Detroit in 1947, as a job transfer. Bring his sports car with him. A 1936 Cord with the straight 12. Well he needed a mechanic, the one he found was building race boats for the Detroit river races. He was running sur plus V12 Allison's. My father always thought he was running Allison's because at time they were very inexpensive, now you have informed me different. One of the things that always struck me, when we talked about it(I was maybe 12 and not able to understand all, but still knowing there was much missing info from my father.). He said(my father) that he was running the engines on a homemade test stand, to over rev and holding it till the piston rods would stretched and blowing the heads. Now with that info, and your video I understand why he was doing so. And am very sure that Allison's engines were doing very well in the use of race boats. Keep in mind we are talking 1946-1949 My mother and father married in 1948, and I know he did not keep the Cord long after moving to Detroit.

[@Redhand1949]

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.

[@30AndHatingIt]

Out of curiosity, what did they make at the Buffalo NY plant? I'm from the area and have always wondered about that.

[@Redhand1949]

@@30AndHatingIt P-40s and C-46s for the most part. KZbin won't allow me to suggest online research sites but the info is readily available.

[@mpetersen6]

@@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.

[@maxwellheintz2391]

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.

[@bobsakamanos4469]

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.

[@billstrossman1134]

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.

[@donf3877]

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.

[@brucev6642]

'These type of videos get very mathy', I love that term. Great video, I was one of those people that though the P-40 was outclassed by other fighters, definitely not the case.

[@russguffee6661]

Thanks, Greg. Another great well researched video. I honestly think yours is the most criminally under-subbed channel on KZbin. 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.

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

Thanks Russ.

[@robertnorth631]

p-40 is underrated. I would be happy to fly one any day of the week.

[@whalesong999]

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.

[@45CaliberCure]

Lovely plane. Thank you for the additional information. One of the first models I built as a kid.

[@willl7780]

such a cool looking plane...iconic

[@Scott-ph2yk]

Great video. Very well researched and presented. The Allison suffered from a lack of development related to supercharging before the war. The US Army Air Corps policy was to prioritize turbocharging over supercharging due to the parasitic drag of supercharging. Two stage supercharging gave the Merlin 60 and beyond outstanding high altitude performance. Running a two stage blower requires careful engineering in order avoid detonation issues. Intercoolers and methanol injection are some of the ways engineers tried to address detonation issues. Due to a lack of funding for R&D from the the USAAC, the Allison was not developed with two stage supercharging. The Merlin was developed this way, so Rolls Royce was way ahead. The Allison was still a quality product; well engineered, modular, robust, and easily adapted to many different applications. The V1710 story is an interesting one, well worth reading about.

[@sukubann]

excellent video, didn't know that P-40 was so competitive and worthy thank you very much :)

[@timbrelane]

I always enjoy your perception, analysis, and data driven conclusions. Your vocal presentation is top notch, always conveying well considered opinions without relying on hype or conventional historical attitudes. Keep up the excellent work.

[@garygevisser1262]

My dad completed 71 dive bombing missions with SAAF Squadron 11 flying the P40-Kittyhawk.

[@neoconshooter]

Greg… I just plagiarized this from the guy below, but it IS exactly how I feel! Sorry Christopher Pabsst! Sincerely! I’ve been an amateur WW2 historian since before the second grade my uncle was a p-38 ace in the PTO! (I’m 74…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. PS. Your work on Boyd is great! Should apply it to the Spit-Vs-??? argument! Those Spity guys just don't get the idea.

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

Thanks Stewart. I appreciate your kind words.

[@spindash64]

There was actually a final model tested with a 4 blade prop and water injection, the P-40Q, but the US had little interest given that it wasn’t really better than a P-51 or P-47 already in service. It wasn’t a bad plane, but it wasn’t really worth the effort, so to speak

[@z_actual]

But it was in fact, the reason P51 came to be. The British had tried to acquire more P40 but found intense competition for the aircraft, they made the decision to approach North American to build P40 under license on their behalf. North American decided they could do better and replied they could design a better aircraft before they had time to get an assembly line going. The P51 came to be in just 102 days and named it Mustang.

