Comments by "Gort" (@gort8203) on "The Curtiss XP-40Q; When a Mustang and a Warhawk love each other very much…" video.

Like the Hurricane it was a prewar aircraft that was already marginal at the beginning of the war. They had roughly comparable performance, although the Hurricane was a bit faster early on. (Perhaps due to achieving its maximum speed at a higher altitude due to a better blower?) They both contributed a great deal to the allied war effort, yet on the internet the P-40 seems to get far less respect than than Hurricane. If the Hurricane had not earned fame in the Battle of Britain it would probably hold a place in the firmament closer to the P-40, which doesn't get talked about much in proportion to its contributions.
128
@Easy-Eight Yes, when comparing airplanes you do have to try to compare them at like phases of their development and under like conditions. l agree that the P-40E and later models were superior at lower altitudes. I think the Hurricane with the constant speed prop was probably superior to the early P-40 models at the higher altitudes needed during the Battle of Britain, or at least that's what the Hurricane fan club will tell you. I think the P-40 was a good airplane in the lower half of the sky and would get more respect if it were not overshadowed by later aircraft.
3
Later versions of the Allison did get a 2-stage supercharger.
3
I believe it was General Electric rather than Allison developing the turbosuperchargers. It was the way to higher performance, but the Army didn't count on the delays GE had in development and production. It also turned out to be more difficult than expected to fit them into fighters that were not designed around them like the P-38 and P-47 were, and the P-39 really suffered for that. These turbines were state of the art at the time.
2
@jeffm68 Yes, that's the thing about social media; facts are considered pedantic but ignorant criticism seems to be the accepted standard of discourse.
2
@@cancermcaids7688 It seems the so called 'bomber mafia' gets the blame for anything. The bomber force was just a weak as the fighter force between the wars. There was only a veritable handful of B-17s in service on 7 Dec 41, so they had hardly been stealing all the funding from fighters.
1
@terrybrown8539 Thanks for the recommendation.
1
@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935 You said putting the XX into the Hurricane made the Spitfire Mk V mediocre. There is no discernable logic to be seen in that statement, yet you patronize someone who doesn't understand it. Nice. Looking up supercharging isn't going to help him understand your statement.
1
@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935 There is no way that kind of information could be inferred from your original comment, and if the guy who questioned it simply looked up supercharging, he would still not find any of the information needed to make your comment meaningful. You didn't just post a comment that was less than all encompassing, you posted a comment that contained no useful information for the reader. BTW, I believe the Merlin 45 was a variant of the XX intended for low altitude use. The M version even had a smaller diameter impeller to reduce throttling losses. The actual Merlin XX was installed in the Mk III Spitfire. Due to limited supply of the XX, which was needed for bombers and the Hurricane, the Spitfire Mk III was discontinued because better versions of the Merlin like the 61 were on the way for the Spitfire.
1
@wilburfinnigan2142 Why are you so excited? Time line? I did not say anything about the Merlin having a 2-stage supercharger early in the war. All I said was that the Hurricane achieved its maximum speed at a higher altitude than the P-40 achieved its maximum speed. This could imply that the Hurricane retained more of its power to higher altitudes than the P-40 did. It is not unreasonable to speculate that this may have been due to a better blower. This could be a more efficient single-stage blower, or simply one optimized for higher rather than lower altitudes; it does not imply a 2-satge blower.
1
@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935 Or comments that can't be deciphered.
1
Why was the cooling system of the P-40 less vulnerable than the cooling system of the P-51?
1
@SmedleyDouwright So it seems your assumption is 100% speculation and not based on facts of any kind. My contrary assumption is that the cooling system of the P-51 was not significantly more vulnerable than the cooling system of the P-40 or most other liquid-cooled fighters. Like the P-51, most liquid-cooled fighters positioned the radiator under the fuselage near the wings or under the wings. In gunnery training pilots and gunners were taught to lead the target and aim for the engine, the fuel tanks, and the pilot, starting from the front and working back. I don't see how placing the radiator near the engine would make it less likely to be hit. As to you other assumption, that the P-47 would have been a better choice for operations in Korea, USAF obviously did not agree you. Maybe you should look into the reason(s) for that.
1
@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935 I know that not that many were retained. I think the assumption that this was due to the higher cost of maintenance and operations is a rational one, but I have yet to see anything official on that. This theory does fly in the face of the common narrative that one reason the Navy insisted on radial engines for its aircraft is that they were more reliable and simpler to maintain. But I have yet to see anything official on that either.
1