Found this quote somewhere (don't remember):
Barrie Davis, P-51 pilot, 325th Fighter Group
"New pilots coming to our fighter group were invariably cocky to the point they were dangerous to themselves. They thought the Luftwaffe was finished and that the P-51 could quickly and easily kill anything else that flew. To modify the attitude of the newcomers, we used a war weary P-40 which our squadron somehow acquired. I was in charge of putting new pilots through a quick, intensive training program, and the final flight included a mock dogfight with the new pilot of a P-51 pitted against one of us flying a P-40. I can tell you that until a pilot knows the strengths and weaknesses of both airplanes, the P-40 can make the P-51 look outclassed. Using all of the P-40s strengths, an innovative pilot could out fly a P-51 at low altitudes until the P-51 jockey finally realized that there was something more to fighting in the air than *simply having the best airplane*. At that point the new pilot would become ready to listen to everything we had to say".
So the P-40, like the Ki-100 was very good in the low to medium altitudes. Imagine what the XP-40Q might have done had it been produced as a "supplement" to the high altitude P-38, P-47 and P-51s...
Perhaps that the reported increase number of incidents during takeoffs and landings were due to the heavier takeoffs with reversed pitch sensitivity and the long duration of the missions...
Found this quote somewhere (don't remember):
Barrie Davis, P-51 pilot, 325th Fighter Group
"New pilots coming to our fighter group were invariably cocky to the point they were dangerous to themselves. They thought the Luftwaffe was finished and that the P-51 could quickly and easily kill anything else that flew. To modify the attitude of the newcomers, we used a war weary P-40 which our squadron somehow acquired. I was in charge of putting new pilots through a quick, intensive training program, and the final flight included a mock dogfight with the new pilot of a P-51 pitted against one of us flying a P-40. I can tell you that until a pilot knows the strengths and weaknesses of both airplanes, the P-40 can make the P-51 look outclassed. Using all of the P-40s strengths, an innovative pilot could out fly a P-51 at low altitudes until the P-51 jockey finally realized that there was something more to fighting in the air than *simply having the best airplane*. At that point the new pilot would become ready to listen to everything we had to say".
So the P-40, like the Ki-100 was very good in the low to medium altitudes. Imagine what the XP-40Q might have done had it been produced as a "supplement" to the high altitude P-38, P-47 and P-51s...
In 2016, Jeffery Pino - the former president of Sikorsky, and a passenger were killed while performing acrobatics in a 2-seat P-51. Room for the second seat was, of course, created by removing the fuselage tank and, when occupied, it recreated the same old CG problem.Also, some of those accidents on take-off were the result of using the fuselage tank behind the cockpit, which made the P-51 slightly unstable when fully loaded.
I found in the SDASM Flickr webiste a couple of pictures of the first P-40Q:
View attachment 638185
View attachment 638186
From the Joe Baugher website, this is the first P-40Q, derived from a P-40K-10-CU (S.N. 42-9987) fitted with a new cooling system, a longer nose, and a four-bladed propeller. The radiators were moved into an under-fuselage position, with intakes between the undercarriage legs. The armamant was reducedd to four 0.50 M2 guns.
I think the P-40Q might have been a good "export" fighter. One that you sell to other countries that you don't want to have your latest hardware and also is cheap enough for them to buy. But I don't think that concept was known then and anyhow, with the end of WWII coming there was more than enough surplus aircraft to go around. Shame though it might have helped to sustain Curtiss-Wright a few more years at least.
<snip>
I think the P-40Q might have been a good "export" fighter. One that you sell to other countries that you don't want to have your latest hardware and also is cheap enough for them to buy. But I don't think that concept was known then and anyhow, with the end of WWII coming there was more than enough surplus aircraft to go around. Shame though it might have helped to sustain Curtiss-Wright a few more years at least.
Good point. Shame indeed they couldn't pull a "F-5A / F-5E" with this one - that is, a low cost but efficient alternative to the top fighter of the era (Mustang / Phantom, or P-47 / F-104, alternatively).
Imagine if the Nationalist chinese had large numbers of this aircraft against the Japanese, circa 1943-44...
I believe that Mustangs were replacing P-47's for cost reasons (1/3?)
When the P-40Q appeared, the US war economy was cranked up for maximum production of its latest, front-line types, all of which were equal or superior to enemy craft and available in large enough numbers to supply US allies alongside USAAF and USN units.
I didn't read closely enough and missed the post-war context. Sorry about that.My comment was about the immediate post war, not during the war and I addressed the production issue: "... with the end of WWII coming there was more than enough surplus aircraft to go around".
Your point about Curtiss-Wright's lack of technological prowess and failed development efforts is well taken. Even if there had been an immediate post war export market it would have at best staved off their eventual collapse.