[@rafaeltorres2886]

P40Q after the war made to Reno air races.

[@mpetersen6]

Different wing too if memory serves.

[@williamwalter4992]

The building I currently work in is the old Curtis assembly plant in Buffalo NY, now converted into office and warehouse space

[@benweber888]

It’s been too long Greg! Thank you

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

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.

[@brysonfitzgerald5238]

Thank you, Greg!

[@romaniachin6751]

Me & the whole IL-2 Squadron that i fly with all agree, Greg is the best, we often share & discus his videos & technical details. Thank you, Greg, for all your work 🙏 great stuff.

[@patrickshaw8595]

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."

[@jamesbottger5894]

An experienced pilot flying an inferior plane would always clean the clock of brand new pilot flying a superior plane...

[@charlielaudico3523]

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

[@theoldman8877]

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 .

[@dianedougwhale7260]

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 !

[@hyltonswemmer4824]

Greg this has been delightful........so informative and a pleasure to watch

[@brucetutton7897]

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.

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

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.

[@dyer2cycle]

@@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?...

[@billwilson3609]

@@dyer2cycle Packard used SAE.

[@julianneale6128]

​@dyer2cycle Packard had to retool to make Whitworth threads for Merlin production. However, things like certain ancillaries that were locally sourced in the USA would use SAE threads. It just makes you think of the size of the tool kit for a Packard built R-R Merlin...

[@btpcmsag]

When did the Brits abandon Whitworth specs for SAE, or did they ever? American cars are using more metric all the time now.

[@slice1208]

P-40 is my favorite plane of ww2 !

[@donaldreach760]

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".

[@jeffbrooke4892]

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.

[@olsmokey]

I'm glad someone mentioned the P-36. The P-40 was basically a P-36 with a V-12 instead of a radial.

[@MCTeck]

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!

[@brianmoore1164]

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.

[@TCSC47]

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.

[@Activated_Complex]

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.

[@rlstafford4359]

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.

[@toastyboi3688]

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.

[@bobsakamanos4469]

accumulation of lead deposits was a problem with the Allison.

[@robertfoote3255]

And when it comes to "looks" the P40 had it from the start.... One of the best looking fighters hands down.

[@markkover8040]

The P-40 was a good fighter within its limitations. Pilots who flew it learned to use its strengths in combat. I had an aviation mechanic explain the differences between the Allison and Merlin engines, which are similar in many ways. The Allison is much more simply laid out with nearly everything easy to get to. The Merlins were/are like a complicated jigsaw puzzle and much more difficult to maintain. He pointed out that for every hour spent on an Allison, it would take six to eight on a Merlin. However, the turbo-supercharger system designed for the Merlin was smaller and easier to maintain than the one for the Allison. The P-40 was well employed by the British and the Commonwealth countries. The top P-40 ace was Australian Clive Caldwell, who shot down 22 Italian and German aircraft over North Africa while flying P-40s.

[@nabirasch5169]

Your mechanic, essentially saying that the Merlin had more downtime, seems to be somewhat at odds with the video.

[@markkover8040]

@@nabirasch5169 If you look at the two engines side by side, it's easy to see that the Merlin is the more complicated of the two. This video versus people who work on the two engines currently . . . the fact of the matter is the Merlins are down more often than the Allisons. Then from histories I've read, it's clear that the Merlins required more TLC than the Allisons. After WWII when boat racing became popular in America, there were thousands of both Merlins and Allisons available as power plants. The Allisons became the most popular because they were easier to maintain and they didn't breakdown as often. This is not to say the Merlin wasn't a great engine, not by any means. It does mean though, that the engine requires much more maintenance to keep it operational.

