Greg…I’ve been an amateur WW2 historian since the third grade (I’m 62…hard to believe) and I must say, when it comes to explaining the aircraft of this period, you are so far ahead of the pack that no one else even comes close. Your videos are so crammed with technical facts and minutiae that I have to re-watch them several times to fully get everything you are throwing at me. It’s a real pleasure to watch/listen to your amazing shows. You effortlessly explain the differences in mechanical engineering as well as the flight characteristics of each aircraft. It has really fleshed out my understanding of the air war…far more than any dozen books on the subject could have…in my humble opinion. Thank you for your generosity in sharing your expertise and keep up the good work.

My fathers friend " Rusty " flew P-40's in North Africa. When I was about 12-13 yrs. old I asked him about his service . I had been reading all about the various WW2 campaigns and was eager to hear a first hand account. His refusal to talk about the war brought home to my adolescent mind that war was not glamorous and something a person may want to forget they had ever been involved in. His one concession was he told me the P-40 would dive like a streamlined brick.

I had a relative who flew P40's in North Africa against BF 109's. He said they were competitive and he had two victories before being shot down. His engine took a flak hit and 3 German 109's were trying to claim him as a kill as he was glidiin for a landing. He said the three each took passes at him which he avoided by faking a turn and then reversing it once they committed. He was so slow with a seized engine that they were overshooting him on their gun runs. After doing a wheels up in the desert, he was strafed by one and was badly wounded through both legs and had some eye damage from splinters. He considered them strafing a downed pilot as very poor form. He was in an ambulance on bad roads from North Africa all the way to South Africa apparently. He flew ferry missions to front line bases after that, as he was not cleared for combat.

I used to give tours and talks on the P-40 we had back at a local Museum years back and have always had a large respect and affirmation for this aircraft. We had a P-40N-30 produced in 1944, at which point the P-40s were carrying a bombload of comparable size to the much larger P-47s. Very underrated airframe in my opinion and I am glad to see a video from Greg of all people discussing some subject on it. I certainly look forward to anymore videos on the P-40 in any capacity, and if you ever do need some P-40L documentation I have some old scans of archival material that may prove to be useful.

One thing about the Allison is that it is a modular design. It's cam gearbox and power takeoff could be bolted to either end. IIRC, it could run clockwise or counterclockwise. It was envisioned and engineered to be as versatile as possible. And strong. The Mustangs that race at Reno use Allison conrods in their Merlins because they're stronger.

The P40 saved Australia in the air battles over New Guinea and that was against the best Japanese planes and pilots. Quality American engineering emphasises reliability making it easier for the RAAF to ring the neck of the Allison.

Thanks for mentioning Australian P40s. As I'm a Real Baby Boomer, the war was fresh in everyone's minds when I was small, and I think I knew about RAAF P40s even before I knew about Spitfires, though they were retired before I turned 2, so I don't recall seeing any. We were often behind the door when military aircraft were being given out, but managed to achieve quite a bit with the less spectacular but still effective aircraft like the Kittyhawk and the Beaufighter. Even the Boomerang, while not a great threat to enemy aircraft did at least frighten bombers off and prove effective in ground attack and pathfinder use -- and wasn't a bad achievement for an almost non-existent industry.

Saw a quote a long time ago about the Allison-powered Kittyhawks in British service in North Africa - "Quite a few German Messerschmitt pilots found out the hard way that the fighter-bomber Kittyhawks of the Desert Air Force were perfectly capable of defending themselves down at low level". This video explains why! Thank you very much!

Thanks Greg. Yeah, I believe the P-40 got a lot of it's bad mouthing from being used in Northern Europe where they flew at higher altitudes. Where they flew mostly at lower altitudes it was more highly regarded. One thing about New Guinea - was that while the Betty had a very high altitude - the Japanese didn't have a lot of choice about the altitude they were flying at if we were attacking their air fields. Here - as I tend to mention when talking about P-40's and F4F's - these two aircraft took on the cream of Japanese Naval Aviation and fought them to a stand still. Later aircraft were taking on enemies of a less denser experience base - because of all their veterans who died at the hands of someone in a P-40 or F4F. P-40's also saw extensive service North Africa - which is where the Flying Tigers got the idea for the Shark Nose the P-40 is such a natural for. .

