Talk:Curtiss P-40 Warhawk/Archive 1

Misc.

i don't agree with any of this information...wikipedia stinks - Bold Statement, Pitty this is not backed with some information of your own.....(Very Impressed P40 R/C Pilot)

• I don't see anything wrong with this information. Trust me I know I'm around p40s every weekend at least :) ---T0ny 01:41, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Whoever continually re-adds the POV statement "The P-40 earned / deserved its reputation as a mediocre aircraft", I have removed it for the final time. Please do not reintroduce it again. Unit histories and a multitude of different combats show the P-40 performed variously, from exceptionally to dismally, commonly depending on the situation, tactics used, and opponents faced. Branding it as having earned or deserving mediocrity is unnecessary POV. GarageBay9

Upon careful re-reading of the article, I have found other instances of the 'mediocrity' label and allegation as well. Someone has a prejudice or vendetta against this aircraft for some reason. This is not the place for it. GarageBay9

You merely varied some peacock terms and weasel words to suit your own POV ("Bias need not be conscious"). These don't belong in the article in the first place. I admit I'm guilty of not kicking them out at sight. --172.182.212.113 21:54, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Haha, my only experience of the P-40 comes from flying it online, which is always a short and nasty experience. It's slow, weakly armed, and if you try to dogfight Japanese planes with it, you'll inevitably put it into an irrecoverable flat spin. The undercarriage is also very narrow, which makes for very tricky and dangerous landings/take-offs. It has neither the manoverability of the Japanese fighters, nor the raw power of later American planes. Deathtrap. Bastie 00:37, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Haha. You hear that, boys? He's flown the plane on a computer. Let's hand him some wings, eh? How could we have doubted his qualifications? Deathtrap indeed. :p Guapovia 14:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Game flight simulators are not the same as flying an actual P-40 and to compare it to later American fighters is to miss the point. The P-40 wasn't a match for Bf-109s in North Africa but it was a match for Japanese fighters of the late 1930s, as shown by the Flying Tigers' experience. Australian pilots returning from the Battle of Britain were unimpressed by it after flying Spitfires and Hurricanes...until they saw the P-40's ability to take punishment in a ground attack role. There are pictures of RAAF Kittyhawks in New Guinea which made it back to base after losing large amounts of their control surfaces. If I can find one I will include it in the article. Grant65 (Talk) 00:58, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

"unsuitable for use as a fighter in Europe"

The early Merlin enined fighters were even more usuitable for use in North Africa, or anywhere more than 100 miles from the factory. David R. Ingham 05:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Good point, the Spitfire Mk5C's used by the RAAF as air defence/interceptors in northern Australia during 1943, even though they were modified for the tropics, were notoriously unreliable. Combat performance aside, P-40s seem to have lasted much longer in desert and tropical conditions, especially when flown by experienced pilots. Grant65 | Talk 05:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• P-40 lacked the high-altitude performance required for Western European combat. At lower altitudes of Asia and Eastern Europe (USSR) and in the hands of skilled pilots using sound tactics (AVG) it performed reasonably well even against A6M and Bf 109. In particular, the roll performance was quite good and the 6x 0.50 cal armament was certainly not inferior to other USAAF fighters. It pays well to remember that it was an evolution of an early 1930s design. It is historically illiterate to bunch Western and Eastern European air war under the heading "Europe" because the combat conditions were drastically different. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 20:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I just added a bunch of material to this site. For a lot of the Soviet info I relied on this web page:

http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/romanenko/p-40/index.htm

This is one of several recent articles indicating that the Soviets found the P-40 could handle the Bf 109 E/F and FW 190.

There have also been some new books about the P-40 in use by Commonwealth pilots in North Africa which have been very carefully researched in conjunction with German researchers and former Commonwealth pilots. I can provide links to reviews of these books.

Finally there are four Osprey Books which have been published in the last couple of years with all the stats on the P-40 in the MTO, CBI, and Pacific in US use, and by the Commonwealth respectively.

 User:Drifter Bob

State of the article

This article is currently in the "going to hell in a handbasket" state. I did some extensive copyediting but I don't have the time to rewrite it right now. The bit on P-40 vs Bf 109 and P-40 vs Zero is repeated about three times throughout the article. I will delete all of the "most pilots thought" claims soon unless someone provides references for them. As it stands now, the article is rather POV -- the P-40 was a mediocre airplane by all means (although as any fighter, more successful if used within its performance envelope and with sound tactics). The tone of the article is "P-40 was actually very good." Present the facts and let the reader make the judgement call.

So, anyone up for a rewrite? This may annoy me enough that I'll do it soon if no one else volunteers. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 05:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

State of the article 2

I'm the guy who updatedd much of this article. I've been researching WW II aircraft in General and the P-40 in particular for 20 years. I can provide sources for everything I aded to the article. Just as the P-39 has turned out to have been an excellent Air superiority fighter in Russian hands despite decades of US and British publications claiming incorrectly that it was only used for close air support.