[@dianedougwhale7260]

Many--dont know the difference-- Turbo Charger--Super Charger !

[@dianedougwhale7260]

@@markkover8040 it's easy to forget-- USA Is a British Country right down to their boot laces--e.g.the p51 is totally British--manufactured in the former Colony 😳 😀.

[@markkover8040]

@@dianedougwhale7260 This Hungarian, and all the Scandinavians, Germans, Slavs, Italians, Greeks, Poles, Frenchies, Russians, and of course, all the Native Americans I grew up with in the Pacific Northwest and western Rockies would strongly disagree with you.😁

[@rossanderson4440]

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.

[@bobsakamanos4469]

Yes, the specs promulgated for the N were always, the lightweight, undergunned version, which was rarely used in combat.

[@davewickizer4506]

My dad flew p40s in the beginning of the war and later got into p47s and loved his jug. He had several Japanese to his credit in his p40 but his jug was a tank

[@tolpacourt]

The P47 was the safest fighter to fly in WWII. The pilot had a lot of armor around him.

[@sadwingsraging3044]

I'm sorry,,, if you think there is _anything_ cooler than having the canopy thrown back with that prop washing you with air as you get ready to take off in your freshly painted P-40 including those dead eyes and sharks mouth underslung behind that sharp tip spinner with the blue with a twelve pointed white star roundels placed outboard of the spots provided in the factory paint scheme getting ready to take off,,, if you think anything is cooler than that you need your head checked IMHO. ;-) Another classic Greg video...

[@haroldhenderson2824]

As with most fighter planes, use the strengths of YOUR aircraft against the weakness of your opponent. Avoid the weakness of your aircraft being exploited by the enemy.

[@flectovarathane5205]

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’.”

[@FiveCentsPlease]

+ 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.

[@bullseyepete8367]

Great vid Greg. Seems like the allison and p40 wouldnhave been great with a little bit of hot rodding. The Australians weren't afraid to push it. Some more boost maybe some meth/water injection. Or add a turbo like the p39 was supposed to have

[@spindash64]

Turbos in WWII aren’t all that and a Bag of Chips. Look up the YP-37

[@bullseyepete8367]

@@spindash64 turbocharger is just a way to add pressure. I'm pretty sure they worked good in p38 and p47. You have to add manifold pressure to maintain power at high altitudes. If the motor can handle it. Seems like allison could. P39 had a turbo originally and performed good. Some jackass said it looked funny and was too complicated. Doesn't matter too much how you add the power as long as its tuned for proper delivery. An 1800hp allison good to 30-35k ft would be a monster

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

A WW2 era turbo would not fit in a normal P-40, they did experiment with it in that airframe, but it never went anywhere.

[@spindash64]

@@bullseyepete8367 But they’re REALLY heavy and REALLY big. The P-38 and P-47 were Enormous specifically because of the Turbos The P-39 did just fine without the Turbo in VVS service

[@breckhollis1089]

They actually produced a "service test" set of P40s with turbo chargers. To fit the turbo system, they had to push the cockpit well back. Pilots that flew it hated it due to the lack of forward visibility and it was not proceeded with.

[@adamcrookedsmile]

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.

[@Glicksman1]

My understanding of the P40 is that it was the best turning AAF fighter of the war, out-turning Messerschmitts in North Africa on a regular basis. What it gave up in high speed and high altitude performance it more than gained by its basic excellent design in turning fights. This is partially why it was so effective in the Pacific theatre where high altitude performance was not a factor. It was much tougher and faster than the Zero, and if the P-40's airspeed was maintained at or above 300 mph, it could beat any Zero, even in a turning fight which Japanese Army and Navy pilots always defaulted to. However, their Zeros could not easily turn at higher airspeed as the Zero's ailerons tended to greatly stiffen and lock up at or above 300 mph.