Thanks Greg another great dive into the details! My dad was an engineer at Curtis during the war and was especially proud of the P-40 because of the in his words "the constant improvement process" he told me about a giant chalk board the was on the factory wall and how they charted the various parts and the improvements of that part during the entire build cycle of the P-40, he said "our boys deserve the best" and we are bound and determined to give them what they need. He was very proud of his war effort, even though very little ever gets mentioned of the thousands and thousands of "slide rule geeks of the day" he and other engineers/draftsman often slept under their drafting tables for a "few hours at a time" then back to work. He said "it was the most exciting and exhausting time to be and engineer" as they sometimes would make an improvement to a part and have it ready to be installed on the plane the next day!!!

As a little boy of ten I choose a P40 and a ME109 instead of a spitfire airfix kit because the P40 looked so right and indeed in a dive I think I was right. Had it been fitted with a two stage Merlin it would have been second to none in combat performance.

Your graph at 18:12 with the 109F included is probably the key reason for the p40F. As I understand the fighting in the Mediterranean early on was particularly fierce. The attrition had yet to impact the Luftwaffe and they still had many aces in the ranks. The 109F's would frequently pounce from above and maintain an energy advantage hence the need for something to reach them. Thanks for the upload!

Thank you Greg .....after quite a few years, "greetings this is Greg " still gets my undivided attention. Hoping this is the start of a deep dive into the P40 a truly underlooked aircraft

i love the post war insanity of the Allison the hp numbers for 30seconds or less is truly nuts the tractor pulling guys sure push things hard

The mighty P-40, helped give the Japanese there first taste of major land/air losses in New Guinea. It with all the other valiant AUS/USA forces and equipment halted the invasion of NG and then pushed the then enemy back, opening the way to the difficult but amazing Island hopping campaign of the US forces. It in no small way help save Port Moresby. The Japanese went from offence to defence at this place. Here in AUS the mighty "Kitty Hawk" is a revered aeroplane. There is at least one still flying. A serious thrill to see and hear at air shows.

Thanks for this interesting discussion. I know that some earlier scholars have called the P-51-B, basically, a P-40 that "Dutch" Kindleberger pulled out of a hat, when he shifted from working for Curtiss to working for North American. [And, in association with that: both the P-51-B and the P-40 were notable, mostly, for their operations at lower altitudes.] Your commentary tends to show that, although the P-40 in all its variants proved to be a [DAMN!] useful aircraft type, everywhere from the deserts of Northern Africa to the aerial "winter war" over the Aleutian Islands, and especially in the hands of Aussie and Kiwi pilots in the South Pacific, it nevertheless, whether fitted with a Merlin or an Allison engine, was never a high-altitude competitor. So, if that sort of high-altitude performance is in fact the measure of an aircraft design, then: the P-40 never made it. But, that raises the question: if an aircraft type is so darn good, and reliable, in delivering its mission at lower altitudes, then doesn't it deserve some aviation "stardom" from that? And with that analysis, rather like the ground-attack versions of the Hawker Hurricane that were used so successfully in North Africa (as well as doing most of the heavy lifting in the Battle of Britain while the Spitfires were doing their celebrity performances at higher altitudes), the various variants of the Curtiss P-40 did a damn good job, at the altitudes at which they were effective. [And, good air leaders learned to train pilots to operate them in those effective altitudes, and not those in which they performed less well. Perhaps the classic example of leaders training pilots how to use the P-40 to do what it did well (and not try to do what it didn't do well) remaining General Claire Chennault, leader of the American Volunteer Group (better known as "the Flying Tigers," over China, when there was little defending China against Japanese aggression in the air.] Anyway, let's hear it for the P-40, in all its many manifestations, and what it accomplished for deterring Axis aggression, before all the famous, wonderful, and revered later aircraft types appeared on the scene and overshadowed the good old P-40. [Similarly, I'll note, to the tough, rugged Grumman F-4-F Wildcat, which did an honest job of confronting Japanese aggression in the Pacific Theater before more modern aircraft types were introduced to totally outclass most of what Japan could produce during the Second World War in the Pacific.]

Greg Boyington said in his book that for what faults the P40 may have had, nothing could catch a P40 in a dive.

My recruiters grandfather was a Tuskegee P-40 pilot. He said he'd have to warm up the engine a little and "get it to wake up" before taking off. said his friend disregarded that and then proceeded to crash into the fence at the end of the airfield.

