F.A.Q Section Q: Do you take aircraft requests? A: I have a list of aircraft I plan to cover, but feel free to add to it with suggestions:) Q: Why do you use imperial measurements for some videos, and metric for others? A: I do this based on country of manufacture. Imperial measurements for Britain and the U.S, metric for the rest of the world, but I include text in my videos that convert it for both. Q: Will you include video footage in your videos, or just photos? A: Video footage is very expensive to licence, if I can find footage in the public domain I will try to use it, but a lot of it is hoarded by licencing studies (British Pathe, Periscope films etc). In the future I may be able to afford clips :) Q: Why do you sometimes feature images/screenshots from flight simulators? A: Sometimes there are not a lot of photos available for certain aircraft, so I substitute this with digital images that are as accurate as possible. Feel free to leave you questions below - I may not be able to answer all of them, but I will keep my eyes open :)
I am particularly interested in naval aviation; I have read footnotes about night-fighters on carriers, like the F6F-3/5N or the F4U-2. Will you cover naval night-fighters (like in overall videos on aircraft like the Hellcat or Corsair) or have good sources (books, articles) on naval night-fighting in WWII?
As Meat Loaf would have sung "Two out of three ain't bad" I'm a scaffolder, the idiot running around 30-60' up in the air putting the scaffold together 😁😁
I once heard several Australian RAAF pilots sing praises of their P-40s during the war. Surprisingly, they said that they preferred their P-40s to Spitfires which they claimed were tempermental, prone to breakage and certainly not as tough or rugged as the P-40 while operating in the Pacific Theater. One pilot went on to say that the Spitfires were 'divas' while the P-40 was the good solid and reliable 'girlfriend' whom you could always count on. All said that the P-40's ruggedness kept them safe, alive and able to return home. As stated so many times, pilot skill/experience, while playing to the P-40's strengths and avoiding its weaknesses made all the difference - even against the vaunted Japanese Zeros. Great men all who survived some incredible times, and who were grateful to their P-40s.
The Allison engine get's a bum rap from some folks. It was rugged, durable and had half the components of the RR Merlin-it was also far cheaper. If the flight mission was low altitude interception or fighter-bomber activity, the Allison was the engine to go with. Later versions of the Merlin engine like the Model 61 and beyond had the two-speed, two-stage supercharger and that gave them extended performance up to 30,000 feet, but that really wasn't needed very often in the Far East. You don't bring a racing Thoroughbred to herd Longhorn cattle, a Quarterhorse is much more effective.
All very true but there is a bit of survivor bias at play. Plenty of pilots lost their lives in P-40s but they weren't around to tell their stories. Only the survivors told tales.
My great uncle flew P-40's in North Africa (260 Squadron RAF), but disappeared on a mission in 1942 and was never seen again. He was, however, awarded the DFM, (Distinguished Flying Medal) posthumously, for his previous actions in battles, some of which they were outnumbered in by four to one.
@@russell4718 the liberator had better range , better speed and better bomb load compared to the fortress but could fall out of the sky if you looked at it funny whereas the P-40 is a folk hero.
My father was a frogman and my mother was an army nurse, both during the Normandy invasion. They never talked much about it. It made me endlessly curious about the 2nd world war. I am fascinated by everything. But aircraft especially. So thank you so much for such well-produced videos on these aircraft. I've very much enjoyed them.
Sadly this iconic fighter workhorse is overlooked these days. I visited a workmate a few months ago & he had inherited his father's model aircraft. When I commented on the P40 model he said I was the only person who had ever identified it.
I think it was general mismanagement at Curtiss that ruined the company. They had some good ideas but just didn't invest enough in research and development to keep abreast of new tech. The P-40 was a good plane but Curtiss relied too much on that contract. I think the SB2C damaged Curtiss more than the P40 ever did.
@@pandoranbias1622 They're trying to rebuild. They had no R&D so purchased Diemaco Ltd, a first class design house, as Colt Canada so they have improved their ability to provide for militaries around the world. So they still produce a wide range; whether that will be successful remains to be seen.
The P40 was a good example of success in warfare being a combination of what you've got and what you do with it - look at the Finns and the much derided Brewster Buffalo
@@bobsakamanos4469 You don't appear to have watched the same video that I just watched. The recurring theme here was that, often, the P-40 was all that was available, and it acquitted itself quite well when flown to its strengths. There was certainly no "top cover" available at Milne Bay, and not enough Kittyhawks to outnumber the enemy. Nor do I think that the likes of Clive Caldwell, Nicky Barr, Bobby Gibbes and their compatriots had the benefit of much top cover or overwhelming numerical superiority when racking up their victories in the desert war.
@@madbrowndog4887 Not to take away from some of the best aces in the desert, however... Firstly, look at how many IJN carriers were sunk prior to Milne Bay and the P-40s did in fact have air superiority. The desert air war was somewhat different until mid 1942 and yes some pilots previously used their aircraft's strengths to advantage. Caldwell was an excellent deflection shot (eventually). Agressiveness played a role, and so did the fact that allied bombers flew at around 12,000' to lure the LW down to P-40 critical alt, but the 109s still used the peck and zoom tactic escaping back to altitude. The Kittyhawks didn't fare that well overall untill their numbers were bolstered in 1942 and Spitfires and P-40F's (Merlin engine) became an important factor closer to El Alamein for top cover. BTW, my father flew in the same wing as Bobby Gibbes then.
@@madbrowndog4887 I'll add one more thing - the Allison engines in P-40s did not do well in N.Africa, especially the early ones. Broken cranks, thrown rods and bearings caused engine fires and some lads were killed in the resulting crashes. Overboosting was done (to improve the P-40 poor performance) but only worsened that problem as the intake manifolds were poorly designed and caused detonation. The video mentions a 2-stage Allison. It was actually just an auxilliary s/c tacked on to the original allison with no intercooler, no aftercooler and was never an effective high altitude engine, not even the the P-82. It would never have fit into the P-40 either.
"The P-40 was a high speed, low altitude sledgehammer of a plane." -Best description ever. I have for many years been smitten by this plane. Thanks for the in-depth review, as well as the defense of her honor.
P-40N could reach 410mph at 2200HP in 1944. P-40 was not that bad of an airplane. the XP-40 flight test data was tested at only 1000HP. And yet she was still 10mph faster than aP-47B at 5k ft. And in 1942 the US and UK pilots were already pushing their engines to 1800HP in combat, at 72-75" MAP. Allison then tested their engines at 70" MAP upon hearing this from both US and UK officer's reports. And Allison ran the engine at 70" for 20min and 1800HP for 20min without issue. Inspection of the engine showed no abnormal wear. If flown to her strengths, a P-40 could defeat any Japanese fighter (and did), and could defeat a P-47 or Me109. The P-40 was the RAF's 3rd most successful fighter of WW2, behind the Spitfire and Hurricane for total number of kills scored in RAF service. And this while the RAF bad mouthed the airplane and claimed it was crap. Yet they shout down thousands of airplanes with them anyways.
@@SoloRenegade 2200 HP? not reliably from any Allison. The high MP used by the Aussies also blew the engines, caused engine fires. The pilots requested that boost because they needed more performance out of the high drag, heavy P-40's to save their lives. A reasonable exchange - lives trumps engines.
@@bobsakamanos4469 cite your sources, as I know of no such cases nor reports. AVG and USAAF had no issue killing zeroes in China, New Guinea, Alaska, etc. The RAF and US also slayed Germans in North Africa. P-40 was the 3rd most successful RAF fighter plane of all of WW2. I guess the Aussies were incompetent pilots according to you.
@@SoloRenegade you're not listening, and putting lies in my statement reveals the true you. The drag of the P-40 design rendered it heavy and slow with lack of climb and acceleration, so starting in North Africa they began to overboost the engines to give the pilots a fighting chance, but it also caused engine fires and blown rods. They continued the practice when returning down under. You don't seem to understand that the USAAF commandeered the better P-40F deliveries for Op Torch. They also flew Spits in the Med, both of which provided better alt performance and top cover for other P-40k's. At least the K finally had auto boost control, although the pilot workload was still a pain with constant trimming and gill flap management. Nevertheless, the US has always shied away from publishing the USAAF/Army deeds in N.Africa because it was they who were less capable, even against a retreating Afrika Corps. They flew bombers at 12,000' where the Allison powered P-40's could provide escort. Wright engines weren't the best either. I wonder how many poor lads were sacrificed under that strategy. Once they received the -81 engined P-40, overboosting wasn't authorized because of higher CR. Also nice that Curtiss finally installed dust filters on the M model. That only took several years! Now do some proper research and stop with the jingoism.
A most excellent video! I grew up in Speedway, Indiana, home of the Allison plant that made the aircraft engines, and a stones throw from the Indianapolis Motor Speedway. We have a street and a elementary school named "Allison"...a tribute to James A. Allison...one of the town of Speedway's founders.
"You must use the strong points of your equipment and deny the enemy the advantage of his. Each type of plane has its strong points and weaknesses . . . . You can count on a high top speed, faster dive and super firepower. Japanese planes have a faster rate of climb, higher ceiling and shorter radius of turn. If they can get you into their kind of fast-turning combat, they are deadly. Use your superior speed and faster dive to make a pass at your opponent, get in a quick burst and then break away. You have the edge in that type of combat". "Our planes can take a beating and still be patched up to fly again. Many times the ruggedness of our airplanes has been all that has kept us in the fight". General Chennault to his "Flying Tigers". Excellent documentary. Thank You
I was once fortunate enough to see a P-40, a P-51 and an F4U all fly together in a V formation at an airshow, all three of my favorite warbirds at once, a real treat to see and hear!
I watched both parts 1&2 and was amazed by the research you put into these videos. I am originally from Rochester, New York and have made the trip to the Curtis's Museum many times. The early days of Curtis's were amazing.
44.35: Just a point of correction. You said that the Australians replaced their Kittyhawks with P-38's, but this is incorrect. Most Australian fighter squadrons saw out the war exclusively operating the P-40N5 Kittyhawk. We only ever had about 5 lightnings for photo-reconnaissance. (1PRU, and two attached to 75 Sqn) 3 squadron re-equipped from P-40 to P-51 in November '44. 79 squadron operated Spitfires. I know for certain that 75, 76, 77, 78 and 80 were exclusively P-40 (as their main fighter) fighter-bomber squadrons for the duration of the war. My Grandfathers squadron, 80 Sqn RAAF, flew combat operations right to the end of the war, but these were limited to CAP and ground attacks on bypassed Japanese forces, which caused resentment. Other than that, great video, thanks from Down-under.