[@alganhar1]

Except there is plenty of evidence to show Japanese pilots did NOT in fact always default to a turning fight. Like the Americans they actually preferred an Energy fight though due to the agility of the Zero were more than willing to turn an Energy fight into a turning fight. Thatch's defence at Midway should show you very clearly that the Japanese Doctrine was for Energy engagements, had those Zeros engaged in a turning fight, taking on Thatch's vastly outnumbered group, breaking them up and turning it into a free for all dogfight then Thatch would not have survived. However, they DID NOT, they maintained their attacks from above and behind all throughout the engagement as evidenced by the accounts not only of Thatch but of the pilots who flew with him. Which by itself shows pretty damned clearly that they did NOT in fact default to turning fights, even if they were more than willing to take them on if an engagement turned INTO a turning fight..... EDIT: This even killed many inexperienced Japanese Pilots. They were not as heavily trained in deflection shooting as US pilots so doctrine was to attack in a dive from as directly behind and above as possible, to continue the dive under the enemy aircraft, then pull up to regain altitude, many an inexperienced Japanese pilot misjudged the timing of the pullout and climbed directly into the path of the guns of the aircraft he had just attacked. If standard Japanese Tactics were to dogfight then this would not have happened, he would have latched onto your tail and STAYED there until either he or you were shot down. Like everyone else Japanese Doctrine prioritised Energy. Despite the agility of their aircraft. Yes, they were more willing to engage in a dogfight, but they, like every other airforce, recognised the strength of using energy.

[@Glicksman1]

@@alganhar1 You make many good points, but the Zero was not designed to be an Energy fighter but a turning fighter. It was light, unarmoured, and fragile. Most of its pilots didn't even wear a parachute (see Bushido below). It couldn't dive worth a damn, a necessary and primary characteristic of Energy fighting, and would flame with few hits. Also, the Bushido tradition is not to hit and run, it is to aggressively engage and stay in the fight, live or die. A close, quick, violent turning fight is the way of the Samauri. Once the F-4-F's characteristics were known, the Japanese pilots knew that it was a very sturdy, heavily armed airplane that could dive very well, flown by well-trained and valiant pilots. However, like everything else they had previously encountered, it could not turn with them in low to mid airspeed fights and they knew that they could win a turning fight with them under those conditions. Why then would they play such a deadly game in the F-4-F's ballpark? They also found it hard to knock a Grumman-tough Wildcat down, but they did have two 20mm cannon (the best aerial weapon of the war) as well as machine guns. However, the Wildcat's six .50s machine guns carried a heavier punch than the Zero's two 20mm cannon and two 7.7 mm (0.303 in) machine guns. Having read "Samauri" ( Saburo Sakai) and "Zero" (Martin Caiden), among other excellent books about the air war in the Pacific, I have not found any evidence therein of a preference for an Energy style of aerial combat amongst the Japanese Naval pilots of WWII. Anyway, this is a good discussion and surely we can agree to differ. I'd like to hear from some Japanese who are knowledgeable about this subject. Also, apropos of nothing, I have always found the P-40 to be the most attractive and sexiest American fighter in WWI, and the FW-190 the most attractive and sexiest German fighter. As for British fighters, you might be surprised that I find the Hurricane more attractive than the Spitfire by a small margin. Both are great. The Brits have style.

[@toknenengburjegol6430]

Have read the exploits of John Landers in PNG. He said that he was able to outturn the zero in a dogfight at high speeds. Below 250, the zero will eat the ass of any allied warcraft, p-40, p-38, p-51, f6f, f4u. Zero pilots usually take the fight to vertical when engaging f4f. A fatal mistake when they encountered the f6f. Against the P-38, f4us, with height advantage, the zero has no chance. Turning does not help as it could not do so above 250. It could not outrun, could not disengage at will.

[@Glicksman1]

@@toknenengburjegol6430 This is my understanding as well having read, among others', Saburo Sakai's excellent book. I'm pretty sure that once thy understood the relative advantage of each airplane, F-4-F pilots did not engage Zeros upwards vertically. Stay at or above 300 mph, hit, extend and hit again. That's how Wildcat pilots got a 6.9:1 kill ratio during the war.