As always, a very interesting video. I have to confess I wasn’t aware that there were Merlin powered P-40s. Regarding your comment about your “math-y” videos not doing as well as others, I understand but also want to put in a plug for them. I was never fond of math as a student, but to understand the details you have to confront the math, and I appreciate you taking the effort to do that.

The P-40 is my favorite war bird. I think that stems from seeing the movie "God is My Copilot" back in the 40s. I also think it's the most aesthetically pleasing to the eye of all the WWII aircraft. As to the Allison, I remember reading an article that cited reliability testing on the design consisted of running one to destruction, strengthening the failed part(s) and doing it all over until a very reliable engine was developed.

I think the P-40 is a clear example of "judging a book only by it's ending" in aviation/military technology. It seems the P-40 was a quite worthwhile concept in itself, just didn't receive the development that it's closest competitor P-51 got, and was then judged as "not competitive in 1945 - must have been a worse concept". To change perspective: It's a bit as if the Germans had stopped development of the Bf109 past, say, early G-variants.

"The initial Packard modifications were done on this engine by changing the main bearings from a copper lead alloy to a silver lead combination and featured indium plating. This had been developed by General Motors' Pontiac Division to prevent corrosion which was possible with lubricating oils that were used at that time. The bearing coating also improved break-in and load carrying ability of the surface. British engineering staff assigned to Packard were astonished at the suggestion but after tear down inspections on rigidly tested engines were convinced the new design offered a decided improvement." Packard Merlin Aircraft Engine - Combat Air Museum page

My Dad worked at the Curtiss-Wright plant here in Buffalo before joining the military. He went to University of Buffalo nights for engineering, and days at the Curtiss plant. The P-40 was a big deal to him. He had more stories about pre war Curtiss than he did about his war exploits, kind of understandable, huh.

Perfect. Turkey leftovers football and Gregs Airplanes! What a great day

The final requiem for the P-40 in the Ballantine Books Weapons Series of WWII was given by an old RAAF Flight Lieutenant who used to clean brand new USAAC P-51 pilots' clocks in mock dogfights wit it: "The Curtiss P-40 puts me in mind of an old beat up Tom Cat. Ugly. Not Glamorous. But tough as nails and always dangerous."

I love your analytical approach to comparing the various engine versions and 'field adaptations' etc. As a Brit I have a soft spot for the RR Merlin, but I also appreciate the Allison engine and the P40 for all it's pluses and minuses, it's very overlooked/underrated when compared with the P47 and P51 etc. Very much like the beautiful 'Spitfire compared with the more conventional 'Hurricane, I recall an RAF fighter ace asked about his favourite aircraft, he said, "to fly in a Spitfire, but fight in a Hurricane".

Very interesting video regarding the P-40 with the Allison V-1710 engines and the Packard/Merlin. First of all the P-40 was an excellent fighter and was very tough that could stand a lot of punishment! I knew that the Allison V-1710 had better performance and more powerful than the Packard/Merlin at lower altitude whilst the Packard/Merlin had better performance at high altitude but I didn't know that the choice of engines was due to the logistics in the respective countries: the Allison V-1710 was preferred by the Americans and the Packard/Merlin by the British and the Commonwealth forces. It makes sense because the US knew well about their engines and the British and Commonwealth had better knowledge of the Packard/Merlin, that said, I read a book that said that the Allison V-1710 was easier to work on and to maintain then the Packard/Merlin. Good job again and looking forward to see your new videos 👍👍👍

My Uncle, awaiting his B-26's (sunk in transit), ended up flying the P-40F (and Spitfire, and 'Baltimore' bomber) out of Morocco in the '42 campaign. He wasn't a 'Fighter Pilot' at all. But, got one kill in the P-40F, Another in a Spitfire, and two more in his B-26.

At the time of the merger, Wright mainly built engines while Curtis built both. The key is that Curtis built liquid-cooled V-12s while Wright built air-cooled radials. So the air-cooled radials called are called Wrights. I work as a software engineer in Avionics. Last month I was reviewing spec sheets for some SBCs made by Curtis Wright which I admit is very cool. I do agree that the P-40 is kind of underrated much like the Hurricane. Now here is one thing I have wondered about for a while is since the P-40 was based on the P-36 why didn't Curtis Wright build a version of the P-40 with the R-2600? Could have been a very good ground attack machine.

