P-40 talk

[Nathan]

In my ever quest to try and share new light on the P-40, that she was a good airplane despite what others might say. Here is a video depicting a P-40 display 2007. Notice the effective smoothness the ailerons give during the rolls and turns. I have seen many P-51 acts in my day and between the P-51 and P-40, the P-40 always showed more nimbleness and quickness in her maneuvers. The P-40 sure hides her qualities good from everyone. Did most people overlook the P-40 back in the day that much to miss some of these qualities?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBiXD9RK ... re=related

Thanks,
Nathan

[JohnTerrell]

How did Jeff Ethel describe the P-40 again? "Like a Pitts, with an Allison engine on the front?"

The P-40 - 'the best ailerons of the west'.

[bdk]

Probably the best warbird display I've seen of any kind was Joe Frasca flying his dad's P-40 in an aerobatic display at Oshkosh. He flew a really tight show and included things like a loop with a snap roll at the top. Very impressive, he was quite a talent. About the closest warbird acts I can think of that might be even close to comparable are Bud Granley in his T-6 or John Mohr in his Stearman, but I've only seen those on video.

[corsair166b]

I seem to recall reading somewhere that Saburo Sakai, the great Japanese ace, said he thought the P-40 was as dangerous a plane as was a P-51 if it was flown by a skilled pilot....personally, I've always thought of the Hurricaen, the P-40 and the Wildcat in the same category, very capable but not the best, but probably the P-40 being the most capable of the three...and they all three made it to the end of the war with admirable service records.

mark

[spookythecat]

Probably the best warbird display I've seen of any kind was Joe Frasca flying his dad's P-40 in an aerobatic display at Oshkosh. He flew a really tight show and included things like a loop with a snap roll at the top. Very impressive, he was quite a talent. About the closest warbird acts I can think of that might be even close to comparable are Bud Granley in his T-6 or John Mohr in his Stearman, but I've only seen those on video.

Wow! It was great to have the memory of that snap roll loop brought back. I recall wondering if I had just seen that.

I've gotta agree about Bud Granley as well. Whether in his T-6 of flying Paul Allen's stuff he just makes it all look so graceful.

[Enemy Ace]

I think the labor involved in building a -40 and the very high parts count vs. the -51 was part of what limited it once the mustang came on the scene..... Remember at the time that large #'s of fighters were needed ASAP... The mustang was better , easier to produce, had the range, etc etc...

[Jack Cook]

Bud Granley in his T-6

If you're a really old dog like me you could have seen Bud flying
the P-40E in a low level acro display. I remember a flight with
Bud in Lickety Split so close I could have reached out and touched the wing tip

[Dudley Henriques]

In my ever quest to try and share new light on the P-40, that she was a good airplane despite what others might say. Here is a video depicting a P-40 display 2007. Notice the effective smoothness the ailerons give during the rolls and turns. I have seen many P-51 acts in my day and between the P-51 and P-40, the P-40 always showed more nimbleness and quickness in her maneuvers. The P-40 sure hides her qualities good from everyone. Did most people overlook the P-40 back in the day that much to miss some of these qualities?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBiXD9RK ... re=related

Thanks,
Nathan

Chennault noted the qualities both good and bad on the P40 and optimized the AVG tactics to reflect these factors. They operated the airplane quite successfully against the Japanese.

In displaying either the P40 or the 51, most display pilots will fly a low g profile under around 4g's positive and 1g negative with the emphasis on smoothness. Rolls are performed on a parabolic curve to keep stress off the airframe (makes the roll look better from the ground as well

Considering the above, any comparison between the Mustang and the P40 display wise would have to consider the stick and rudder skill difference if any between the two cockpits. Roll rate on the P40 was very high. In fact, little known generally but the P40's roll rate was actually superior to the Zeke above the Zeke's corner velocity, especially at the higher end of the airspeed range during a turn.
Chennault's famous "NEVER turn with a Zero" actually referred to following the Zeke into turns with a P40 where drag rise would eventually bring the 40 down to the Zeke's corner at which point the 40 could be out turned.
Back to display flying; considering the above, and with both the Mustang and the P40 being flown correctly for the average display, since neither aircraft will be anywhere near it's max performance limits, both will produce a very nice display with any "winner" being the pilot with the smoothest stick hand
Dudley Henriques

[Jack Cook]

most display pilots will fly a low g profile

Granley

Chennault's famous "NEVER turn with a Zero"

a shame they never actually flew against Zeros

[gemmer]

most display pilots will fly a low g profile

Granley

Chennault's famous "NEVER turn with a Zero"

a shame they never actually flew against Zeros

Spot on.