[@bobsakamanos4469]

In North Africa, the P-40 could out roll a 109, but not out turn it, altitude being a factor of course.

[@pvccannon1966]

Ill tell the truth here, i thought the p-40 was discontinued right after the start of the war. Wild cats holding the line till the hell cats and corsairs came in. I never thought that the p-40 had so many variants each so late into the war. Great vid. learn something new every day.

[@brianhillis3701]

History writers ignored most of the land based planes in the Pacific and Asian theaters. The leaders of those areas were difficult for reporters to deal with . Hence less press.

[@Ford_Raptor_R_720hp_V8]

*the P-40 is credited with 1,944 kills. not too Shabby for an early design.* *the Hawker Hurricane 1,200 kills, and the Japanese Zero 1,500 kills, by comparison.* *Corsair 2,155 kills*

[@malcolmcarter1726]

Very interesting. The P 40 I find most intriguing,is the XP 40 Q-1+2. Powered by the V 1710/101. The same aircraft was redesigned and modified from the Q 1 with no chin intake and razorback fuselage/cockpit canopy, into the Q 2 prototype with a chin cooling intake albeit much shallower in relief than the iconic kittyhawks item. The fuselage was re profiled to enable fitment of a modern 360 degree 'bubble' canopy. It was repainted aluminium at some stage and its in this metamorphosis that I think it looks the best. A bit like a less curvaceous P 51 D . But very neat and test pilots and army air force pilots that flew it ,said that it was the best P 40 of them all! Thanks for these great informative videos.

[@choctawone8266]

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.

[@bobsakamanos4469]

The P-39 had severe handling problems and was not a good weapons platform during manouvers.

[@billstewart5421]

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.

[@bmasontv]

This has turned out to be one of my favorite of Greg's videos. Great job!

[@jimstanga6390]

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

[@patrickshaw8595]

Thanks, Greg - you hit another one out of the park !

[@ja37d-34]

The first model I ever built was an Airfix P-40 at the age of 7. So will always have a soft spot for me,. :)

[@rickjones3886]

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.

[@SoloRenegade]

Many USAF fighters flew off carriers at one point, such as the P-47, P-40, P-51, etc. Many were transported across the ocean then launched, never to return to the carrier, instead landing ashore somewhere. But some were evaluated for carrier ops including a P-51 modified with an arrestor hook.

[@billbolton]

Great! Thanks Greg. I don't mind the math; good reason to get the old rusty cogs and gears turning.

[@bizjetfixr8352]

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.

[@edwardpate6128]

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.

[@janblake9468]

40 years ago I worked with a guy who worked for Allison during WWII. He went to various North American bases, to trouble shoot problems. He said the P-40's that had chronic minor problems, and considered "seconds", were shipped to China. P-40's are my favorite WWII plane.

[@thebluegrocer]

Splendid stuff Greg, and it's given me a new respect for Curtis planes. Thanks!

[@chocolatte6157]

I always liked the P-40 and was always dismayed by the negative commentary about the plane. So, it was not bad in the right application. Good video. Thank you.

[@jonathanstancil8544]

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.

[@FiveCentsPlease]

+ 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.

[@joelonzello4189]

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...

[@britishamerican4321]

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.

[@lawrencefox563]

That spitfire wing , thoughts to been taken from heinkel design never put in production.,it's on utube

[@britishamerican4321]

@@lawrencefox563 I've heard both--that it was based on a Heinkel design, and that it was not.

[@danmccollister4840]

My grandfather, George Paxton, joined the AVG, and flew with the Flying Tigers during world war 2.

[@diffened]

Cool, as a kid I read "God is My Co-Pilot" a couple times and really liked reading about those guys and the P-40 became my favorite fighter. Sixty years later I still think it deserves more credit.