My Dad was the Chief Engineering Officer for a squadron of P-39's in Panama. The Allison was fine at low altitude as Greg discusses. Interesting, their Colonel Group leader had commandeered a P-40 for his own non-combat use. It was polished and lightened and easier flew rings around his men in their P-39's. Later, Dad's squadron was sent to Burma with P-51's. He said there was simply no comparison to the P-39's or the P-40.

I have never watched a Greg’s Airplanes video that I didn’t finish. When he throws those charts up I end up pausing and staring at them for minutes and replaying that section. Thank you for your research and detail. The best WWII engineering channel I have found for several years.

excellent video, didn't know that P-40 was so competitive and worthy thank you very much :)

A really good presentation as always. In Europe the RAF found that most air combat with the Luftwaffe was at higher altitudes, 20,000 to 25,000 feet. Were unfortunately the P-40 was considerably slower than the Me109E/F models. It was the same story with the early P-51s, which were very fast at low level but lost its edge at higher altitudes.

Claire Chennault and his Flying Tigers showed what the P-40 could do; he showed his pilots how to take advantage of its capabilities and minimize its limitations.

This has turned out to be one of my favorite of Greg's videos. Great job!

Good to hear the ‘shout out’ to the RAAF and the Australian’s usage of the P40 throughout WW2. The RAAF certainly maximised the P40s war fighting potential in North Africa and in classic - and vital to the Allies - early 1942 battles in Papua New Guinea - Milne Bay and Port Moresby and in the air defence of Darwin. RAAF ace Clive ‘Killer’ Caldwell was the highest scoring P40 ace of any airforce in WW2, with over 20 confirmed kills.

Excellent presentation of the P-40!

Great information on the P-40 that I did not know. Your video broke many of the old stereotypes about the P-40 which have been circulating around for many decades. Great job and I'm looking forward to the next installment in this P-40 series.

P40 was and still is my favorite war bird. This was an excellent vid.

As always, great stuff! That answered my questions about the 2 different engines in the P-40! Many thanks

Another scholarly work Greg. Another point with logistics is not just parts, but tools. The English used Whitworth standard, and I think they had one or two other British standards as well for fun. Anyone who has tried to use a 1/2" Whitworth spanner on a 1/2" SAE nut has failed miserably. It would have been easy to mix up different standard tools, and a pain to have to have both tool kits. Many things about old British engineering seem designed to confuse or bizarre even.

As a former C-W employee (not during WWII) I want to point out an exception to the C-W practice of labeling aircraft as "Curtiss" only. The Columbus, Ohio plant had its own design dept. and aircraft designed and manufactured there could be named as "Curtiss-Wright" aircraft, hence the "Curtiss-Wright CW-21 Interceptor" and the two-seater CW-22 using the same basic design. I can't say why this is so. The plant also played a primary role in the development and production of the Curtiss SB2C Helldiver, so go figure as they say. As to the use of "Curtiss" for aircraft, the name was well-known for seaplanes during WWI, as well as many other earlier Glenn Curtiss aircraft designs. He was famous for both engines and early airframes.

Another fantastic video Greg. Well explained and illustrated as expected. Thanks for also for mentioning us Aussies as well. We did our bit for victory too! We have both Alison powered Kittyhawks and a P40F flying in Australia. Cheers

Very interesting, especially the performance of the P-40N in 1943 was surprising for me, thank you!

Lovely plane. Thank you for the additional information. One of the first models I built as a kid.

Thanks, Greg. Another great well researched video. I honestly think yours is the most criminally under-subbed channel on KZfaq. I'm not sure what it is, but the way you present the material just cliques with the way I like to digest information. Thanks, again.

All your videos are first rate. Very informative and easy to watch. Thank you!!!! I’m an RC Aviator and finishing my F6F Hellcat for next season. I like watching videos of the planes I’m working on. Helps me learn about them in a real world environment. Not just the Model Aviation end. EXTRAORDINARY MACHINES!!!! And the HEROES that flew and maintained them.

My grandfather’s squadron was equipped with Merlin-powered P-40Fs when it deployed to North Africa in late 1942. Great airplane. They used them quiet effectively to drive Rommel back into Tunisia, in the Palm Sunday Massacre, and in supporting the Allied drive up the Italian peninsula.

