Airworthy P-40's

aseanaero · **Posted:** Sun Aug 09, 2009 7:30 am

Great looking aircraft

Are they oil coolers sitting under the engine or radiators ?

AvroAvian · **Posted:** Sun Aug 09, 2009 8:37 am

Quote:

Are they oil coolers sitting under the engine or radiators ?

Both. The two outboard coolers are the Coolant radiators and the center is the oil cooler. Can be made of brass or aluminum, depending on the model.
The Merlin powered P-40's have a different set up again, with a single, rectangular boxy thing for the radiator and two small circular oil coolers underneath. If you have a close look at an F/L the radiator scoop is quite a bit deeper than it's Allison powered counterpart.

Dave Hadfield · **Joined:** Sun Sep 17, 2006 10:31 pm **Posts:** 1672

If anyone wants to view an over-wing cockpit tour of the Vintage Wings P-40N-1, it's here at

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gl4BCNqecJ8

Be kind to the narrator. And his worts. The thing was impromptu, unscripted, and there were no re-takes.

Fun though.

Dave

AirJimL2 · **Posted:** Sun Aug 09, 2009 9:32 am

Jack Cook wrote:

Was there a hint I missed Jim??

Jack,

I was hinting as to who the owner of Woodstock Aviation is. The pilot in your pic is another hint. Santa Rosa CA, Woodstock, Sopwith ace in the cockpit...hum...

Jim

Jack Cook · **Posted:** Sun Aug 09, 2009 11:05 am

Peppermint Patty owns the P-40? :shock:

Chris Brame · **Posted:** Sun Aug 09, 2009 11:49 am

Quoting her crew chief, Marcie: "Yes, SIR!" :lol:

Rajay · **Posted:** Tue Aug 25, 2009 1:52 pm

mightyauster wrote:

The thing that bugs me with the AVG is that although these guys were no doubt brave and fought on the winning and therefore more rightoeus side, they were still, at the end of the day, mercenaries, being paid to fight the Japanese by Chiang Kai Shek, leader of the Nationalist Chinese forces.
Using this reasoning, I believe that there are a lot of other Allied forces that used P-40's with great distinction, that deserve far, far more recognition, eg the 49th Fighter Group. The AVG, IMHO, were used as a propaganda tool in the US early in the war to convince the public to sign up. Hence the use of Disney designed logos. This built up the myth around them and before long you start believing your own BS.

I'm glad to see that it didn't take but 15 minutes for someone to post the response about the Americans in the Eagle squadrons of the RAF in 1940 (which actually pre-dated the AVG in China.) That was also my first thought, anyway.

If someone wants to carry around a chip on his shoulder that attributes the success and fame of the AVG to some kind of Madison Avenue or Hollywood PR campaign, that is his right. You know, we still live in a "free" country (where nothing is actually free...but that's a different thread altogether.)

Personally, I think that what the Flying Tigers did was heroic and no less so if they had been called the American Mercenary Group. (OK, the PR campaign might not have been as successful if they had....) Either way, they put themselves in harms way months before the US got into the war. They were true fighter pilots; they wanted to fly and carry the fight to the enemy. They didn't care about bureaucratic red tape or labels like "volunteer" or "mercenary." Also consider the fact that after the AVG was absorbed into the 23rd FG of the USAAC 14th Air Force in the CBI theatre, many of the original AVG pilots returned to active duty and did additional tours of duty.

If on the other hand, you simply want to make the point that maybe other WWII P-40 units have been under-represented in Warbird circles for too many years, that would be perfectly valid and I would also agree. I believe that point, however, can be made without denigrating the AVG.

Dan K · **Posted:** Tue Aug 25, 2009 2:38 pm

Rajay wrote:

...Personally, I think that what the Flying Tigers did was heroic and no less so if they had been called the American Mercenary Group. (OK, the PR campaign might not have been as successful if they had....) Either way, they put themselves in harms way months before the US got into the war...

The United States entered the war with an official declaration on December 8th, 1941.

The AVG's first combat was December 20, 1941.

Rajay · **Posted:** Tue Aug 25, 2009 5:02 pm

Dan K wrote:

Rajay wrote:

...Personally, I think that what the Flying Tigers did was heroic and no less so if they had been called the American Mercenary Group. (OK, the PR campaign might not have been as successful if they had....) Either way, they put themselves in harms way months before the US got into the war...

The United States entered the war with an official declaration on December 8th, 1941.

The AVG's first combat was December 20, 1941.

What is your point? OK, so I used the term "in harms way" more loosely than you seem to. Are you implying that the actions of the AVG were not heroic? (That is the current, albeit sidetracked, issue at hand.)

The AVG members separated from their previous active duty assignments starting in the spring of 1941 and travelled to Burma during the summer and fall of 1941. It took them a couple of months to get organized and re-trained according Chennault's doctrine of fighter tactics before they actually entered "combat". In any case, they left their "peaceful" and relatively "cushy" stateside lives behind and entered a WAR zone long before the US was officially "at war" with anybody.

While other US servicemen were actually engaged in combat prior to the first combat action on the part of the AVG, a lot if not most of those other servicemen still woke up every morning, for days, weeks, and even months after the AVG guys had sailed for Burma, including the morning of December 7th, 1941, still hoping for peace - if they even bothered to think about the issue. Long before that, the member of the AVG had already done more than think about it; they had acted. All through October and November of 1941, the members of the AVG knew for a fact that they would soon be engaged in combat.

Your "facts" alone are not sufficient to undermine the validity of my previous statements. That, however, seems to be their intent. Are you content to just take pot shots at other people's opinions, or do you have a specific opinion of your own about the subject at hand?