The fact is that in many theaters the P-40 was not the mediocre dog that it is often accused of being. It is also incorrect to claim that it was only used as a fighter bomber. The aircraft WAS used a great deal as an air-superiority fighter and frequently with great success, according to many sources including the Osprey military books, and many recent interviews with Soviet pilots including the one I linked to above. Did you read that article?

At any rate please post any specific challenges you may have to any specific claim and I will gladly cite my source.

I agree editing is incomplete, repetitions should be reduced. I will try to edit further.

I would also like to discuss some standards. For example I understand the use of Bf as a designation of Messerschmitt 109 and 110 is a pre-war anachronism and incorrect. It also does not work as a link to the other articles on the given types. Should every mention of another aircraft type be made into a link to the relevant Wikipedia page or not?

Should the word 'theater' be capitalized or not?

• I understand that P-40 was a reasonable aircraft but the current tone of the article is not neutral and it is very repetitive. Focus on the facts, avoid superlatives, cite your references, and let the reader draw conclusions.
• Every single time the article mentions that pilots claimed/believed/said something needs to be referenced. The same goes for any claims of superior/inferior combat performance. Again, Wikipedia is not a place for conjecture and speculation -- present the facts. The preferred format for references is Cite.php -- Wikipedia:Footnotes.
• Bf was the official RLM designation of all Messerschmitt aircraft. It wasn't until the end of the war that Willie Messerschmitt succeeded in offically putting the Me moniker on some of his products. Certainly the vast majority of aircraft faced by the P-40s were early-model Bf 109s and Bf 110s. These are also the page names in Wikipedia -- using the Me designation unnecessarily runs through a redirect.
• Theater should be capitalized if used in the title, e.g. Pacific Theater, but not if used in a sentence, e.g. theater of operations.
• By convention, Wikilinks are created only the first time something (an aircraft, a person) is mentioned. Subsequent linking is redundant.

Thanks! - Emt147 ^Burninate! 21:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Edit requests

"As it stands now, the article is rather POV -- the P-40 was a mediocre airplane by all means (although as any fighter, more successful if used within its performance envelope and with sound tactics). The tone of the article is "P-40 was actually very good."

Basically, I believe this is incorrect. The P-40 lacked high altitude performance. This is the source of most of it's bad Rep. In the primary theaters, ETO and PTO, good altitude performance was critical and the anemia of P-40 and P-39 above 16,000 feet made them virtually useless in these important theaters. However, in those threaters suich as CBI, North Africa, and the Russian Front where the combat took place almost exclusively within the performance envelope of the type, the P-40 WAS a good fighter. Many Axis pilots considered it the most dangerous Allied aircraft they faced in many Theaters in 1941 and 1942. This is documented. It could easily outrun most Japanese aircraft and could out-turn all German and Italian monoplanes, while keeping up in level speed with the early Me 109s, and superior in maximum Dive speed and high speed handling.

These are fine claims to make if you can provide NUMBERS (with references, of course). Roll rates, turn times, combat turn performance, maximum instantaneous and sustained turn rates, terminal dive speeds (and whether controls were still functional -- Zero could not dive because the controls would freeze, not because it was aerodynamically limited). Numbers are neutral, "many Axis pilots considered it the most dangerous Allied fighter" is an unacceptable generalization unless you have a primary source (an German document saying this was the case). This is the problem I have with the article as it stands, and I will remove such claims if they are not referenced. Let me be very clear -- this is not an attack on P-40 but rather on the contents of the article. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view before you make further edits. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 21:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from saving the page after making one tiny edit -- it's very difficult to trace the differences and it puts a significant load on the servers. Also, please proof-read before you save. And for Pete's sakes, the possessive form of "it" is "its." There is no apostrophe. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 21:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Editing

I will follow the conventions you suggest except for the Bf / Me issue which I'm researching further.

Numbers are always nicest but subjective analysis is part of the history as well. Pilots did say various things and not just anecdotally. For example in it's original state the article claimed that US pilots disliked the P-40 and were relieved by the arrival of the P-38. This is a generalization which is certainly arguable though apparently not a problem for you in the original.

Please review references I posted in the entry on the 49th fighter group. Let me know if these are adequate and I'll proceed to reference all my other material as quickly as I can.

Please note however at least half of the points you challenged are from the original form of the article beforee I changed anything. You can verify this for yourself no doubt quite easily. It's kind of absurd to expect me to go and backup the research for this. For example, the Palm Sunday massacre, or the combat record of the 23rd FG. These are fairly easy to research and should probably be referenced eventually but I don't see why I should be forced to do so now if the original article already contained this information. I'm being careful only to cite points that I do have sources for readily at hand.