Splendid stuff Greg, and it's given me a new respect for Curtis planes. Thanks!

Thanks, Greg - you hit another one out of the park !

Don't ever stop Greg. This channel is suuuuuuch a treat!

Thanks Greg! Very detailed treatment of interesting question.

My father used the Alison engine in his 1936 Chevrolet. He said it was more than enough. It was a problem keeping rear axles in one pice though. I forgot to mention, my favorite WW2 fighter has always been the P40 .

As a patron I'd like to say that the more math and gritty detail heavy videos are part of why I pay for your content, expecting it to be harder to monetise by advertising.

The building I currently work in is the old Curtis assembly plant in Buffalo NY, now converted into office and warehouse space

Fantastic video, and thank you so much for this content. The P-40 and the Allison were much more capable than their bar room reputations. It is no wonder that they were produced in such large numbers.

For those that always seem to be confusing the Packard PT Boat engine with their version of the Merlin this is a great video on the PT engine.

p-40 is underrated. I would be happy to fly one any day of the week.

Great vid, as usual. I love it when you correct the record. Thanks to your outstanding series on it (and to Reflected Simulations' amazing campaign), I fell in love with the P-47 in DCS. I do recommend it, if only for the joy of a big rugged radial. Between P51, Spit and Mosquito, one can wish for just any other engine than the Merlin. :))))

I had always thought of the P40 as having been obsolescent even by the war's start. This video was a real eye-opener, thanks. And, somewhat relatedly, it seems that the Spitfire's overall appeal, and assumptions by so many that it was far in advance of the P40 in concept, design, and performance, was/is due to its unmatched aesthetics: "Pretty and precious-looking as a cavalier's jewelled rapier." --Sorry, I'm too lazy right now to look up and attribute that quote. Others no doubt will do so.

Caught this last night and like everything you produce it was fantastic! I don't know anywhere else one can go to to get an in depth discussion on subjects such as Wildcat superchargers, the plumbing of P-47s and the effects of octane on German fighters. Only here and thanks. The P-40 has always fascinated me and, since I was a kid, I have wondered how the Merlin engine stacked up against the Allison in the P-40 airframe. Obviously, the Merlin wasn't a magic bullet as the P-51 story would have us believe. On the subject of the P-40, I would like to hear a discussion on its predecessor, the P-36, and how that plane might have faired against the Zero had we pursued a more simpler modification of the airframe with a more powerful radial engine and not the Allison as in some ways the Hawk was a better plane and one that might have held its own against the Zero if the pilots made the Japanese pilots fight their fight like the latter often did with the P-40. Thanks again for your great videos. They do an airplane junky's soul good.

It’s been too long Greg! Thank you

Greg it's said the Packard built Merlin is superior to the original. The Merlin powered the Democracies too victory. My Gramps flew a DH-98 Mosquito which had two Merlins. They were made in my hometown London Ontario. Gramps flew right out onto Lake Erie. He told me it was a killer with superchargers. 4 x .303's and 4 x 20 mm cannons. He said it would do 400 mph. My Gramps was a real hero. Sunk a U-Boat 520 I believe. He was in a B-18 out of Gander. He came home a FLT. Joined the fire department when he came home in 46 . Became Chief . What a man! Love my Gramps and all those who did their duty. Thanks

Thansk for the video, Greg! I just checked out an overview of the P40 vs. A6M by PeninnsulaSrsVideos, from pilots who fly surviving examples, and it gave me a new appreciation for the Warhawk. Hearing it could attain those eye-watering horsepower ratings definitely builds on that foundation. It seems odd that the P40 gets so little love, while the exploits of the AVG, who flew it, are legend.

Great! Thanks Greg. I don't mind the math; good reason to get the old rusty cogs and gears turning.

Very often the 'N' was rebuilt to 'E' standards: wheel spindles, different instruments, reinforced frame elements... The scunning done of the 'N' made for a more fragile airframe, for an insignificant performance bump.

Thanks Greg, I've always wondered what the differences were besides the supercharging, and the fuel efficiency. I seen a video recently about the Messerspit. I wonder if you would conciser doing a video on that plane. I thought it was and interesting concept, and a small piece of history vary few are aware of.

That Australian p-40 with the clipped wings carrying what looked like 2 500lbers and a 1000lber, you should do a video on it and the other Australian modifications.

