|
Description
| Manufacturer: | Curtiss |
| |
| Base model: | P-40 | ||
| Designation: | P-40 | ||
| Version: | F | ||
| Nickname: | Warhawk | ||
| Designation System: | U.S. Air Force | ||
| Designation Period: | 1925-1947 | ||
| Basic role: | Pursuit | ||
Specifications
| Length: | 33' 4" | 10.1 m | |
| Wingspan: | 37' 4" | 11.3 m | |
Propulsion
| No. of Engines: | 1 | ||
| Powerplant: | Packard V-1650-1 | ||
| Horsepower (each): | 1300 | ||
Performance
| Max Speed: | 365 mph | 587 km/h | 317 kt |
Known serial numbers
Recent comments by our visitors
| Elizabeth Brock Nutley, NJ | My Father flew the P-40F in North Africa. He was with Phil Cochran's Joker Squadron during WWII. I think they were part of the 33rd FG. He mentioned locations in Tunisia--Gafsa, Feriana, and Thelepte. Told me that he had been shot down by a FW-190 in the vicinity of Sidi Bouzid, Tunisia--1943. 12/10/2012 @ 12:41 [ref: 67405] |
| I would lie San Luis Obispo, CA | Here is the message I was responding to, written by "Shaun, Melbourne".
"I have the privilege to live ten minutes away from a dedicated team who are restoring P-40F, s/n 41-14112 to flying condition, it has been some 18 years in the making from her recovery to the state she is in now. At a guess I would say she should be flying before May 2008. Once complete she will be the only P-40F in existence. I will update you with more photos in due course. " I would like to hear what happened to this plane. See the picture of my P-40F, below. ---Chas--- 03/01/2011 @ 10:52 [ref: 36479] |
| I suspct this is the P-40F San Luis Obispo, CA | I would like a report from the person that "had the privilege " of watching the rebuild of a P-40F. This person said it was gong to be able to fly a bit ago. Has it flown? Respond to this page, of course, but I would appreciate having you tell me at charlesdills@mac.com also.
I suspect this is the P-40F of Judy Pay(?) in Melbourne. I saw it once when my Australian son-in-law arranged for me to visit the hangar and was allowed to sit in the P-40F!!!!! ---Chas--- 03/01/2011 @ 10:45 [ref: 36478] |
| Charles Dills San Luis Obspo, CA | I should have responded to "toofless", above.
I flew the E, F, K, L, M and N models. The earliest versions were probably the lightest. By the time they got to the F it was the heaviest model. The they started to lighten it up till they got to the lightest late model, the N. They were all great as far as I was concerned, but the K seemed to me to be the best compromise. The L was rearranged to help in dive-bombing or so we were told. It seemed nose heavy to me which was intended to help but I don't think it made any real difference. The N was the lightest and I thought they went too far. The landing gear position instrument was gone and pins stuck out of the wing when they were down. These are 65 year old memories, I am now 86 (2008.0625). 06/25/2008 @ 20:28 [ref: 21610] |
| Shaun Melbourne, OTH | I have the privilage to live ten minutes away from a dedicated team who are restoringP-40F, s/n 41-14112 to flying condition, it has been some 18 years in the making from her recovery to the state she is in now. At a guess I would say she should be flying before May 2008.
Once complete she will be the only P40F in existance. I will update you with more photos in due course. 02/05/2008 @ 20:13 [ref: 19573] |
| Charles E. Dills San Luis Obispo, CA | In the entries above I ell you to go to my page and then gor to Non-braomeliad topics and then 27th FBG.
I was 85 a month ago and I cringe when I see a mistake like that. I hope no one was disappointed and didn't find the right page. Go to my page at: http://www.charlies-web.com/ About thirty or so buttons will come up, one of which is "27th FBG". Go down about halfway and you will find the Combat portion. You might find the buttons "Warbird" and "Texas" interesting as well. Sorry for the error. ---Charles E. Dills--- 05/24/2007 @ 14:05 [ref: 16593] |
| Charles E. Dills San Luis Obispo, CA | In the entries above I ell you to go to my page and then gor to Non-braomeliad topics and then 27th FBG.
I was 85 a month ago and I cringe when I see a mistake like that. I hope no one was disappointed and didn't find the right page. Go to my page at: http://www.charlies-web.com/ About thirty or so buttons will come up, one of which is "27th FBG". Go down about halfway and you will find the Combat portion. You might find the buttons "Warbird" and "Texas" interesting as well. Sorry for the error. ---Charles E. Dills--- 05/24/2007 @ 14:05 [ref: 16592] |
| Mike Zachary, LA | Does anyone know what the Curtiss Wright construction numbers were for the P-40Fs and P-40Ls? These numbers were the company's serial numbers, not the USAAF serial numbers. 10/03/2006 @ 13:19 [ref: 14356] |
| Charles E. Dills San Luis Obispo, CA | I liked all of the models I flew. The P-40 is vastly under-rated. There were differences of course. The P-40F was the heaviest of them. After that they tried to reduce the weight till they got to the N which was the lightest of the later models. I felt that they had gone just a tad too far. The K model seemed to me to be the best compromise. The L model seemed to have had the weight distribution changed supposedly to aid dive bombing. It was nose heavy as I remember.
As for the engines, I never had any problem with either the Merlin or the Allison. The Merlin might had had a bit more power but it was not noticeable to me. The main drawback of the P-40 was due to it's early date and the need to produce large numbers with minor changes. Major changes were not allowed because they had no time at the beginning of the war to stop and make improvements. The only drawbacks I noted were the wheels and flaps. Being early designs they were not convenient. You couldn't really "milk" the flaps up. When they came up it was all the way, NOW! This was inconvenient when :going around" because one could lose several hundred feet when "dumping" the flaps at low speed. The raising of the gear was complicated and involved a number of operations taking place at relativley low speed and altitude. But we found that it became reasonably automatic by the time one had 40 hours. Until then, it was a distraction. But, I would still prefer a P-40 for what we were doing than a P-47, BY FAR. But of course, the A-36A (P-51A with divebrakes) was absoilutely and unequivocally the best plane ever for close air support! CHARLES E. DILLS 01/19/2006 @ 11:39 [ref: 12196] |
| charles lefebre la crosse, WI | to me this is the best plane of ww2 06/15/2005 @ 15:10 [ref: 10494] |
Recent photos uploaded by our visitors