Please use Cite.php described at Wikipedia:Footnotes for your references. This is not an attack against your or the P-40 -- biased non-neutral statements need to be removed or documented regardless of who wrote them. Statement that US pilots were relieved when P-38 is as biased as claims that Luftwaffe considered P-40 the most serious adversary. Both statements need to be removed or supported with primary sources. As I said in my original post, in its current state this is a rather poorly written and very biased article. Again, nothing against you or the P-40. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 22:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I followed the wikipedia footnotes procedure as I understood them, I'd like you to verify that the footnotes I have cited are ok. I have done 49th FG and the P-40 in Soviet Use sections. Please review these and I'll do all the others that I wrote and maybe a few of the pre-existing ones if I can find sources quickly enough. Before making a major effort to get all this done however I want to make sure it's ok and isn't just going to be deleted or 'challenged' right after I finish.

Spurious Criticism

Some of the fact requests being posted seem to be spurious. For example,

"Nevertheless, a good pilot willing to push the aircrafts performance envelope could fare very well in the P-40 against the finest German aircraft even when flown by their best pilots. This was demonstrated on many occasions such as the well documented incident in 1941 when RAAF pilot Clive Caldwell"

The first statement is supported by the two following statements, which are themselves sourced.

Similarly, in the New Zealand section, a reference to P-40's being rebuilt at certain museums (which I did not write, incidentally) is cited with a reference request, despite the existence of links to the Museums being referred to.

I believe despite claims to the contrary the huge number of challenges are due to a difference in the percieved overall opinion here and the page is being flooded with reference requests in order to destroy it rather than let the current conclusion stand. Earlier posts in this dicussion indicate that "somebody" seems to have a vendetta against the P-40 and continued to insert disparaging comments about it. I contend that this may be a continuation of that trend.

Yes, the Cite.php refs work fine. Thank you. As for claims of vendetta, no such thing is going on. I've tagged every example I could find of a biased, unsupported, non-neutral statetement making very broad and generalized claims. The Clive Caldwell incident is one occasion where a skilled pilot did well. One is not many. The sentence can be re-written so no broad claims are made at all and the citation is not needed. This is my whole point -- this article needs to be rewritten. The tiny changes you keep making are not going to fix it. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 22:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The "tiny changes" I've been making are the adding of footnotes per your demand. I will continue to add all the footnotes I can per above. The rest are not my responsibility. As for the need for an overall rewrite, thats your opinion. Don't expect a double standard if you delete anything I've written without grounds.

I did not write this, it was in the original document. But I have to ask...

"The P-40 had a higher dive speed than the Japanese fighters, for example, and would often be used in one-pass attacks. [citation needed] "

Are you for real? You think any Japanese aircraft had a higher dive speed?

No one is expecting a double standard. By contributing to Wikipedia, I understand that my contributions can be edited by anyone. I'm sorry you feel like the article is "not your responsibility." No one is accusing you of doing a bad job and your help with citations is greatly appreciated. Each article is the work of many editors and this article, at this point in time, as a whole, is not a terribly good product. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 02:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Dive Speed and other bogus complaints

What was the dive speed of the P-40? What was the dive speed of its Japanese opponents? I don't have these numbers in my sources, hence it is very valid to ask for a reference. As it stands right now, it's just an unsubstantiaed claim. What's the right way to do it? For example, "The P-40 had superior dive performance with a terminal speed of xxx mph (xxx km/h), compared to Zero being limted to xxx mph (xxx km/h) and Ki-27 managing xxx mph (xxx km/h)." See the difference? One is a biased wild-ass claim. The other is neutral and makes no claims at all -- it simply presents the facts that any reader with grade school education can draw conclusions from. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 23:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

See this is kind of what I'm getting at. What is the criteria for what needs to be cited or referenced? if I say, the Pacific was a very large ocean, do I need to cite it's surface area in square miles or it's estimated volume? It's common knowlege isn't it? The article could easily become unreadable very quickly. Which again, could be your entire agenda for all I know, to simply derail this.

I assumed that anything which could easily be verified in a google search or was common knowlege beyond a certain level did not need to be cited.

Facts like the dive speed of a P-40 compared to that of all the early war Japanese aircraft are well known to anybody even remotely conversant with the WWII military aviation. The dive speed of the Zero has been cited at around 350 mph, (hard to be precise since it was rarely tested at risk of destroying the aircraft). The dive speed of the P-40 was rated at 480-520 mph depending on your source (and it also depended on the pilot, since most reported that very hard rudder had to be applied to keep the aircraft level, so a pilots leg strength played a role in how long they could sustain the dive...)

Here is just one source of many, many, many: http://www.chuckhawks.com/p-40_vs_zero.htm

First off, your Wikipedia experience will be much better if you refrain from making personal attacks on users -- I am well-versed in military aviation history and I'm not an evil mastermind set on destroying P-40s. I thank you for not making this personal again.