My Uncle was in the engineering department at Alison for his whole career and the question of the limits of the non-turbocharged V-1710 was a question he was asked many times. General Electric had sold the Army Airforce on turbocharging but then could not supply demand and also there were more problems involved in the turbocharged version of the V-1710 then had been expected. This was shown in the early P-38 Lightning which had problems with that engine. The P-39 was also to have had a turbocharged engine but that was changed before it went into production. Alison wanted to build a two stage supercharged engine but that was delayed until late in the war and finally ended up in the F-82 twin Mustang. This was the V-1710-143 (Right hand) and V-1710-145 (left hand) with 2,250 HP each in War emergency. FYI Alison was a division of General Motors since the 1930's. General Motors also owned a controlling interest in North American Aviation who built the Mustang under contract for the RAF. That goes some way in explaining why the Mustang I was Alison powered and the English had to put the RR Merlin into them after taking delivery. Another General Motors connection was that the head of the War Production Board was the recent president General Motors, William Kundsen.
"That goes some way in explaining why the Mustang I was Alison powered and the English had to put the RR Merlin into them after taking delivery." That does not make any sense, why would they do that instead of ordering them without engines and fitted to accept Merlins? Almost two years after the first Mustang flew an RR test pilot recommended fitting it with the Merlin. A few weeks after that was done NAA had two prototypes in the air with Packard Merlins. Mustangs for the RAF (P-51A) ruclips.net/video/usqV_zUpGCs/видео.html
General Electric didn't sell the Army on using turbos for the 2nd stage of supercharging in aircraft. First off in 1919 the US Army drug a Liberty engine that was known to make 300 HP at sea level to the top of Pikes Peak with horses that had a turbo on it that made 305 HP up there, it was a proof of concept test. But engine's don't like to throttle off of a turbocharger, "turbo lag" being the issue, so the supercharger/turbo configuration was selected after the NACA tests of the mid 1930's, that way the engine was always throttling off of the supercharger, at altitudes where the single stage supercharger could no longer provide maximum boost to the engine the turbo starts feeding the supercharger, that system is more powerful at altitude because unlike a 2 stage supercharger you've only got one supercharger stage being driven by the engine causing half the parasitic power losses as a 2 stage supercharger, the Army selected that system because of the NACA tests not because General Electric had some kind of influence over them, of course they wanted them to select it but the Army chose that system because the NACA tests showed that configuration made the most HP at all altitudes, not because GE "sold" them on the idea. The US Navy for their own reasons selected the 2 stage supercharger configuration for high altitude performance in their aircraft, simplicity being the biggest reason they were willing to accept the additional power losses of a 2 stage supercharger. The supposed "problems" with turbos is grossly overstated, the engine problems with the early P38's had nothing to do with the turbos, they worked perfectly fine, they had to do with the pilots running the engine's incorrectly and with the engine oil jelling because of the oil coolers and no one ever having operated aircraft at those altitudes before, but the issues weren't with the turbos. Everyone always wants to blame every development issue on the turbos when it comes to the P38's, P39's and the P40, but B17's had been flying before any of them and you don't hear anything about problems with the turbos on them do you? The fact is GE made the turbos and the superchargers both, every single US aircraft engine of WW2 had a supercharger system made by GE despite what configuration it was so ultimately they didn't care who used what system because they made it either way, they made every single centrifugal supercharger made that were on every US aircraft engine.
@@dukecraig2402 GE was the sole source of turbochargers. GE had large investment made in trying to meet production goals for them. Turbosuperchargers were much more costly than superchargers and needed replacement more often in service. The army had agreed to support turbo use and was not interested in paying for multi stage superchargers and supercharger/turbo development both. One of the reasons the P-39 went from being turbo to just supercharged was supply concerns. Recognizing that turbocharging was riskier than 2 stage supercharging, the army committed to turbos and told GE as much. Interesting that the final version of the engine, V-1710-143/145 used in the F-82 Twin Mustang was 2 stage supercharged. The early history of the V-1710 in the P-38 was, much as you say. My opinion was that Alison felt the they were giving the army what they asked for and the army didn't understand how to operate it properly. Intake charge was not getting to all cylinders equally as fuel was condensing in the intercooler. Some cylinders were getting rich mixtures while others were going lean. This caused plug fowling in some and detonation in others. In order to avoid detonation the normal action was to enrich the mixture and cool the intake, which made the problem worse. it took years and Charles Lindbergh to teach them otherwise. It was difficult for the army to admit they were most of the problem.
A magnificent biography, "One Dollar Man", has recently been published about Mr. William Knudsen, who started his career as a bicycle smith. The author is "Ole Sønnichsen".
@@keithstudly6071 GE was also the sole source of the centrifugal superchargers on Allison engine's, they were making money no matter what, and as far as your claim about turbos needing to be changed more than superchargers I suggest you try taking a look at the service life of the turbos and engine's, they both had a 500 hour life under normal operation with the engine's being shortened if run in WEP. It's a myth that turbos were a problem and had some kind of short life that required frequent changing. And your claim about the Twin Mustang is just stupid, Mustangs themselves only had the supercharger type they did because the British ordered the plane and mistakingley believed that turbos had a short service life, that's what they got for believing the French who'd dabbled with them in the 30's and couldn't get them to last over 50 hours, that's their problem for not knowing what they were doing not General Electric's, since a Twin Mustang is literally 2 Mustangs married together where would they have put turbos in them? That's why it didn't have them not because of your incorrect theory that a 2 stage supercharger is better, the only reason the 2 stage 2 speed supercharger was developed for the Allison is because the moment the war ended the US lost all rights to the Packard built Merlin's and would have had to pay a royalty to Rolls-Royce for each one used, they got away with seizing all of Packard's production of them because the US entered the war and didn't have to pay royalties on them. If you knew how they worked you'd know that 2 stage 2 speed superchargers suffer from throttling power losses at the altitude that they shift into their high range, then power is down until they climb to an altitude where the supercharger won't overboost the engine and the throttle can be run wide open again like it could right before shifting into it's high range, with the turbo system most Army aircraft had once the single stage supercharger can no longer produce maximum boost around 10,000 ft then the turbo starts feeding it slowly the more it gains altitude to keep it's inlet pressure the same at all altitudes above that, they don't suffer from throttling power losses until an optimal altitude. That was developed and proven by NACA with their tests in the mid 30's, THAT'S why the Army selected that type of supercharging configuration not because "GE sold them on it", whoever told you that didn't know what they were talking about, it's a well known fact that the Army chose that system based on NACA's recommendation. And once again the big problem with the P38's when they first went to Europe was the engine oil jelling, since US engine's had iridium coated bearings they couldn't use the RAF's engine oil that had anti jelling agents in it but wasn't compatible with iridium coated bearings, so they had to wait for compatible oil to be developed in the US and shipped over there. And what Lindbergh did had absolutely nothing to do with that, he simply proved to Allison that the engine's could be run leaner than they said without burning up, the leaner you run an engine the hotter they run, I've actually gotten them into my shop that people ran with major vacuum leaks and thought it was dirt in the carbs and kept running them leading to holes melting through the tops of pistons, inside the cockpits of all of those aircraft was a chart telling the pilots how to run the mixture under different throttle settings and conditions, Lindbergh got permission to run them differently and engineers and technicians from Allison went to where he was and did engine tear downs to inspect the engine's and verify there was no damage from him running them leaner to increase range, what he did had nothing to do with what you claim, it's all very well documented and you should try reading up on it.
I don't know that it was underappreciated, it was my first plane loved, I mean the thing is beautiful! Films like 1941 (1976) and Flying tigers really had me, or maybe it was the shark mouth, I am not sure, but it really captured my imagination, long before the days of "high alt and range wins" Had no idea about the Brits using it so much back then, really nice to see how much it came through for so many nations when it was needed most. Nice look into this, great photos, and well told, chap. Thanks!
A superb epic video - both episodes. And well structured - I've certainly gained a better picture of the P40's history than other worthy efforts I've seen. Thanks.
Thanks for an excellent rundown of probably my favouritre WW2 era fighter. Probably the fighter that helped save Australia. Something which has sadly been overlooked.
The P-40 is one more evidence how underappreciated "good enough" often is. It was a solid performer, shining trough those qualities most only value when they really needed it. Brings to mind the Focke-Wulf FW 187, another plane not recognized as what would be truly necessary.
The American Volunteer Group (The Flying Tigers flying the P 40 did a great job in China holding the Japanese back before Pearl Harbor. Great flyers with a plane that did the job. 🧐 just knowing 🇺🇸
@@lindabutler4903 I watched another video specifically about them. The chinese crews and even the citizens helped making mock fighters to the point where the japanese believed there were over 100 Flying Tigers in China instead of the merely two dozen at that time! Sadly i don´t remember which video, it´s been a while since then.
The Flying Tigers had higher performing hand built engines than the normal mass production variants, which served them well. They also flew against the Nakajima Ki-43 Oscar I, not Zeros.
@@bobsakamanos4469 They probably REALLY DIDN'T - They were begging for latest varients, promised them by Roosevelt too - But they were off-loaded in Oz for the RAAF because of the fear Japan could go into Oz. What they DID do was work out the only good way to outmatch the far more nibble Zeros & Oscars was a 'Zoom Bounce' They TOLD the USAAF in good time too The USAAF ignored them & tried to dogfight. They were mauled.
@@bobsakamanos4469 and the IJA did not send its best against them either. Neither the best aircraft nor the best pilots. They still accomplished a tremendous amount but one must be honest
At least as good as and probably a bit better than the hurricane and it did sterling service wherever it went. as always many great previously unseen photographs Good work Rex
I watched a video from Kermit Weeks flying his P40… he mentioned it is so easy and intuitive to fly…he rates it highly…and he has many similar aircraft to compare. It is great to fly, and that’s a huge plus for the pilots fighting with it. I love the warbirds from WWII….amazing, beautiful, powerful and built for purpose
Nice video. My dad was a designer on P40s before and during the war. He worked his tail off for five years straight and had some stories to tell. Keep up the good work.