I love the p-40. Maneuverable, tough, dove well etc. The circumstances it fought in in 42 are prob 90% of the 'bad' rep it has.

Another great one Greg!

Dear Greg, we have corresponded some before. Anyway I want to tell a thing about my late friend Hans Pancherz, a German "Versuchflieger" at Junkers. He worked for my father many, many years in Sweden after the war. Hans Pancherz was assigned to test fly an emergency landed P-51. Hans Pancherz did not think much of the performance of the P-51 and wrote that in his report. Greg, I guess you know where I'm going. The P-51 Hans Pancherz flew had an Allison engine, the rest is history as the say. As always, best Greetings from Sweden.

Excellent video!

love the content on one of the "less glamorous" fighters of WW2. Would also love to hear more on the P-39, especially in Soviet use. The "less armour" comment on the P-40N sounds like a scary refinement for a pilot. the comments about running 70 inch pressure reducing engine life, my response would be that it probably prolonged pilot lives. It takes much less time to build an engine than to grow and train a pilot.

And when it comes to "looks" the P40 had it from the start.... One of the best looking fighters hands down.

Very enjoyable; I have always loved the P-40 probably from early exposure to the flying tigers. And I was curious about the merlin/allison comparison there excellent video.

The RAF pilots and mechanics were happy with their early P-40's. The pilots found those could take a lot of punishment and didn't come apart when doing belly landings. The mechanics liked the Allison engines since those used 50% fewer parts than a Merlin plus their replacement parts fitted perfectly straight out of the box. They found the same when placing anything on the P-40. The Spitfires and Merlins used components that were hand fitted so took much longer to repair. The RAF mechanics also noticed that the Allison could withstand multiple hits by ground fire without being affected like the Merlin, that could by a single rifle bullet. Rolls-Royce was painfully slow producing Merlin engines so the British Government ordered them to get help making more faster. RR first asked Ford since they had factories in England. Henry turned them down since he was trying to sell his own aero V-12 to the USAAF. He sent the prints to Packard who told RR they'd need to redesign the motor to US manufacturing standards for mass production. Ford ended up producing Packard Merlins in England. I suspect sll of the the Packard Merlins used SAE fasteners to simplfy production.

My dad flew p40s in the beginning of the war and later got into p47s and loved his jug. He had several Japanese to his credit in his p40 but his jug was a tank

As always, Great content...

To give an answer as to why the Curtis-Wright airplanes were referred to as Curtis and the engines were referred to as Wright was due to the series of mergers of the Wright Company after Orville divested himself of the company. The Wright Company was bought from Orville by Glenn Martin in 1916 to form the Wright-Martin company. One of the things that Glenn Martin did differently from the Wrights was that invested more money into engine development. All credit due to the Wrights, their engines were never that sophisticated or powerful, just powerful enough to get the job done. This is where the company started go gain a reputation as an engine manufacturer. The Wright-Martin company was re-named Wright Aeronautical in 1919 after Glenn Martin also divested himself from the company. He would go on to form a second Martin aircraft company that would ultimately merge with Lockheed. After Martin left, the engine division continued to perform better than the airplane division and ended up primarily focusing on engines. When the Curtis Airplane Company bought Wright Aeronautical in 1929 it was pretty much solely an engine manufacturer, which is why Curtis was interested in the acquisition. Curtis-Wright kept the two name brands for its separate divisions, airframes and powerplants respectively, as both had their own brand equity and Curtis didn't want to mess with that.

Thank you for the video. I have always thought the p40 and p39 were underrated as ww2 fighters. I wonder how they would have been viewed now if they had the turbo Allison from the p38 as originally planned.

The P-40 was a good fighter within its limitations. Pilots who flew it learned to use its strengths in combat. I had an aviation mechanic explain the differences between the Allison and Merlin engines, which are similar in many ways. The Allison is much more simply laid out with nearly everything easy to get to. The Merlins were/are like a complicated jigsaw puzzle and much more difficult to maintain. He pointed out that for every hour spent on an Allison, it would take six to eight on a Merlin. However, the turbo-supercharger system designed for the Merlin was smaller and easier to maintain than the one for the Allison. The P-40 was well employed by the British and the Commonwealth countries. The top P-40 ace was Australian Clive Caldwell, who shot down 22 Italian and German aircraft over North Africa while flying P-40s.

