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

the P-40 landing gear cost it a lot of speed. They never addressed that. And it really needed an all-new wing.
3
@daszieher yup, which is why North American offered a clean sheet design. They knew they could do better than the P-40 when the British came calling. They'd had a chance to learn from past designs as well as benefited from recent NACA aerodynamic testing data. They knew how to fix the P-40, but to do so was easier to start clean sheet.
3
the P-40 is VERY underrated, and actually performed well against the Germans and Japanese. It just wasn't as good as other newer designs. It had aerodynamic flaws and such, but it was rather good and reasonably competitive. It just requires nuance to talk about it. Most people are not good at nuance.
3
@sebclot9478 False. NAA knew that building another company's plane meant their chances of ever designing and building their own were basically zero. They had a brilliant team of engineers on staff that had already proven their skills with earlier designs such as the Mitchell and Dragon twin engine bombers, and the texan trainer. their lead designer already had been working on teh Mustang design since the nineteen thirties and had the benefit of time and hindsight and knew all the Warhak's design flaws and benefited fro NACA aerodynamic and drag studies that came after the Warhawk already existed. NAA knew without a shadow of a doubt they could do better, as they already knew everything wrong with the warhawk in hindsight.
1
@sebclot9478 wrong, that's exactly why NAA did it. NAA had an exceptional team of engineers with a very can-do innovative attitude. I've worked on multiple teams and companies like this and know how awesome it is to work with such people and leadership. they had multiple successes already, just not a fighter. and they had the basis for a design and had been working closely with NACA for years. NAA was a business and they knew that if they spent the war building another company's airplanes, they \'d never recover from it. if you knew anything about aviation history and businesses you'd understand what that means.
1
@sebclot9478 "They didn't need to build a fighter for the British to get their foot in the door. They could have used the P-40 license to demonstrate great build quality and then pitched their own design. They are not mutually exclusive." this is 100% false. you clearly don't understand the economicas of airplane manufacturing and contracts. production quality wont win you a contract for a fighter you don't have. they'll just ask you to build more of the same. "But so was the opportunity to kill the license fee." no self-respecting aerospace company builds the airplanes of another company, even with No licensing fee. again, you clearly know nothing about eh economics of WW2 aircraft production. "Having an exceptional team of engineers is why you would take that chance. But this isn't a game. This is a business. Losing the license fees opens up a BIG chunk of change." blah blah blah, you talk a lot and think you know, but you don't. Go read teh actual history.
1
@sebclot9478 "kid"? Where do you get the idea you're in a position to lecture anyone? Insults and "appeal to Authority" is a logical fallacy. By using such fallacies instead of arguing on merits of your ideas and the documented facts, you are admitting defeat. Such is the rules of scientific debate. I could cite my laundry list of qualifications and credentials, but that doesn't make me right either. Only the facts and logic of my argument can win. But in addition to my extensive experiences, achievements, knowledge, and skills in these topics, i have an exhaustive library of source material on a short list of aircraft, chief among them is the P-51. Name a book specifically about the Mustang and i probably own a copy. And i have been debating this aircraft specifically with many top experts. Pilots who've flown the aircraft, first-hand accounts. Engineering data. Mechanics who've worked professionally on both the Allison and Merlin engines. Talked with authors of some of the most prominent books on the topic, and much more. I've been researching and debating WW2 fighter aircraft for many years now in excruciating detail. But again, my credentials and past research alone doesn't make me right. My arguments being logically consistent and backed up by facts and evidence is what makes my arguments scientifically valid.
1