Hi Prof. Good to see you.

Interesting photo & information. You already know my opinion on the P-40 so I won't labour the point. The performance looks good on paper but there's only so much you can do to an existing design to compete with later ones. With hindsight I think it might have been better to try something completely new although this might have interfered with production. In most cases, combat pilots couldn't choose the types they flew but had to make the best of what they were given.

Here's something to ponder on. If you gave the average WWII fighter pilot a choice between the P-40, P-47, P-51, Hurricane & Spitfire I wonder which one he would pick. I suspect that in 1939/40 a lot of young RAF pilots were terribly disappointed when they found out they had to fly the Defiant (or heaven forbid the Fairey Battle) instead of the Hurricane or Spitfire they'd dreamed of. Nevertheless they forgot their disappointment & got on with their job.

Thanks for the links, mate. I'll take a look. 

As for your hypothetical. I think, from the onset, they would simply choose whatever the 'hot' plane of the moment is (at least most aspiring fighter pilots would have). Of course, as has been said here a million times, for different tasks (interception, ground attack, dog fight etc), they all would have been vastly different in their performance and ability. For attacking ground targets, I certainly would feel much safer and better armed in a P47, as would most - but for a dogfight, I would prefer to be in the P51 (so I could run away if I had to!!... )

I've found, in my readings and study etc, that the 'best' fighter pilots were not always in the so called 'best mount' - some in fact preferred what others might consider an inferior plane, but they had their preferences for one reason or another and were able to do what many could not do in the 'very best' or most well suited plane to the task.

The AVG'S record of kills versus losses is testimony to this (to use a P40 example, of course). Simply recognising the strengths of the P40 and using them against the weaknesses of the Zero resulted in a 'phenomenal' kill/losses rate.

Strange you should mention the Defiant - basically a P51 (except for the engine, of course), but such a dissappointing plane.......

Quote:


They did...

The P94, which was basically a single seat Defiant...

I think a Defiant lost its turret to become the one and only P.94

There's one for FS/CFS out there...

I think the Defiant looks more like a P39 - Certainly in the Pacific, I could see it being VERY mistaken for an Aerocobra.

Doug - I'll have to dig up my Air Enthusiast references, but there was serious study given to a single seater Defiant variant to serve as a carrier fighter ...  but I think the Fulmar won out.

Sorry, Hagar. The first (P51) was a misprint (I always meant P39).

Your telling me that you can't see the shape of a P39?????

Maybe I'm going mad, but I can..............:)

Quote:

Maybe it's the way you look at it or even where you hail from. It's quite likely you're more familiar with the P-39 than the Hurricane. You wouldn't be alone in that as before CFS became popular I suspect the Hurricane was almost unknown in the US.  Even now some people refer to it as the Hawker rather than the Hurricane so they are obviously unaware of the Hawker Aircraft Company & its considerable contribution to the history of aviation on both sides of the Atlantic.

I've been a keen aircraft spotter for most of my life. I once reckoned to be able to identify most aircraft at long distance long before anyone else. Sad ain't I? I also used to represent my ATC squadron at various aircraft recognition competitions throughout the country. Not that I did too well as there was always some clever clogs much better at it than me.

Since I was a boy I always thought the Defiant looked very similar to the Hurricane. This is going by the general look of the aircraft as a whole, not any specific part of it. Call it character for want of a better word. The Merlin engine & cowling shape are very similar & possibly both aircraft share some parts. This & the lack of wing dihedral is what you would notice most unless the aircraft was directly overhead. The large radiator below the fuselage is another useful identification feature. The completely different gear layout also influences my impression of the P-39.  I've seen plenty of Hurricanes but unfortunately I've never seen a real life P-39 in the air or even a museum.

Since you mentioned it I've had a look at various photos & drawings of the P-39 & think I see where you're coming from. The side view has some similarities, specifically the upswept rear fuselage rather than the "hump back" of the Hurri.





PS. Forgot the Defiant.