The Allison V12 became a favorite of tractor pullers in the 70's and 80's and were cranked up as much ad 2,500 HP, with turbos and fuel injection while running on alcohol. They proved to be quite reliable but these are short duration events rather than prolonged cruises and dogfights.

great vid Greg, its a 10 out of 15 for me...... damn, its catching

Great vid Greg. Seems like the allison and p40 wouldnhave been great with a little bit of hot rodding. The Australians weren't afraid to push it. Some more boost maybe some meth/water injection. Or add a turbo like the p39 was supposed to have

I actually like the looks of the P-40, but I never knew you could run that much manifold pressure on the Allison, makes me wonder what the P-51J would have been like with its two speed supercharged Allison engine at 70 inches... Also makes me wish you had 150 octane fuel as a option for the P-40 and with that safely run those manifold pressures to see what it's like in IL-2, sad I am hardly ever on it anymore myself. I also like the Allison V-12, my grandfather is a HUGE fan of them, one of the things I like about the Allison over the Packard Merlin is that it pretty much had roller rockers, where the rockers came in contact with the camshaft it had roller bearings which was awesome. Good Video Greg, that's for making this content, hopefully I didn't talk your ear off.

As with most fighter planes, use the strengths of YOUR aircraft against the weakness of your opponent. Avoid the weakness of your aircraft being exploited by the enemy.

Clive Caldwell thought the P-40 was a good plane. I reckon he was pretty qualified to say it :)

I'm sorry,,, if you think there is _anything_ cooler than having the canopy thrown back with that prop washing you with air as you get ready to take off in your freshly painted P-40 including those dead eyes and sharks mouth underslung behind that sharp tip spinner with the blue with a twelve pointed white star roundels placed outboard of the spots provided in the factory paint scheme getting ready to take off,,, if you think anything is cooler than that you need your head checked IMHO. ;-) Another classic Greg video...

Would love to see a life cycle comparison between the P-40 and the Hurricane.

Fascinating vid. P40 usually dismissed as mediocre but had to be good reasons it hung on and at least 14k were built. Anyway, made me dig out my 1971 reprint of a little hardback "Aircraft of World War II" (Ken Munson, pub Ian Allan in 62) I bought at the time and only salvaged from the garage a few years ago. In its brief 2 page P40 summary it does find space to mention the Merlin to Allison conversion R models .

Great video as always Greg. P40's have always been my personal favorite war bird. On a technical note would you mind standing a little closer to the mic next time or cranking the gain a bit? Audio has been quite low lately I've noticed.

Excellent video. Saw it come through earlier today, but I was out for "$100 BBQ" in Lexington NC. :D Look forward to catching you on Enigma's new server when I can get on. +1

I remember reading a Russian P-40 pilot's account where they took out the governors and just ran the plane at open throttle and open RPM from takeoff until landing. I guess the idea was that it was better to lose the engine in a few flights than to lose the plane in one.

I've wondered how the p-40 seemed to consistently punch above its weight. This video does much to show why... thanks Greg!

Considered going toe to toe with growling sidewinder? That would be interesting because the breakdown would be thorough

There was actually a final model tested with a 4 blade prop and water injection, the P-40Q, but the US had little interest given that it wasn’t really better than a P-51 or P-47 already in service. It wasn’t a bad plane, but it wasn’t really worth the effort, so to speak

Well, one thing is for sure. The P-40 is by far the best looking fighter when it has a shark mouth painted on it.

Congratulations. A superb analysis, as always and expected.😉 Now that you have a run down on comparing Merlin vs Allison in comparable airframes, how about analyzing comparable engines in different airframes. I would be highly interested in your ops relevant analysis P-40 (maybe N) vs P-51A. So how and where and how much was the P-51A superior and why. And where was the P-40 still the better choice? Best regards and looking forward.

Those historians who overlook the P-40 always forget that it was nearly a lash-up development of the very first generation monoplane fighter of the USA, the P-36. The second fact that P-40 hold itself against the whole enemy air armada alongside with the P-39 and F4F until the more capable fighters reached the theaters. And even after that it had a good record. Third fact: no single other aircraft look soo cool with sharkmouth than a P-40! :D

Would be interesting to know if there is any flight performance data on the XP40Q. Its arguable a different plane as an intended superprop but still interesting aspect of the end of p40 development