Curtiss P-40Q

P-40F and P-40L, which both featured Packard V-1650 Merlin engine in place of the normal Allison. Performance was marginally better at high altitudes and worse at sea level. The Allison V-1710 in it's most developed versions was far better than most know today.

reply

Imagine if this had been available to the AVG.
Part P-40, part P-51 and Part Spitfire!
Now imagine if it had a Merlin!

reply

the mustang, lightning, corsair and hellcat were all great aircraft, but you have to keep in mind the us turned the tide in the pacific using the p-400 (bell airacobra), the grumman wildcat and the p-40. for political reasons the airacobra gets little credit (the soviets used it more effectively than we did and since it was an american product the soviets played down its role as well as that of the p-40.) there was good reason that the p-40 stayed in production throughout the war, it was a great fighter aircraft in all its versions!

reply

It's not the aircraft, it's what it's used for.
The Soviets had great low level service from the P39 and P40. The US tried to cover too many bases and ended up covering none. A lesson for today perhaps?

reply

actually the P-40Q had the most advanced version of the Allison,
It had a two stage constant boost supercharger on a variable speed drive.
Performance at all altitudes was excellent.
Problem is as you noted, it was too late.
The P-51 and P-47 did the job better and had far greater range.
Also they were already in the fight.

Boris

reply

The Allison was a fine engine, proved itself in the P-38. Not turbosupercharged in the P-39 and P-40, this US Army decision doomed both machines to mediocrity. If the P-40Q had the right engine ( a turbosupercharged Allison V1710 ), it could have been one of the greatest fighters of World War 2. Too bad Curtiss didn't start the P-40 "clean-up" program sooner. A rugged machine , capable of very high dive rates and more manueverable than the P-51, the P-40 if fully developed sooner would have been a very feared airplane in the skies over the Pacific and in Europe. On hand when needed early on in the war, the P-40 in the hands of a good pilot proved to be a formidable weapon despite its lack of level flight high speed especially at high altitude.

reply

The P40 and C46 were built in Cheektowaga, a suburb of Buffalo, New York. My father was Chief Maintenace Man for all three plants. We did not see much of him during that time. I remember touring the plant on a Sunday in 1943 and being allowed to enter a C46 and peer into the cockpit of a P40. I was 9 years old.

reply

At the time of the US entry into WWII
the P-40 was better than any Japanese
fighter if used properly.
Few if any monoplane fighters could turn
with an Oscar or zero.
I know of none that could combine the turn,
speed and climb of a Zero or Oscar under 5,000'
altitude.
But the P-40 was faster at all altitudes than
either Japanese plane.
It also posessed a far higher terminal speed
in a dive. The P-40B's climb was not far behind either
Japanese fighter.
Add self sealing tanks and pilots armour and shatter
proof glass then the P-40 don't look all that bad!
The obvious was not that obvious in 1941.
The obvious being hit and run tactics.
Dive, hit em at 400+ MPH and zoom up out of range.
Re-group and hit em again.

A P-40B or C could easily survive a 500mph dive.
It's doubtful a Zero or Oscar could survive more than 400.

Add to the above the P-40 turned rather well and gave
excellent stall warning.

The issues of the P-40, and for that matter the P-39
were mostly speed and range.

We Americans hate to take casualties when a simple matter
of money spent and brain power can give a better weapon.
Speed is life in any fighter.
Range became mission critical!
That is why the P-38, P-51 and P-47 got more kills and
better press.

Oh yes, the P-40 lacking a two stage supercharger still
gave better high altitude performance than any Japanese
fighter of 1941!

Boris

reply

My father, Glyn Ramsey, is an old "China hand", and he flew this great warbird in a lot of combat. He also flew the P-51 in the same theater. He swears by the P-40 as the toughest thing there was, and he made the Japs respect it even more. It is one of WWII's greatfighters...because it was there, and it did the job!

reply

Hrm....If a later-model Spitfire and a P-40 made love, would this be the result?

reply

"The first altitude-rated C engine with integral supercharger, the V-1710-C13, was installed in the Curtiss XP-40 in 1938 and this engine was put into production as the V-1710-C15 in 1939."

There is nothing incorrect about this statement.
It is easily miss understood as the first Allison
with a integral supercharger.

In reality it was the first Allison with an altitude rated integral supercharger
to be installed in a XP-37....

All airworthy Allison V-1710 engines were equipped with a integral engine driven supercharger.

Jane's 1945-46, of which I own an original, is not incorrect.
It is a mere miss understanding ;-)

Boris

reply

Sorry. Myself and Jane's 1945 /46 are wrong."The first practical flight installation of the C model was made in 1937 in the Curtiss XP-37. This engine was the V-1710-C10 with exhaust-driven turbo-supercharger. The first altitude-rated C engine with integral supercharger, the V-1710-C13, was installed in the Curtiss XP-40 in 1938 and this engine was put into production as the V-1710-C15 in 1939. Sir William Stephenson,"Intrepid", once said "A document is the best lie". Dr. Theodore von Karman once asked "how can there be progress without controversy?" For myself, I do not have an original thought without the germ of fact to support it.

reply

On the versions of the V-1710 that included a turbocharger, the Turbo was the second, or, "auxillary" stage.
Leo, A Turbocharger is still a supercharger, it just isn't an "engine-driven" supercharer.

reply

V-1710-11 (C7) Engine driven blower ratio was 7:1.
Turbocharging was also used but the results were poor.
All Allison V-1710s were equipped with a engine
driven superchager with a gear ratio of 7:1 or 8:1.
The original contract was for a airship and that version had no blower.
It was also reversable.
All aircraft versions had a supercharger driven by the engine )I am repeating myself!).

Boris

reply

1937 allison V-1710-C10, fitted to the Curtiss XP-37?

reply

All Allison V-1710s had a engine driven supercharger.
Turbocharged versions had the engine driven unit and a turbosupercharger as a first stage.

Myth BUSTED.

Boris

reply

Never heard the myth but semantically speaking, turbo-charged Allisons weren't supercharged. No Allison engines were equipped with viable high-altitude-rated superchargers worthy of being in service. And without picking Stanley Hooker's brain, there never would have been a two-stage supercharger with anti-backfire screen. But, that's just semantics.

reply

Correction, for those who still believe the myth, NO Allison V-1710
was ever built with no supercharger (except the airship version).
The Allison powering the P-40Q was a two stage supercharged engine
with intercooler.

I repeat, NO Allison V-1710 that ever got into an airplane was un supercharged.

Boris

reply

yes Leo, the Merlin was a great engine, its h.p. rating equal or better than its total cubic inches. The Merlin was 1,650 cu.in.?

reply

Do you know what company built critical components for Allison? If you dont know , the answer will probably surprise you.

reply