"A high speed, low-altitude six-gun sledgehammer..." It's turns of phrase like this that keep me coming back. I feel you could easily become the Drachinifel of the Skies, in this respect at least. 41:59 I note what look like Beauforts in the background. One of the songs on Icehouse's "Code Blue" album ("Charlie's Sky"), and the focus of the cover art, was IIRC a reference to lead singer Iva Davies' grandfather, who flew in Beauforts in this theatre of the war. Makes me wonder if one of the aircraft in the background might have been his...
As aviation was evolving at such a rapid pace I feel like it was the first really cool and tough looking fighter of that time. Being so cool and versatile it flew in every theater of the war from day one to VJ Day and beyond
I just re-watched an old movie called "Death Race". A classic chase movie that pitted a flack-damaged and ground-bound P-40 against a German tank. The P-40 could taxi at high speed and even do short hops, but it had a damaged cooling system that limited it's run time. It was almost as good as I remembered it at the age of 10. You can find it free on RUclips,
The wildcat, P-40, and Sherman tank may not have been the best, but when needed in quantity it was all we had. They were good enough to get us through when we desperately needed them..
Just like a living situation before you get your stuff together. Not the best conditions or most favorable, but it got you through those rough days before better days came with improvement.
@@cattledog901 all variants of the Sherman were quite good but if we are deciding the best I would go off of the best for its time as the M4A3 76w HVSS large hatch with the one piece transmission casing came in really really late and was competing against the Pershing (admittedly the Pershing in its initial deployment had a significant number of issues but the vehicle was a significant improvement in firepower, range, and protection) and for its time the early M4 variants were the best in the world (all M4 variants were produced effectively simultaneously with the M4A2 actually being the first variant to enter production baring that except for the A1 with its cast hull the only thing the A2/A3 etc designated was the engine it was using) as at the time of introduction it had a very potent gun in comparison to anything else in the world. Incredibly thick armor for a medium tank and excellent mobility and reliability. In 1942 the M4 was an incredibly potent vehicle especially for its primary use and in fact the primary use of all tanks that being infantry support. The later variants with 76.2mm guns were an improvement against tanks but the HE shells the 76 fired were less potent (higher velocity and more spin forcing the projectile to have thicker casing therefor reducing its capacity) I think in 1942 there was nothing in the world better than a Sherman but by 1945 even with all its improvements there were some things there were at least as good if not better
Great analogy. All three examples were easy to build and maintain in large numbers, and were tough and reliable. (I would include the Hurricane in that list.)
Thanks Rex for yet another well-researched study that goes above and beyond; in this case a workhorse fighter-bomber that held the line when the Allies needed it to do. I will always think of the P-40 with that distinctive sharks' mouth trim of North Africa and China/Burma. No other aircraft wore it as well, with the P-40s prominent chin.
Hey Rex, if you ever decide to cover historical squadrons instead of just planes (kinda like Drachinifel covering entire battles or campaigns), i suggest you do a video on the Normandie aviation regiment of the free french air force, a squadron of absolute madlads who went to fight with the soviet air forces from 1943 onwards.
Rex, your videos were interesting and well made, now they are moving into the realm of excellent. The P-40 was my favorite WWII fighter as a kid, and I appreciate the workup you gave it.
I remember staring at the Cox P-40 and the Corsair for an hour in the store before buying the Corsair because my older brother had one when he was my age. I should have taken the 40 because I've always loved it.
@@ohger1 Either plane would be fun. I had the P 40 first because that's what the store had at the time. They had just introduced a Mustang, sort of wanted it.
I was about 5 years old when my dad bought the Cox P-40 with the Wen Mac .049 engine. We were on the garage roof and Pop had the u-control and I launched it. He made about 5 turns when it took a dip and the control lines wrapped around my neck. It made about 4 more really fast circles around my neck before the prop cut the lines and it landed in the field. Pop thought it was pretty funny but I was scared to death. A lot of tears came out of this 5 year old that day. OK....it's hilarious now.
Thank you so much for these videos. The amount of quality content you put out is staggering. Been fascinated with the topic since I was in 1st grade. I'm 26 now, and my fascinations have since broadened, so I don't have as much time to dedicate to each and your videos are perfect length and detail for me. Great work, massively appreciated.
The Dutch NEIAAF used the P-40N they retained from 120 Sqn during the early phase of the Indonesian Independence war, remaining active until July 1949 when they were replaced with surplus P-51D/K's.
My Great Uncle Flew P40s ,Hurricanes,Spitfires Typhoons and Tempests. He said nothing could catch you in a dive and run away on the deck in a 40 and that was all that could keep you alive often. He's been dead 45 years and always remember how he loved his P40 .Took my up in his Stearman when I was 12 and my mother went to pieces. Miss you Allen.
Thanks for this great review of a great aircraft. My dad flew 189 missions out of Port Moresby in New Guinea with the 7th Fighter Squadron of the US Army Air Corps. He had many stories from those days in 1942-43. He landed after a particularly difficult mission and he was able to put his finger through nine holes in the fuselage while remaining seated in the cockpit. He went on to fly P-38s and P-51s but it was in the P-40 that he had the most dogfighting and it was the plane that saved his life many times. The P-40 was the plane that was closest to his heart.
5:35 "Allison was not a huge company" ... Err ... Allison had been a division of General Motors since 1929, which was about as huge a company as you could come up with.
Probably better to say that Allison was a neglected division of a large company. GM probably found it much more profitable to build well-sorted Grumman aircraft than do the hard work of developing an aero engine.
Yeah, I wondered about that statement as well, I always associated Allison with GM and with dragsters and drag racing boats in the 60s, i.e., plenty of dough even for silly things. But GM was building a lot of stuff during WWII and I don't know where Allison stood as far as resources and money go. However, given the amount of cash being thrown at defense industry at the time, I'd guess that any failures should be traced to incompetent management at GM rather than money constraints.
Allison might have been under the GM umbrella but the thing to understand about divisions in larger companies is they don't always get access to everything the company that owns them has. So its not really correct to treat Allison as if it was actually GM, it wasn't.
@@TheRougeSky GM approved large expenditures and railed at the fact that the USAAF wouldn't fund development costs to improve the Allison, despite the government procurement director being an ex-president of GM. GM also was approving authority for NAA new fighter designs. Board of directors rule everything.
Excellent pair of videos. Very convincing rehabilitation of the reputation of the P40. Being useful, and indeed successful for such a long time in multiple theatres surely tells a tale of success. Good work, Rex.
All the respect and gratitude for excellent videos. Thank you for not pester them with music. Wonderful narration and I think the embedded wits were perfect. You earned a subscriber. Looking forward to more. Thank you.
kudos for this very comprehensive (and probably definitive) two part survey of this unfairly underrated fighter bomber of WWII (and personally one of my favourites).
Minor correction: Australia only had a 4 P38s and were recon versions for testing, the P40s were replaced by Spitfire Mk VIII and CAC( Commonwealth Aircraft Company) built D/K model equivalent Mustangs ( CA-18)🇦🇺
The CA-17s were P51Ks - 80 from put together from kits manufactured in the US and 84 direct lend lease P-51Ks. These were replacing the P40's in RAAF front line service in mid to late 45 with No 84 and 86 Squadrons. Post war production of CA18s with production of 120 aircraft with Packard and RR built merlin engine's in fighter and PR versions started in 1946.
@@paulmeilak9946 I was trying to keep it short, my source is the brilliant book by Australian historian Stewart Wilson Spitfire, Mustang, Kittyhawk in Australian service.
Have always liked the P-40 and there were so many countries that used it. Two months ago I got a really cool book called "Curtis fighters: 1917-1948" really big book with lots of good info and photographs.
You must realize that the P40 (14,000)was the third most produced US fighter behind the P47(16,000_ and P51(15,000) So it could not have been that "bad" a fighter" !!! Remember too it was AVAILABLE and inexpensive in large quantities, and when war starts you fight with what you have !!! In 1940 the Brits considered the P40 to be the best AVAILABLE fighter, why they wanted North American to build them, but Dutch Kindelberger refused and OFFERED HIS new plane he had been working on the P51 Mustang why he was able to deliver the P51 Mustang prototyped in 112 days from contract signing !!!
This a superb overview. Such good research across so many fronts. I love the time you devoted to the RAAF and you captured the attitude of Australians to this plane.
Does anyone else remember buying 2D polystyrene models of ww2 fighters, the wings slotted through the fuselage and they had a clip on plastic propeller. There were about 10 of them. Flying tiger P40, zero, spit, Hurricane, p51,109, fw190, and a 4 piece P38 I think. not sure what the others were, can't remember, possibly Hellcat and Corsair, would have been early 80's. Edit: googled them, Henbrandt Pack Of 12 Classic World War II Flying Plane Gliders, brings back memories, no P38 though, must have got that wrong.
I learned to put a Black Kat in the fuselage, and when we were through playing with the plane I’d light the fuse and send it up one last time. Sayonara Zero!
@@davidmuir7711 That reminds me of when I was slightly older, I got a piece of thin A3 card. Made a paper aeroplane with it and cut two steps out of the rear of the vertical "fuselage." These were long enough and staggered so that the two small firework rockets I had come into possession of(wasn't old enough to buy!)could be held underneath with loops of tape. That way one could be lit without igniting the other. Think I used blu tac in the nose as a counterbalance and gave it a few hard test throws to test the balance at speed. Didn't think I'd get it right. Lit the rear uppermost rocket, waited till the fuse had burned almost to the point of ignition, then lit the second and threw it. Holly crap! it worked perfectly! On the rearmost screaming rocket the thing climbed up just above the streetlights! which then burnt out, a second later the second ignited and it kept going. It Made it halfway down my street, at least 200 metres, was shouting "yes.. yes!" as I ran after it. Was pumped! Forgot to mention I used tinfoil in an effort to protect the cardboard, that didn't work, It was to damaged to use again. Not that I had anymore rockets anyway, couldn't buy any myself. The tinfoil might have allowed the thing to finish the flight though, might have stopped it from burning up mid air, can't say for certain. No phones in them days, as you know, otherwise it would have made a great video! Never tried it again. Was awesome! Even if I do say so myself!
Thanks for the great follow-up video on my favorite WW2 aircraft Rex. Only one error I noted - the Desert Air Force Tomahawk/Kittyhawk 3 Squadron was RAAF, not SAAF (which were 2, 4, 5 Squadrons).