Jack Cook · **Posted:** Tue Aug 25, 2009 5:51 pm

Am I allowed to post anymore or am I restricted :shock:

hang the expense · **Posted:** Tue Aug 25, 2009 8:24 pm

Rajay wrote:

mightyauster wrote:

The thing that bugs me with the AVG is that although these guys were no doubt brave and fought on the winning and therefore more rightoeus side, they were still, at the end of the day, mercenaries, being paid to fight the Japanese by Chiang Kai Shek, leader of the Nationalist Chinese forces.
Using this reasoning, I believe that there are a lot of other Allied forces that used P-40's with great distinction, that deserve far, far more recognition, eg the 49th Fighter Group. The AVG, IMHO, were used as a propaganda tool in the US early in the war to convince the public to sign up. Hence the use of Disney designed logos. This built up the myth around them and before long you start believing your own BS.

I'm glad to see that it didn't take but 15 minutes for someone to post the response about the Americans in the Eagle squadrons of the RAF in 1940 (which actually pre-dated the AVG in China.) That was also my first thought, anyway.

If someone wants to carry around a chip on his shoulder that attributes the success and fame of the AVG to some kind of Madison Avenue or Hollywood PR campaign, that is his right. You know, we still live in a "free" country (where nothing is actually free...but that's a different thread altogether.)

Personally, I think that what the Flying Tigers did was heroic and no less so if they had been called the American Mercenary Group. (OK, the PR campaign might not have been as successful if they had....) Either way, they put themselves in harms way months before the US got into the war. They were true fighter pilots; they wanted to fly and carry the fight to the enemy. They didn't care about bureaucratic red tape or labels like "volunteer" or "mercenary." Also consider the fact that after the AVG was absorbed into the 23rd FG of the USAAC 14th Air Force in the CBI theatre, many of the original AVG pilots returned to active duty and did additional tours of duty.

If on the other hand, you simply want to make the point that maybe other WWII P-40 units have been under-represented in Warbird circles for too many years, that would be perfectly valid and I would also agree. I believe that point, however, can be made without denigrating the AVG.

Very nicely put.I wouldnt have been near that nice in a reply.

Chuck Giese · **Posted:** Tue Aug 25, 2009 9:07 pm

hang the expense wrote:

Don Brooks p-40 41-5709 by the 26 of august this year.

HtE was correct. Don Brooks' P-40E 41-5709 took to the skies today, 67 years after its last flight. Pictures tomorrow, video soon.

Chuck

Dan K · **Posted:** Tue Aug 25, 2009 9:42 pm

Rajay wrote:

Dan K wrote:

Rajay wrote:

...Personally, I think that what the Flying Tigers did was heroic and no less so if they had been called the American Mercenary Group. (OK, the PR campaign might not have been as successful if they had....) Either way, they put themselves in harms way months before the US got into the war...

The United States entered the war with an official declaration on December 8th, 1941.

The AVG's first combat was December 20, 1941.

...What is your point?...

Your "facts" alone are not sufficient to undermine the validity of my previous statements. That, however, seems to be their intent. Are you content to just take pot shots at other people's opinions, or do you have a specific opinion of your own about the subject at hand?

My point?

Potshots--as you labeled them--pure and simple.

You see, the original post is about surviving P-40s.

But friend, by your own admission you've turned this into an opinionated rant concerning the AVG.

Kindly end your piracy and allow the thread to continue unmolested.

Bye-bye and buy bonds.

Rajay · **Posted:** Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:46 pm

Dan K wrote:

My point?

Potshots--as you labeled them--pure and simple.

You see, the original post is about surviving P-40s.

But friend, by your own admission you've turned this into an opinionated rant concerning the AVG.

Kindly end your piracy and allow the thread to continue unmolested.

Dan K,
If you look back far enough, you'll see that I was NOT the one who detoured into the subject of the heroism (or not) of the AVG. My first comments were directed at that individual's "rant" as you put it. My comments were about discussing the validity of marking surviving warbird P-40's as AVG versus other units, which I feel was perfectly valid given the nature of this thread, and tried to steer it back that way.

The fact that you admit to doing nothing more than taking potshots of your own, an act that serves no purpose other than to throw more gasoline on the fire, very effectively undermines the supposed but false altruism of your admonition to end the "rants" and "piracy" of this thread. It appears to me that you weren't trying to restore the sanctity of the conversation, but rather that you simply thought you saw a vulnerably exposed flank and you lunged at it. When wild animals behave like that, they are usually tested for rabies.

Dan K · **Posted:** Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:09 pm

Rajay wrote:

Dan K wrote:

My point?

Potshots--as you labeled them--pure and simple.

You see, the original post is about surviving P-40s.

But friend, by your own admission you've turned this into an opinionated rant concerning the AVG.

Kindly end your piracy and allow the thread to continue unmolested.

Dan K,
If you look back far enough, you'll see that I was NOT the one who detoured into the subject of the heroism (or not) of the AVG. My first comments were directed at that individual's "rant" as you put it. My comments were about discussing the validity of marking surviving warbird P-40's as AVG versus other units, which I feel was perfectly valid given the nature of this thread, and tried to steer it back that way.

The fact that you admit to doing nothing more than taking potshots of your own, an act that serves no purpose other than to throw more gasoline on the fire, very effectively undermines the supposed but false altruism of your admonition to end the "rants" and "piracy" of this thread. It appears to me that you weren't trying to restore the sanctity of the conversation, but rather that you simply thought you saw a vulnerably exposed flank and you lunged at it. When wild animals behave like that, they are usually tested for rabies.

Already sipping brandy...strongly suggest you do same. :wink:

Warbird Information Exchange

Airworthy P-40's

Who is online