Duane

[Dudley Henriques]

most display pilots will fly a low g profile

Granley

Chennault's famous "NEVER turn with a Zero"

a shame they never actually flew against Zeros

That's true. Mostly Hayabusa's and Nakajima 97's if I recall. The quote was twisted back and forth and generally ended up with the "zero" attribution. Bob Scott however did mention to me on several occasions that Chennault had indeed used the term "zero" in a lot of his impromptu "lectures". Scotty attributed this to Chennault having studied the Zeke's design early on and attempting to warn the powers that be in the US about the plane's performance. Much to Chennault's chagrin, they discounted what he had to say. Chennault never forgave them.

I'm not a historian. I've had the pleasure of knowing several of the old AVG and knew Scotty quite well. What little I know historically can be attributed to these relationships.

DH

[Dudley Henriques]

most display pilots will fly a low g profile

Granley
[quote]

If you are referring to Granley's snaps with the T6 on takeoff I would have no problem with that aerodynamically. It's gutsy in a 6 but doable obviously.

For the P40 and the 51 it's an entirely different matter. The P40 can be snapped below 140 but I would never recommend snapping a Mustang at any time let alone during a display.
If Granley has snapped a P40 during a display, he is of course PIC of his aircraft and has been cleared to do that. If asked, I would not recommend snapping any prop fighter for display purposes. In my opinion it stresses the airframe unnecessarily.
As I said, when it comes down to displaying a prop fighter, smoothness is the name of the game and a low g profile is highly recommended by most display pilots flying these older aircraft.
DH

[Dudley Henriques]

I've only seen Bud hammerhead Miss America with clipped wings.
Chris...

Hammerheads are doable in the Mustang with good power reduction timing at the top to prevent a roll off due to torque. If there ever was a pilot out here displaying a prop fighter that I'd be comfortable watching them do a Hammerhead in a Mustang it would be a pilot with Granley's stick and rudder skills.
DH

[JDK]

In my ever quest to try and share new light on the P-40, that she was a good airplane despite what others might say. Here is a video depicting a P-40 display 2007. Notice the effective smoothness the ailerons give during the rolls and turns. I have seen many P-51 acts in my day and between the P-51 and P-40, the P-40 always showed more nimbleness and quickness in her maneuvers. The P-40 sure hides her qualities good from everyone. Did most people overlook the P-40 back in the day that much to miss some of these qualities?

Ah, Omaka 2007. Good show that. 2011 is looking even better...

As Dudley's said, display flying has little or nothing to do with combat capability - it's show. However, in that context, the late great Ray Hanna and his son Mark both rated the P-40 as a display machine (ailerons being specifically mentioned) very highly, on occasion 'better' than a Mustang, Corsair or Spitfire - bear in mind this was from flying displays with the four aircraft together in the Breitling Fighters, so very direct comparisons. You'll find those displays (I'm sure you tube covers some) even more illuminating for this regime.

The P-40's modern reputation is compromised, I'd suggest not due to its capability (or any lack) but simply because socially modern audiences don't like to acknowledge the difficulties and achievements of early-war fighters forced to act defensively, as against later-war aircraft which have more sparkling, 'winning' (crowd-pleasing) performances. I can't, off the cuff, think of an early war type (obsolete by mid-late war) that's reputation is in the same league as a type that was in action late - or at the end of the war. (Types, like the Spitfire, that flew throughout score better than types like the Hurricane, P-40, P-39 and so on.)

As often shown here in WIX, people don't like to let go of their childhood or early, simplistic understanding of 'cool' fighters for the more complex understanding that better examination of the facts, rather than popular airshow and 'wanna-have' machines gives. In the US, the P-40 type's over-identification with the AVG has forced a much more widely significant aircraft into a sideshow shark-toothed box. As branding goes, however, the AVG's borrowing of 112 Sqn's teeth (themselves lifted from the German Zerstroyer Bf 110s) is unbeatable - and ironically probably preserved the P-40 in the top of the "It's not a Mustang / Spitfire but I almost recognise it" league.

Regards,