Extremely well done! I will definitely be watching part 1 and part 2 over and over. Not only are your programs well written and easy to follow your delivery is very clear and erudite.
Let's not forget the most important fact for any instrument of war, the P-40D 'looked' so much better with the bigger chin! :) The name Kittyhawk was better too! Awesome work on this unsung hero Rex - epic detail and excellent use of photographs/etc as always!
This is far and away the best treatment of the P-40 I've seen, and I watch a lot of YT aircraft videos. You present a great mix of technical and historical info, putting both in context. P.S. The C-46 Commando may have had a big role in the demise of Curtiss. An ambitious and capable design that may have been too much for a small company to finish off properly.
Thank you for the fantastic work on the P40, and giving it the recognition it deserves. Though not the best fighter of WWII, I think it was the most beautiful, fighter of them all. The Spitfire and P51 come in second and third, but the P40 had the most graceful lines.
I would love to see a video about the Grumman f4f and f6f. Those are my favorite aircraft of the war. I thoroughly enjoyed these two videos, you did a great job!
Great Video. You combine technical developments with good anayses of the plane's service record. However, ypi cold have said more about the P-40's service in the CBI theatre
Most front line units replaced every "weight-saving improvement" on the 'N' model, from spindle on the landing gear to the older instrumentation, essentially rebuilding it to the 'E' standard, i.e. the reliable workhorse they needed.
Would you be interested in doing a series on the LaGG-1 & LaGG-3 ? Another relatively unknown aircraft that did its best to defend its country and formed the basis of formidable successors.
Nice work. Rex, if you compile your videos into a book, I’ll buy it. It’d make using your work as a go-to reference that much easier. The comments at 21:17 are classic you, and would read well. Putting your personality into a book would easily differentiate it amongst the library of dull (but accurate) references already out there.
One point of order: The Royal Australian Air Force P-40s were not replaced by P-38s. The RAAF only received 3 Lightnings, variously described as P-38Es or F-4 reconnaissance Lightnings.
The P-40s that served in North Africa were originally painted in tan csmouflage (to match the sandy terrain). The fierce sun of the area caused the paint to fade to a rather alarming pink. An heiress to the Johnson fortune used to fly a P-40 painted in the "faded" colour scheme, wearing a matching pink flight suit.
Thanks Rex. As always, your videos are detailed and closer to reality than Greg's. Let's not forget that the favourable conditions for Allied victory in North Africa was brought about by several years of hard fighting in the the Western Desert/Mediterranean/Malta that reduced Axis capability and denied them their suppy route from Sicily.
I've always loved the P40. An amazing aircraft... just understand and work with its strengths and, as they say Bob's your uncle! And those are some sexy lines on that beautiful plane, too!
Thanks for this extensive briefing of RAAF Kittyhawks in New Guinea. In particular with their important role in the Battle of Milne Bay. Your reporting of this was good, except one important factor that the presence of the Kittyhawks had on Japanese tactics, which was essentially a poorly coordinated amphibious landing and assult by the IJN (many of the Japanese soldiers were Marines). Because of the number and effect of the Kittyhawks, the Japanese were forced to land troops by ships and barges, much further from their main objectives than they liked, which was the main Australian air fields. This was a definitive disadvantage for them traversing difficult terrain over a considerable distance, making the troop concentrations vulnerable to the Kittyhawks by day. Essentially, most Japanese infantry movement and attacks occurred at night. By and large, the Australians were well entrenched and able to withstand these Japanese night attacks and had the numbers to send ground reconnaissance and patrols out harass the retreating Japanese. The Japanese also deployed light tanks which had largely proved ineffective due to the Australian fire-power, also supplied by Kittyhawk strafing and bombing attacks.
Another fantastic video! My hubby had never heard of the XP53 or XP60 (and it's a given that *I* had not😂). All the pix and info is most interesting. Liked learning how the planes came just in time to help Australia in the Pacific theater.
Yes, Milne Bay was an important one for the RAAF, P-40, and Hudson bombers. And the defending AIF battalions, too. Nos 75 and 76 Squadrons flew the Kittyhawks, and the Hudsons started their bombing runs, in some instances, BEFORE they'd fully retracted their undercarriage.
Called "Taran," or "Battering Ram" when the pilots went smashy smashy apparently, there were even special propellers made to allow the pilot to...wait for it... use the plane as a buzz saw.
Great video. I think USAF also used 3 squadrons of P40’s as interceptors to defend Darwin, Northern Australia from regular Japanese raids from Timor in 1942, until they were relieved by a spitfire wing in 1943.
At the time of the first Japanese air raid on Feb 19th 1942. USAAF P40s were in Darwin. They had recently been transferred down from the Philippines. A number were out on patrol. And were returning back to base ( literally landing ) when the raid came in! Consequently, being short on fuel, many were destroyed! There is an account of 1 being strafed while trying to take off again. It exploded and cartwheeled down the runway! A Royal Australian Airforce ( RAAF ) Coastwatcher out on the northern beaches also radiod in a warning to Darwin Airbase. That he had just witnessed a dogfight between some P 40s and Japanese aircraft! He described how the P40s and pursuing Japanese aircraft, came across the coast like bats out of hell!! However the authorities didnt believe him!! They thought he had gone "troppo!" - ( An expression for nuts in the tropics! ) - And had mistaken returning US P40s for an air raid! Therefore, some valuable time to act was lost!! Anyway, they soon found out otherwise!! Another factor at work was... At the time of the raid. People in Darwin were expecting the arrival of more USAAF aircraft. And since Feb 19 was a fine sunny day, as is common in the north. Many people were out and about around town. So when they saw these incoming waves of Japanese aircraft. - Right up to the first strafing and bombing attacks!! They thought they were US aircraft!! As a result many were caught and killed out in the open!! - PS. The aircraft carrier battle group that attacked Darwin on Feb 19th 1942. Was the same battle group that attacked Pearl Harbour on Dec 7th 1941!
My uncle was in the RAAF as an electrician. He told me of the time he and a couple of others were working on telephone lines south of Darwin. They were up on a telephone pole when they heard a rumble coming from the south. They thought it was a convoy of trucks. Seconds later a Japanese fighter that had throttled back was alongside them and the pilot was grinning and waving to them. He said you had never seen three men get down so quick and scatter off into the bush.
An excellent video ! Your work in the aviation field reminds me of the work of another of my favorite RUclipsrs, Drachinifel in the field of ships. Keep up the good work !
Excellent video. I'm researching a specific airframe; where did you get the image used at 44:28, do you have the uncropped version, and are there any others in that series?
I volunteer at the American Heritage Museum, where that sole surviving P-40B from Pearl Harbor is located. Thank you for making these videos, cause I've always felt the P-40 is one of the most overlooked aircraft of the war
Thank you for your excellent research and presentation of this remarkable aircraft in all of it’s forms/models. It reminds me so much of the Hawker Hurricane, as aircraft from the 1930’s design theologies, that were there when needed in the ‘40s, and whose designs were resilient enough to be modified , improved, and tactically used in ways that made them effective enough to be obstacles to the Axis Powers of the time.
Next to the Dewoitine D.520. This BEAUTIFUL BIRD is MY FAVORITE AIRCRAFT of WW2! So many AVIATION BOOKS,MODEL KITS and PC games have it,that you can't help but LOVE IT!
F.A.Q Section
Q: Do you take aircraft requests?
A: I have a list of aircraft I plan to cover, but feel free to add to it with suggestions:)
Q: Why do you use imperial measurements for some videos, and metric for others?
A: I do this based on country of manufacture. Imperial measurements for Britain and the U.S, metric for the rest of the world, but I include text in my videos that convert it for both.
Q: Will you include video footage in your videos, or just photos?
A: Video footage is very expensive to licence, if I can find footage in the public domain I will try to use it, but a lot of it is hoarded by licencing studies (British Pathe, Periscope films etc). In the future I may be able to afford clips :)
Q: Why do you sometimes feature images/screenshots from flight simulators?
A: Sometimes there are not a lot of photos available for certain aircraft, so I substitute this with digital images that are as accurate as possible.
Feel free to leave you questions below - I may not be able to answer all of them, but I will keep my eyes open :)
Service ceiling, not cervice.
Can you review the history of nose art?
I am particularly interested in naval aviation; I have read footnotes about night-fighters on carriers, like the F6F-3/5N or the F4U-2. Will you cover naval night-fighters (like in overall videos on aircraft like the Hellcat or Corsair) or have good sources (books, articles) on naval night-fighting in WWII?
Kawasaki Ki100
Could you do a video on the MacRobertson air race, or if that's too much to cover in one or two videos, could you do a video on the de Havilland DH88?
'doesn't like high altitudes, has stability problems, a bit fat' - now I see why I relate to the P-40...
Hilarious
As Meat Loaf would have sung "Two out of three ain't bad" I'm a scaffolder, the idiot running around 30-60' up in the air putting the scaffold together 😁😁
El avion de tribilin cuando era pobre .
Could take a Beating!!!
MFS .............but you worked hard , and provided for the good of others !!!!!!
I once heard several Australian RAAF pilots sing praises of their P-40s during the war. Surprisingly, they said that they preferred their P-40s to Spitfires which they claimed were tempermental, prone to breakage and certainly not as tough or rugged as the P-40 while operating in the Pacific Theater. One pilot went on to say that the Spitfires were 'divas' while the P-40 was the good solid and reliable 'girlfriend' whom you could always count on. All said that the P-40's ruggedness kept them safe, alive and able to return home. As stated so many times, pilot skill/experience, while playing to the P-40's strengths and avoiding its weaknesses made all the difference - even against the vaunted Japanese Zeros. Great men all who survived some incredible times, and who were grateful to their P-40s.
This is a great story
The Allison engine get's a bum rap from some folks. It was rugged, durable and had half the components of the RR Merlin-it was also far cheaper. If the flight mission was low altitude interception or fighter-bomber activity, the Allison was the engine to go with. Later versions of the Merlin engine like the Model 61 and beyond had the two-speed, two-stage supercharger and that gave them extended performance up to 30,000 feet, but that really wasn't needed very often in the Far East. You don't bring a racing Thoroughbred to herd Longhorn cattle, a Quarterhorse is much more effective.
All very true but there is a bit of survivor bias at play. Plenty of pilots lost their lives in P-40s but they weren't around to tell their stories. Only the survivors told tales.
My great uncle flew P-40's in North Africa (260 Squadron RAF), but disappeared on a mission in 1942 and was never seen again. He was, however, awarded the DFM, (Distinguished Flying Medal) posthumously, for his previous actions in battles, some of which they were outnumbered in by four to one.
I heard they found his aircraft, was your grandfather Dennis copping?
Edit: sorry, saw your comment on the related video. Same squadron, I hope they find his too one day.
What was your great uncles name????
When did he disappear? Before El Alamein? Battle of Tobruk or Marsa Matruh?
The P40 was the workhorse, never got any attention but it just plugged away and killed many more than it lost. One of the greatest aircraft made
Kind of like the B-24 doesn't get the recognition and respect it deserves one heck of a plane
I don't know how you could get much more glamorized than having John Wayne play Claire Chennault.
@@russell4718 agreed, and the B-24 was much more multipurpose than the B-17. Let’s also throw the b-26 in the underrated category.
@@ridleymain9234 Martin aircraft made one hell of a plane with the B-26 a true hotrod of the air not a plane for the faint hearted b
@@russell4718 the liberator had better range , better speed and better bomb load compared to the fortress but could fall out of the sky if you looked at it funny whereas the P-40 is a folk hero.
My father was a frogman and my mother was an army nurse, both during the Normandy invasion. They never talked much about it. It made me endlessly curious about the 2nd world war. I am fascinated by everything. But aircraft especially. So thank you so much for such well-produced videos on these aircraft. I've very much enjoyed them.
I've had a soft spot for the P-40 since I was a kid, and I'm glad you've given it the recognition on a platform with such wide reach that it deserves.
Sadly this iconic fighter workhorse is overlooked these days. I visited a workmate a few months ago & he had inherited his father's model aircraft. When I commented on the P40 model he said I was the only person who had ever identified it.
Was the soft spot on the top of your head?
Both P40 videos have been excellent. Many thanks.
I think it was general mismanagement at Curtiss that ruined the company. They had some good ideas but just didn't invest enough in research and development to keep abreast of new tech. The P-40 was a good plane but Curtiss relied too much on that contract. I think the SB2C damaged Curtiss more than the P40 ever did.
During the war years contracts were assured. So money was always coming in. At the end of the war money was no longer assured and competition returmed
Like Colt. They rely exclusive on producing the M16 for the military. Once that contract dried up - bankruptcy
@@khaccanhle1930 does Colt even exist beyond revolvers today?
@@pandoranbias1622 They're trying to rebuild. They had no R&D so purchased Diemaco Ltd, a first class design house, as Colt Canada so they have improved their ability to provide for militaries around the world. So they still produce a wide range; whether that will be successful remains to be seen.
@@boomslangCA Interesting. Hoping they continue for at least a few generations more, a name like Colt is as American as it gets.
The P40 was a good example of success in warfare being a combination of what you've got and what you do with it - look at the Finns and the much derided Brewster Buffalo
Training and Doctrine are much bigger factors for success than people give credit for
P-40's did well if outnumbering the enemy and had top cover.
@@bobsakamanos4469 You don't appear to have watched the same video that I just watched. The recurring theme here was that, often, the P-40 was all that was available, and it acquitted itself quite well when flown to its strengths. There was certainly no "top cover" available at Milne Bay, and not enough Kittyhawks to outnumber the enemy. Nor do I think that the likes of Clive Caldwell, Nicky Barr, Bobby Gibbes and their compatriots had the benefit of much top cover or overwhelming numerical superiority when racking up their victories in the desert war.
@@madbrowndog4887 Not to take away from some of the best aces in the desert, however...
Firstly, look at how many IJN carriers were sunk prior to Milne Bay and the P-40s did in fact have air superiority.
The desert air war was somewhat different until mid 1942 and yes some pilots previously used their aircraft's strengths to advantage. Caldwell was an excellent deflection shot (eventually). Agressiveness played a role, and so did the fact that allied bombers flew at around 12,000' to lure the LW down to P-40 critical alt, but the 109s still used the peck and zoom tactic escaping back to altitude. The Kittyhawks didn't fare that well overall untill their numbers were bolstered in 1942 and Spitfires and P-40F's (Merlin engine) became an important factor closer to El Alamein for top cover. BTW, my father flew in the same wing as Bobby Gibbes then.
@@madbrowndog4887 I'll add one more thing - the Allison engines in P-40s did not do well in N.Africa, especially the early ones. Broken cranks, thrown rods and bearings caused engine fires and some lads were killed in the resulting crashes. Overboosting was done (to improve the P-40 poor performance) but only worsened that problem as the intake manifolds were poorly designed and caused detonation.
The video mentions a 2-stage Allison. It was actually just an auxilliary s/c tacked on to the original allison with no intercooler, no aftercooler and was never an effective high altitude engine, not even the the P-82. It would never have fit into the P-40 either.
"The P-40 was a high speed, low altitude sledgehammer of a plane." -Best description ever. I have for many years been smitten by this plane. Thanks for the in-depth review, as well as the defense of her honor.
Not really high speed, but good roll rate and good fighter bomber.
P-40N could reach 410mph at 2200HP in 1944. P-40 was not that bad of an airplane. the XP-40 flight test data was tested at only 1000HP. And yet she was still 10mph faster than aP-47B at 5k ft. And in 1942 the US and UK pilots were already pushing their engines to 1800HP in combat, at 72-75" MAP. Allison then tested their engines at 70" MAP upon hearing this from both US and UK officer's reports. And Allison ran the engine at 70" for 20min and 1800HP for 20min without issue. Inspection of the engine showed no abnormal wear.
If flown to her strengths, a P-40 could defeat any Japanese fighter (and did), and could defeat a P-47 or Me109.
The P-40 was the RAF's 3rd most successful fighter of WW2, behind the Spitfire and Hurricane for total number of kills scored in RAF service. And this while the RAF bad mouthed the airplane and claimed it was crap. Yet they shout down thousands of airplanes with them anyways.
@@SoloRenegade 2200 HP? not reliably from any Allison. The high MP used by the Aussies also blew the engines, caused engine fires. The pilots requested that boost because they needed more performance out of the high drag, heavy P-40's to save their lives. A reasonable exchange - lives trumps engines.
@@bobsakamanos4469 cite your sources, as I know of no such cases nor reports.
AVG and USAAF had no issue killing zeroes in China, New Guinea, Alaska, etc. The RAF and US also slayed Germans in North Africa. P-40 was the 3rd most successful RAF fighter plane of all of WW2.
I guess the Aussies were incompetent pilots according to you.
@@SoloRenegade you're not listening, and putting lies in my statement reveals the true you.
The drag of the P-40 design rendered it heavy and slow with lack of climb and acceleration, so starting in North Africa they began to overboost the engines to give the pilots a fighting chance, but it also caused engine fires and blown rods. They continued the practice when returning down under.
You don't seem to understand that the USAAF commandeered the better P-40F deliveries for Op Torch. They also flew Spits in the Med, both of which provided better alt performance and top cover for other P-40k's. At least the K finally had auto boost control, although the pilot workload was still a pain with constant trimming and gill flap management. Nevertheless, the US has always shied away from publishing the USAAF/Army deeds in N.Africa because it was they who were less capable, even against a retreating Afrika Corps. They flew bombers at 12,000' where the Allison powered P-40's could provide escort. Wright engines weren't the best either. I wonder how many poor lads were sacrificed under that strategy.
Once they received the -81 engined P-40, overboosting wasn't authorized because of higher CR. Also nice that Curtiss finally installed dust filters on the M model. That only took several years! Now do some proper research and stop with the jingoism.
A most excellent video! I grew up in Speedway, Indiana, home of the Allison plant that made the aircraft engines, and a stones throw from the Indianapolis Motor Speedway. We have a street and a elementary school named "Allison"...a tribute to James A. Allison...one of the town of Speedway's founders.
"You must use the strong points of your equipment and deny the enemy the advantage of his. Each type of plane has its strong points and weaknesses . . . . You can count on a high top speed, faster dive and super firepower. Japanese planes have a faster rate of climb, higher ceiling and shorter radius of turn. If they can get you into their kind of fast-turning combat, they are deadly. Use your superior speed and faster dive to make a pass at your opponent, get in a quick burst and then break away. You have the edge in that type of combat".
"Our planes can take a beating and still be patched up to fly again. Many times the ruggedness of our airplanes has been all that has kept us in the fight".
General Chennault to his "Flying Tigers".
Excellent documentary. Thank You
I was once fortunate enough to see a P-40, a P-51 and an F4U all fly together in a V formation at an airshow, all three of my favorite warbirds at once, a real treat to see and hear!
I watched both parts 1&2 and was amazed by the research you put into these videos. I am originally from Rochester, New York and have made the trip to the Curtis's Museum many times. The early days of Curtis's were amazing.
44.35: Just a point of correction. You said that the Australians replaced their Kittyhawks with P-38's, but this is incorrect. Most Australian fighter squadrons saw out the war exclusively operating the P-40N5 Kittyhawk. We only ever had about 5 lightnings for photo-reconnaissance. (1PRU, and two attached to 75 Sqn)
3 squadron re-equipped from P-40 to P-51 in November '44.
79 squadron operated Spitfires.
I know for certain that 75, 76, 77, 78 and 80 were exclusively P-40 (as their main fighter) fighter-bomber squadrons for the duration of the war.
My Grandfathers squadron, 80 Sqn RAAF, flew combat operations right to the end of the war, but these were limited to CAP and ground attacks on bypassed Japanese forces, which caused resentment.
Other than that, great video, thanks from Down-under.
My Uncle was in the engineering department at Alison for his whole career and the question of the limits of the non-turbocharged V-1710 was a question he was asked many times. General Electric had sold the Army Airforce on turbocharging but then could not supply demand and also there were more problems involved in the turbocharged version of the V-1710 then had been expected. This was shown in the early P-38 Lightning which had problems with that engine. The P-39 was also to have had a turbocharged engine but that was changed before it went into production.
Alison wanted to build a two stage supercharged engine but that was delayed until late in the war and finally ended up in the F-82 twin Mustang. This was the V-1710-143 (Right hand) and V-1710-145 (left hand) with 2,250 HP each in War emergency.
FYI Alison was a division of General Motors since the 1930's. General Motors also owned a controlling interest in North American Aviation who built the Mustang under contract for the RAF. That goes some way in explaining why the Mustang I was Alison powered and the English had to put the RR Merlin into them after taking delivery. Another General Motors connection was that the head of the War Production Board was the recent president General Motors, William Kundsen.
"That goes some way in explaining why the Mustang I was Alison powered and the English had to put the RR Merlin into them after taking delivery."
That does not make any sense, why would they do that instead of ordering them without engines and fitted to accept Merlins?
Almost two years after the first Mustang flew an RR test pilot recommended fitting it with the Merlin. A few weeks after that was done NAA had two prototypes in the air with Packard Merlins.
Mustangs for the RAF (P-51A)
ruclips.net/video/usqV_zUpGCs/видео.html
General Electric didn't sell the Army on using turbos for the 2nd stage of supercharging in aircraft.
First off in 1919 the US Army drug a Liberty engine that was known to make 300 HP at sea level to the top of Pikes Peak with horses that had a turbo on it that made 305 HP up there, it was a proof of concept test.
But engine's don't like to throttle off of a turbocharger, "turbo lag" being the issue, so the supercharger/turbo configuration was selected after the NACA tests of the mid 1930's, that way the engine was always throttling off of the supercharger, at altitudes where the single stage supercharger could no longer provide maximum boost to the engine the turbo starts feeding the supercharger, that system is more powerful at altitude because unlike a 2 stage supercharger you've only got one supercharger stage being driven by the engine causing half the parasitic power losses as a 2 stage supercharger, the Army selected that system because of the NACA tests not because General Electric had some kind of influence over them, of course they wanted them to select it but the Army chose that system because the NACA tests showed that configuration made the most HP at all altitudes, not because GE "sold" them on the idea.
The US Navy for their own reasons selected the 2 stage supercharger configuration for high altitude performance in their aircraft, simplicity being the biggest reason they were willing to accept the additional power losses of a 2 stage supercharger.
The supposed "problems" with turbos is grossly overstated, the engine problems with the early P38's had nothing to do with the turbos, they worked perfectly fine, they had to do with the pilots running the engine's incorrectly and with the engine oil jelling because of the oil coolers and no one ever having operated aircraft at those altitudes before, but the issues weren't with the turbos.
Everyone always wants to blame every development issue on the turbos when it comes to the P38's, P39's and the P40, but B17's had been flying before any of them and you don't hear anything about problems with the turbos on them do you?
The fact is GE made the turbos and the superchargers both, every single US aircraft engine of WW2 had a supercharger system made by GE despite what configuration it was so ultimately they didn't care who used what system because they made it either way, they made every single centrifugal supercharger made that were on every US aircraft engine.
@@dukecraig2402 GE was the sole source of turbochargers. GE had large investment made in trying to meet production goals for them. Turbosuperchargers were much more costly than superchargers and needed replacement more often in service. The army had agreed to support turbo use and was not interested in paying for multi stage superchargers and supercharger/turbo development both. One of the reasons the P-39 went from being turbo to just supercharged was supply concerns. Recognizing that turbocharging was riskier than 2 stage supercharging, the army committed to turbos and told GE as much.
Interesting that the final version of the engine, V-1710-143/145 used in the F-82 Twin Mustang was 2 stage supercharged.
The early history of the V-1710 in the P-38 was, much as you say. My opinion was that Alison felt the they were giving the army what they asked for and the army didn't understand how to operate it properly. Intake charge was not getting to all cylinders equally as fuel was condensing in the intercooler. Some cylinders were getting rich mixtures while others were going lean. This caused plug fowling in some and detonation in others. In order to avoid detonation the normal action was to enrich the mixture and cool the intake, which made the problem worse. it took years and Charles Lindbergh to teach them otherwise. It was difficult for the army to admit they were most of the problem.
A magnificent biography, "One Dollar Man", has recently been published about Mr. William Knudsen, who started his career as a bicycle smith. The author is "Ole Sønnichsen".
@@keithstudly6071
GE was also the sole source of the centrifugal superchargers on Allison engine's, they were making money no matter what, and as far as your claim about turbos needing to be changed more than superchargers I suggest you try taking a look at the service life of the turbos and engine's, they both had a 500 hour life under normal operation with the engine's being shortened if run in WEP.
It's a myth that turbos were a problem and had some kind of short life that required frequent changing.
And your claim about the Twin Mustang is just stupid, Mustangs themselves only had the supercharger type they did because the British ordered the plane and mistakingley believed that turbos had a short service life, that's what they got for believing the French who'd dabbled with them in the 30's and couldn't get them to last over 50 hours, that's their problem for not knowing what they were doing not General Electric's, since a Twin Mustang is literally 2 Mustangs married together where would they have put turbos in them? That's why it didn't have them not because of your incorrect theory that a 2 stage supercharger is better, the only reason the 2 stage 2 speed supercharger was developed for the Allison is because the moment the war ended the US lost all rights to the Packard built Merlin's and would have had to pay a royalty to Rolls-Royce for each one used, they got away with seizing all of Packard's production of them because the US entered the war and didn't have to pay royalties on them.
If you knew how they worked you'd know that 2 stage 2 speed superchargers suffer from throttling power losses at the altitude that they shift into their high range, then power is down until they climb to an altitude where the supercharger won't overboost the engine and the throttle can be run wide open again like it could right before shifting into it's high range, with the turbo system most Army aircraft had once the single stage supercharger can no longer produce maximum boost around 10,000 ft then the turbo starts feeding it slowly the more it gains altitude to keep it's inlet pressure the same at all altitudes above that, they don't suffer from throttling power losses until an optimal altitude.
That was developed and proven by NACA with their tests in the mid 30's, THAT'S why the Army selected that type of supercharging configuration not because "GE sold them on it", whoever told you that didn't know what they were talking about, it's a well known fact that the Army chose that system based on NACA's recommendation.
And once again the big problem with the P38's when they first went to Europe was the engine oil jelling, since US engine's had iridium coated bearings they couldn't use the RAF's engine oil that had anti jelling agents in it but wasn't compatible with iridium coated bearings, so they had to wait for compatible oil to be developed in the US and shipped over there.
And what Lindbergh did had absolutely nothing to do with that, he simply proved to Allison that the engine's could be run leaner than they said without burning up, the leaner you run an engine the hotter they run, I've actually gotten them into my shop that people ran with major vacuum leaks and thought it was dirt in the carbs and kept running them leading to holes melting through the tops of pistons, inside the cockpits of all of those aircraft was a chart telling the pilots how to run the mixture under different throttle settings and conditions, Lindbergh got permission to run them differently and engineers and technicians from Allison went to where he was and did engine tear downs to inspect the engine's and verify there was no damage from him running them leaner to increase range, what he did had nothing to do with what you claim, it's all very well documented and you should try reading up on it.
Thanks!
I don't know that it was underappreciated, it was my first plane loved, I mean the thing is beautiful! Films like 1941 (1976) and Flying tigers really had me, or maybe it was the shark mouth, I am not sure, but it really captured my imagination, long before the days of "high alt and range wins" Had no idea about the Brits using it so much back then, really nice to see how much it came through for so many nations when it was needed most.
Nice look into this, great photos, and well told, chap. Thanks!
Thanks
A superb epic video - both episodes. And well structured - I've certainly gained a better picture of the P40's history than other worthy efforts I've seen. Thanks.
I second that!!
Thanks for an excellent rundown of probably my favouritre WW2 era fighter.
Probably the fighter that helped save Australia.
Something which has sadly been overlooked.
Yes so true.
The P-40 is one more evidence how underappreciated "good enough" often is.
It was a solid performer, shining trough those qualities most only value when they really needed it.
Brings to mind the Focke-Wulf FW 187, another plane not recognized as what would be truly necessary.
Hurricane another example of this, PR spin not matching reality leading to misplaced history.
Done is better than perfect is what I always say, and this is a shining example of it
The American Volunteer Group (The Flying Tigers flying the P 40 did a great job in China holding the Japanese back before Pearl Harbor. Great flyers with a plane that did the job. 🧐 just knowing 🇺🇸
@@lindabutler4903 I watched another video specifically about them.
The chinese crews and even the citizens helped making mock fighters to the point where the japanese believed there were over 100 Flying Tigers in China instead of the merely two dozen at that time!
Sadly i don´t remember which video, it´s been a while since then.
"Good enough" is sometimes a way of saying "precisely appropriate".
The Flying Tigers would not look the same without them.
True. It certainly looked the part.
And it took only 4 P-40E's one day to completely stop Japan's 56th division at the Swaleen Gorge.
The Flying Tigers had higher performing hand built engines than the normal mass production variants, which served them well. They also flew against the Nakajima Ki-43 Oscar I, not Zeros.
@@bobsakamanos4469 They probably REALLY DIDN'T - They were begging for latest varients, promised them by Roosevelt too - But they were off-loaded in Oz for the RAAF because of the fear Japan could go into Oz.
What they DID do was work out the only good way to outmatch the far more nibble Zeros & Oscars was a 'Zoom Bounce'
They TOLD the USAAF in good time too
The USAAF ignored them & tried to dogfight. They were mauled.
@@bobsakamanos4469 and the IJA did not send its best against them either. Neither the best aircraft nor the best pilots. They still accomplished a tremendous amount but one must be honest
This was probably the best video I've ever seen on the P-40. Outstanding work!
True
Very true
agreed. Very accurate description of its operational capability, rather than chest thumping jingoism.
At least as good as and probably a bit better than the hurricane and it did sterling service wherever it went. as always many great previously unseen photographs Good work Rex
I watched a video from Kermit Weeks flying his P40… he mentioned it is so easy and intuitive to fly…he rates it highly…and he has many similar aircraft to compare. It is great to fly, and that’s a huge plus for the pilots fighting with it. I love the warbirds from WWII….amazing, beautiful, powerful and built for purpose
The story of the Australian 75 squadron was impressive, a rough start ...rough conditions..... tough enemy with excellent planes and experience.
1 hour video from Rex on the p40, amazing.
Nice video. My dad was a designer on P40s before and during the war. He worked his tail off for five years straight and had some stories to tell. Keep up the good work.
"A high speed, low-altitude six-gun sledgehammer..." It's turns of phrase like this that keep me coming back. I feel you could easily become the Drachinifel of the Skies, in this respect at least.
41:59 I note what look like Beauforts in the background. One of the songs on Icehouse's "Code Blue" album ("Charlie's Sky"), and the focus of the cover art, was IIRC a reference to lead singer Iva Davies' grandfather, who flew in Beauforts in this theatre of the war. Makes me wonder if one of the aircraft in the background might have been his...
As aviation was evolving at such a rapid pace I feel like it was the first really cool and tough looking fighter of that time. Being so cool and versatile it flew in every theater of the war from day one to VJ Day and beyond
I just re-watched an old movie called "Death Race". A classic chase movie that pitted a flack-damaged and ground-bound P-40 against a German tank. The P-40 could taxi at high speed and even do short hops, but it had a damaged cooling system that limited it's run time. It was almost as good as I remembered it at the age of 10. You can find it free on RUclips,
The movie dates from 1978, apparently made-for-TV, alternate title: "State of Division".
@@robertmatch6550 1973, not 1978.
The wildcat, P-40, and Sherman tank may not have been the best, but when needed in quantity it was all we had. They were good enough to get us through when we desperately needed them..
There is a good argument to be made the Sherman was the best medium tank of the war. Specifically the M4A3 76 HVSS.
It's not so much the equipment,it's the men using it.
Just like a living situation before you get your stuff together. Not the best conditions or most favorable, but it got you through those rough days before better days came with improvement.
@@cattledog901 all variants of the Sherman were quite good but if we are deciding the best I would go off of the best for its time as the M4A3 76w HVSS large hatch with the one piece transmission casing came in really really late and was competing against the Pershing (admittedly the Pershing in its initial deployment had a significant number of issues but the vehicle was a significant improvement in firepower, range, and protection) and for its time the early M4 variants were the best in the world (all M4 variants were produced effectively simultaneously with the M4A2 actually being the first variant to enter production baring that except for the A1 with its cast hull the only thing the A2/A3 etc designated was the engine it was using) as at the time of introduction it had a very potent gun in comparison to anything else in the world. Incredibly thick armor for a medium tank and excellent mobility and reliability. In 1942 the M4 was an incredibly potent vehicle especially for its primary use and in fact the primary use of all tanks that being infantry support. The later variants with 76.2mm guns were an improvement against tanks but the HE shells the 76 fired were less potent (higher velocity and more spin forcing the projectile to have thicker casing therefor reducing its capacity) I think in 1942 there was nothing in the world better than a Sherman but by 1945 even with all its improvements there were some things there were at least as good if not better
Great analogy. All three examples were easy to build and maintain in large numbers, and were tough and reliable. (I would include the Hurricane in that list.)
Thanks Rex for yet another well-researched study that goes above and beyond; in this case a workhorse fighter-bomber that held the line when the Allies needed it to do.
I will always think of the P-40 with that distinctive sharks' mouth trim of North Africa and China/Burma. No other aircraft wore it as well, with the P-40s prominent chin.
This is a very professional and comprehensive look at this very important aircraft. Thank you Rex!
Hey Rex, if you ever decide to cover historical squadrons instead of just planes (kinda like Drachinifel covering entire battles or campaigns), i suggest you do a video on the Normandie aviation regiment of the free french air force, a squadron of absolute madlads who went to fight with the soviet air forces from 1943 onwards.
Yes, that would amazing.
Rex, your videos were interesting and well made, now they are moving into the realm of excellent. The P-40 was my favorite WWII fighter as a kid, and I appreciate the workup you gave it.
My first flying model airplane was a P 40. Cox .049 control line. So fun for a little kid.
I remember staring at the Cox P-40 and the Corsair for an hour in the store before buying the Corsair because my older brother had one when he was my age. I should have taken the 40 because I've always loved it.
@@ohger1 Either plane would be fun. I had the P 40 first because that's what the store had at the time. They had just introduced a Mustang, sort of wanted it.
I was about 5 years old when my dad bought the Cox P-40 with the Wen Mac .049 engine. We were on the garage roof and Pop had the u-control and I launched it. He made about 5 turns when it took a dip and the control lines wrapped around my neck. It made about 4 more really fast circles around my neck before the prop cut the lines and it landed in the field. Pop thought it was pretty funny but I was scared to death. A lot of tears came out of this 5 year old that day.
OK....it's hilarious now.
@@kimmer6nice little memory .
For about 20 seconds before the wheels broke off.
Thank you so much for these videos. The amount of quality content you put out is staggering. Been fascinated with the topic since I was in 1st grade. I'm 26 now, and my fascinations have since broadened, so I don't have as much time to dedicate to each and your videos are perfect length and detail for me. Great work, massively appreciated.
Very well done Rex’s Hangar! 👍👍👍. The P-40 was the airplane that fueled my early love affair with WWII military aviation.
The Dutch NEIAAF used the P-40N they retained from 120 Sqn during the early phase of the Indonesian Independence war, remaining active until July 1949 when they were replaced with surplus P-51D/K's.
Your voice was fine throughout the presentation! Great job.
My Great Uncle Flew P40s ,Hurricanes,Spitfires Typhoons and Tempests. He said nothing could catch you in a dive and run away on the deck in a 40 and that was all that could keep you alive often. He's been dead 45 years and always remember how he loved his P40 .Took my up in his Stearman when I was 12 and my mother went to pieces. Miss you Allen.
⁰
Thanks for this great review of a great aircraft. My dad flew 189 missions out of Port Moresby in New Guinea with the 7th Fighter Squadron of the US Army Air Corps. He had many stories from those days in 1942-43. He landed after a particularly difficult mission and he was able to put his finger through nine holes in the fuselage while remaining seated in the cockpit. He went on to fly P-38s and P-51s but it was in the P-40 that he had the most dogfighting and it was the plane that saved his life many times. The P-40 was the plane that was closest to his heart.
5:35 "Allison was not a huge company" ... Err ... Allison had been a division of General Motors since 1929, which was about as huge a company as you could come up with.
Probably better to say that Allison was a neglected division of a large company. GM probably found it much more profitable to build well-sorted Grumman aircraft than do the hard work of developing an aero engine.
Yeah, I wondered about that statement as well, I always associated Allison with GM and with dragsters and drag racing boats in the 60s, i.e., plenty of dough even for silly things. But GM was building a lot of stuff during WWII and I don't know where Allison stood as far as resources and money go. However, given the amount of cash being thrown at defense industry at the time, I'd guess that any failures should be traced to incompetent management at GM rather than money constraints.
Allison might have been under the GM umbrella but the thing to understand about divisions in larger companies is they don't always get access to everything the company that owns them has. So its not really correct to treat Allison as if it was actually GM, it wasn't.
@@TheRougeSky GM approved large expenditures and railed at the fact that the USAAF wouldn't fund development costs to improve the Allison, despite the government procurement director being an ex-president of GM. GM also was approving authority for NAA new fighter designs. Board of directors rule everything.
Excellent pair of videos. Very convincing rehabilitation of the reputation of the P40. Being useful, and indeed successful for such a long time in multiple theatres surely tells a tale of success. Good work, Rex.
You've hit another home run. Thank you for sharing your hard work and research.
My favorite model kit as a lad...just looked tough.
Thank you for an absolutely outstanding video. Your 2 videos confirm an opinion about the P-40 that I have long held.
Thanks for an excellent look at the venerable P-40. Keep up the good work making these videos!
I really enjoyed these videos. Many thanks for a fascinating study on an underated subject.
All the respect and gratitude for excellent videos. Thank you for not pester them with music. Wonderful narration and I think the embedded wits were perfect. You earned a subscriber. Looking forward to more. Thank you.
kudos for this very comprehensive (and probably definitive) two part survey of this unfairly underrated fighter bomber of WWII (and personally one of my favourites).
Minor correction: Australia only had a 4 P38s and were recon versions for testing, the P40s were replaced by Spitfire Mk VIII and CAC( Commonwealth Aircraft Company) built D/K model equivalent Mustangs ( CA-18)🇦🇺
Well said, you beat me to it! Cheers.
They were operated out of Coomalie Creek
The CA-17s were P51Ks - 80 from put together from kits manufactured in the US and 84 direct lend lease P-51Ks.
These were replacing the P40's in RAAF front line service in mid to late 45 with No 84 and 86 Squadrons.
Post war production of CA18s with production of 120 aircraft with Packard and RR built merlin engine's in fighter and PR versions started in 1946.
@@paulmeilak9946 I was trying to keep it short, my source is the brilliant book by Australian historian Stewart Wilson Spitfire, Mustang, Kittyhawk in Australian service.
@@rodneypayne4827 Really good answer. I though a little bit more detail would supplement your answer. Cheers.
Have always liked the P-40 and there were so many countries that used it. Two months ago I got a really cool book called "Curtis fighters: 1917-1948" really big book with lots of good info and photographs.
I ordered it on Amazon, thanks.
You must realize that the P40 (14,000)was the third most produced US fighter behind the P47(16,000_ and P51(15,000) So it could not have been that "bad" a fighter" !!! Remember too it was AVAILABLE and inexpensive in large quantities, and when war starts you fight with what you have !!! In 1940 the Brits considered the P40 to be the best AVAILABLE fighter, why they wanted North American to build them, but Dutch Kindelberger refused and OFFERED HIS new plane he had been working on the P51 Mustang why he was able to deliver the P51 Mustang prototyped in 112 days from contract signing !!!
This a superb overview. Such good research across so many fronts. I love the time you devoted to the RAAF and you captured the attitude of Australians to this plane.
This has been an amazing series. Great work on reporting the story of the Curtis P40, the first WW2 fighter I fell in love with.
I have to say, you are the best narrator on RUclips. Love the dry sense of humour - really, you nail it every time.
Does anyone else remember buying 2D polystyrene models of ww2 fighters, the wings slotted through the fuselage and they had a clip on plastic propeller. There were about 10 of them. Flying tiger P40, zero, spit, Hurricane, p51,109, fw190, and a 4 piece P38 I think. not sure what the others were, can't remember, possibly Hellcat and Corsair, would have been early 80's.
Edit: googled them, Henbrandt Pack Of 12 Classic World War II Flying Plane Gliders, brings back memories, no P38 though, must have got that wrong.
broke so many off them..lol
Yes, I had those back in the 1970's.
I had a few of them wow.
I learned to put a Black Kat in the fuselage, and when we were through playing with the plane I’d light the fuse and send it up one last time. Sayonara Zero!
@@davidmuir7711 That reminds me of when I was slightly older, I got a piece of thin A3 card. Made a paper aeroplane with it and cut two steps out of the rear of the vertical "fuselage."
These were long enough and staggered so that the two small firework rockets I had come into possession of(wasn't old enough to buy!)could be held underneath with loops of tape.
That way one could be lit without igniting the other. Think I used blu tac in the nose as a counterbalance and gave it a few hard test throws to test the balance at speed. Didn't think I'd get it right.
Lit the rear uppermost rocket, waited till the fuse had burned almost to the point of ignition, then lit the second and threw it.
Holly crap! it worked perfectly! On the rearmost screaming rocket the thing climbed up just above the streetlights! which then burnt out, a second later the second ignited and it kept going.
It Made it halfway down my street, at least 200 metres, was shouting "yes.. yes!" as I ran after it. Was pumped! Forgot to mention I used tinfoil in an effort to protect the cardboard, that didn't work, It was to damaged to use again.
Not that I had anymore rockets anyway, couldn't buy any myself. The tinfoil might have allowed the thing to finish the flight though, might have stopped it from burning up mid air, can't say for certain.
No phones in them days, as you know, otherwise it would have made a great video! Never tried it again. Was awesome! Even if I do say so myself!
I came down with Covid this week. Your voice is so soothing it helped me to sleep. Just thought I’d let you know.
Thanks for the great follow-up video on my favorite WW2 aircraft Rex. Only one error I noted - the Desert Air Force Tomahawk/Kittyhawk 3 Squadron was RAAF, not SAAF (which were 2, 4, 5 Squadrons).
Extremely well done! I will definitely be watching part 1 and part 2 over and over. Not only are your programs well written and easy to follow your delivery is very clear and erudite.
Let's not forget the most important fact for any instrument of war, the P-40D 'looked' so much better with the bigger chin! :) The name Kittyhawk was better too!
Awesome work on this unsung hero Rex - epic detail and excellent use of photographs/etc as always!
You three are on your own on that. The earlier P-40s looked much better if you'd ask me.
This is far and away the best treatment of the P-40 I've seen, and I watch a lot of YT aircraft videos. You present a great mix of technical and historical info, putting both in context.
P.S. The C-46 Commando may have had a big role in the demise of Curtiss. An ambitious and capable design that may have been too much for a small company to finish off properly.
Thank you for the fantastic work on the P40, and giving it the recognition it deserves. Though not the best fighter of WWII, I think it was the most beautiful, fighter of them all. The Spitfire and P51 come in second and third, but the P40 had the most graceful lines.
7:21
wow
New background pick!
I would love to see a video about the Grumman f4f and f6f. Those are my favorite aircraft of the war. I thoroughly enjoyed these two videos, you did a great job!
Great work regarding explanation of connecting changes in construction with problems occured during production and exploatation.
Great Video. You combine technical developments with good anayses of the plane's service record. However, ypi cold have said more about the P-40's service in the CBI theatre
Very thorough report on the P 40's history. Thank you very much.
Most front line units replaced every "weight-saving improvement" on the 'N' model, from spindle on the landing gear to the older instrumentation, essentially rebuilding it to the 'E' standard, i.e. the reliable workhorse they needed.
Correct. Heavier and less performance than what people read on wiki.
Would you be interested in doing a series on the LaGG-1 & LaGG-3 ? Another relatively unknown aircraft that did its best to defend its country and formed the basis of formidable successors.
Were these the wooden Russian fighters?
@@SK-tr9ii Yes. Despairing called by its pilots the Lacquered Guaranteed Grave.Which was a spoof on its designation
P-40 was my first love.. I love many other planes as well but this one is special. (As a history buff , not pilot)
Wow. You have done a marvelous job putting this information together. Thank you so much.
Nice work. Rex, if you compile your videos into a book, I’ll buy it. It’d make using your work as a go-to reference that much easier.
The comments at 21:17 are classic you, and would read well. Putting your personality into a book would easily differentiate it amongst the library of dull (but accurate) references already out there.
Wow, such thorough research and well presented. Thank you for the work you do.
One point of order: The Royal Australian Air Force P-40s were not replaced by P-38s. The RAAF only received 3 Lightnings, variously described as P-38Es or F-4 reconnaissance Lightnings.
"Thanks" for doing this, it shed some light on the P-40 I did not know about.
Looking forward to seeing your next video.
Wonderful job on this video. Excellent.
What a thorough well researched history of the P-40. I look forward to watching more of your videos.
The P-40s that served in North Africa were originally painted in tan csmouflage (to match the sandy terrain). The fierce sun of the area caused the paint to fade to a rather alarming pink. An heiress to the Johnson fortune used to fly a P-40 painted in the "faded" colour scheme, wearing a matching pink flight suit.
Thank you for letting me know that this surreal bubblegum shark plane exists.
Apparently pink is a pretty good desert camouflage colour, which is why the SAS used pink Land Rovers (so-called Pink Panthers) post-war.
Thanks Rex. As always, your videos are detailed and closer to reality than Greg's.
Let's not forget that the favourable conditions for Allied victory in North Africa was brought about by several years of hard fighting in the the Western Desert/Mediterranean/Malta that reduced Axis capability and denied them their suppy route from Sicily.
I've always loved the P40. An amazing aircraft... just understand and work with its strengths and, as they say Bob's your uncle! And those are some sexy lines on that beautiful plane, too!
I knew a test pilot from ww2. He said the P-40 was his favorite. He also test flew the P-58 night fighter
I have seen all your videos, but never noticed before, but Shouldn’t it be service ceiling, not cervice ceiling on the specifications?.
Really like the depth of information combined with photos, videos and 3D models; great job!
Thanks for this extensive briefing of RAAF Kittyhawks in New Guinea. In particular with their important role in the Battle of Milne Bay. Your reporting of this was good, except one important factor that the presence of the Kittyhawks had on Japanese tactics, which was essentially a poorly coordinated amphibious landing and assult by the IJN (many of the Japanese soldiers were Marines). Because of the number and effect of the Kittyhawks, the Japanese were forced to land troops by ships and barges, much further from their main objectives than they liked, which was the main Australian air fields. This was a definitive disadvantage for them traversing difficult terrain over a considerable distance, making the troop concentrations vulnerable to the Kittyhawks by day. Essentially, most Japanese infantry movement and attacks occurred at night. By and large, the Australians were well entrenched and able to withstand these Japanese night attacks and had the numbers to send ground reconnaissance and patrols out harass the retreating Japanese. The Japanese also deployed light tanks which had largely proved ineffective due to the Australian fire-power, also supplied by Kittyhawk strafing and bombing attacks.
Another fantastic video! My hubby had never heard of the XP53 or XP60 (and it's a given that *I* had not😂).
All the pix and info is most interesting. Liked learning how the planes came just in time to help Australia in the Pacific theater.
excellent vid. nice to hear battle of Milne bay given the attention it deserves
Yes, Milne Bay was an important one for the RAAF, P-40, and Hudson bombers. And the defending AIF battalions, too. Nos 75 and 76 Squadrons flew the Kittyhawks, and the Hudsons started their bombing runs, in some instances, BEFORE they'd fully retracted their undercarriage.
Called "Taran," or "Battering Ram" when the pilots went smashy smashy apparently, there were even special propellers made to allow the pilot to...wait for it... use the plane as a buzz saw.
Thanks!
Great video. I think USAF also used 3 squadrons of P40’s as interceptors to defend Darwin, Northern Australia from regular Japanese raids from Timor in 1942, until they were relieved by a spitfire wing in 1943.
At the time of the first Japanese air raid on Feb 19th 1942. USAAF P40s were in Darwin. They had recently been transferred down from the Philippines. A number were out on patrol. And were returning back to base ( literally landing ) when the raid came in! Consequently, being short on fuel, many were destroyed! There is an account of 1 being strafed while trying to take off again. It exploded and cartwheeled down the runway! A Royal Australian Airforce ( RAAF ) Coastwatcher out on the northern beaches also radiod in a warning to Darwin Airbase. That he had just witnessed a dogfight between some P 40s and Japanese aircraft! He described how the P40s and pursuing Japanese aircraft, came across the coast like bats out of hell!! However the authorities didnt believe him!! They thought he had gone "troppo!" - ( An expression for nuts in the tropics! ) - And had mistaken returning US P40s for an air raid! Therefore, some valuable time to act was lost!! Anyway, they soon found out otherwise!! Another factor at work was... At the time of the raid. People in Darwin were expecting the arrival of more USAAF aircraft. And since Feb 19 was a fine sunny day, as is common in the north. Many people were out and about around town. So when they saw these incoming waves of Japanese aircraft. - Right up to the first strafing and bombing attacks!! They thought they were US aircraft!! As a result many were caught and killed out in the open!! - PS. The aircraft carrier battle group that attacked Darwin on Feb 19th 1942. Was the same battle group that attacked Pearl Harbour on Dec 7th 1941!
My uncle was in the RAAF as an electrician. He told me of the time he and a couple of others were working on telephone lines south of Darwin. They were up on a telephone pole when they heard a rumble coming from the south. They thought it was a convoy of trucks. Seconds later a Japanese fighter that had throttled back was alongside them and the pilot was grinning and waving to them.
He said you had never seen three men get down so quick and scatter off into the bush.
An excellent video ! Your work in the aviation field reminds me of the work of another of my favorite RUclipsrs, Drachinifel in the field of ships. Keep up the good work !
been waiting for this video, and Greg's on the Sea Fury and Ki-84
Excellent video. I'm researching a specific airframe; where did you get the image used at 44:28, do you have the uncropped version, and are there any others in that series?
I volunteer at the American Heritage Museum, where that sole surviving P-40B from Pearl Harbor is located. Thank you for making these videos, cause I've always felt the P-40 is one of the most overlooked aircraft of the war
All so much work and research. Very comprehensive.
Thank you for your excellent research and presentation of this remarkable aircraft in all of it’s forms/models. It reminds me so much of the Hawker Hurricane, as aircraft from the 1930’s design theologies, that were there when needed in the ‘40s, and whose designs were resilient enough to be modified , improved, and tactically used in ways that made them effective enough to be obstacles to the Axis Powers of the time.
This is my favorite prop aircraft. Great videos on it!
Next to the Dewoitine D.520. This BEAUTIFUL BIRD is MY FAVORITE AIRCRAFT of WW2! So many AVIATION BOOKS,MODEL KITS and PC games have it,that you can't help but LOVE IT!