Please take 10 minutes and read Wikipedia:Citing sources. It should answer most of your questions. Pacific Ocean being "large" is common knowledge. Dive speeds of World War II fighers is not -- if you asked a six-year-old, they would know about the Ocean. You gave me a 40 mph range for the P-40 and could not give me a reference for the A6M.

I seriously doubt 99% of six year olds know that the Pacific is the biggest ocean in the world.

Most anyone who even heard of the P-40 knows it has a superior Dive speed to most Japanese fighters because that is the first thing they read or hear about how the AVG defeated the Japanese with "hit and run" tactics.

You also apparently did not read the source I provided, since your own are apparently highly lacking.

"Their creation was the Type 00 or Zero fighter (first code named Ben, then Ray, and finally Zeke by the Allies). It attained a speed of 331 mph; the later A6M5 reached 350. It had a climb to 9,840 feet in 3 minutes 30 seconds, though its dive speed was limited to 350 mph."

For your information, the P-40E pilot manual gives a maximum dive speed of 480 mph IAS or 3,120 rpm engine speed (also FYI, this is a primary source and far more accurate than most of the books and certainly web pages). It is also important to note that this speed is largely theoretical: 480 mph IAS is over 650 mph TAS at high altitude which would render the unboosted controls of the P-40 inoperable due to compressibility. The only Japanese manual I have is for the Ki-44 and it limits the dive speed to 2,900 rpm, no IAS shown.

You got a lot of nerve lecturing me on a subject you admittedly know virtually nothing about. I already indicated in this thread that the top speed was 480 mph - 520 mph, depending largely on the pilots ability to keep the right rudder down. (The P-40 did not incidentally report major compressibility problems unlike the P-38 for example). Since Split-S and power dive was a routine disengagement method in the P-40 most P-40 pilots were intimiately familiar with the Dive speed limit and have described the experience of maxing out the dive speed at over 480 mph. One example I can cite from the top of my head is Pappy Boyington in his autobiography Baa Baa Blacksheep.

For that matter, in the P-40 / Zero article I cited above, they quote Japanese Ace Saburo Sakai being attacked from a P-40 in a power dive at what he estimated at 500 mph.

This is the second time you have made a personal attack against me. Please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks. I don't want to take this further (requests for admin assistance, blocking/banning you from editing Wikipedia, etc.). Please watch your language and your temper -- this is your last warning. Thank you.

I am looking at the P-40E flight manual right now and it says 480 mph and notes the controls become very heavy at high speeds. Certainly a few pilots got lucky and exceeded it. Others (e.g. Pete Atkinson of AVG) died as the result of compressibility. Pressure buildup in the pitot tube at high airspeeds also notoriously creates falsely high airspeed readings -- this is the source of several Luftwaffe pilots claiming to have gone supersonic in Me 262 and could have possibly contributed to 500+ mph claims you mention. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 02:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Nobody knows what caused Pete Atkinson's plane to crash. If you have a source, please cite it! I'd be interested to know. (For what it's worth, the fastest dive speed I've ever seen cited by an AVG pilot was 400 mph indicated.) --Cubdriver 00:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

General knowlege vs bizarre reference demands

As for Google, most of the information on the internet is uncited and unverifiable. I can make a page claiming Zero was supersonic in a dive. This is why Wikipedia is supposed to be different and why you need to cite sources and provide references. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 00:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't validate why you can arbitrarily determine what is common knowlege and what is not in a clear effort to sabotage a wikipedia entry just because you don't like it.

Speaking of which, can you explain what kind of validation you need for this:

Other New Zealand P-40s are on display at the Royal New Zealand Air Force Museum in Christchurch and the Museum of Transport and Technology in Auckland. [citation needed]

ALSO. Your criticism of this is absurd. I wrote:

Nevertheless, a good pilot willing to push the aircrafts performance envelope could fare very well in the P-40 against the finest German aircraft even when flown by their best pilots. This was demonstrated on many occasions such as the well documented incident in 1941 when RAAF pilot Clive Caldwell"

The first statement is supported by the two following statements, which are themselves sourced.

To which you replied

The Clive Caldwell incident is one occasion where a skilled pilot did well. One is not many. The sentence can be re-written so no broad claims are made at all and the citation is not needed.

You didn't even read the line you are criticizing even the SECOND TIME. I said "a good pilot.... COULD fare well against ..." I didn't say all, or even many pilots. I then cited two examples. I can cite 20 more easily, (there are at least that many in the sources I've referenced so far). The way it is written, the data supports it 100%. Insisting that it does not in defiance of basic logic does not support your cause, to the contrary.

Also, is this a sincere source request?

was fairly heavily armed and armored, but not as much as the late-war German types.

You aren't aware that late-war German fighters normally carried multiple 20mm cannon, and had extremely heavy armor? What is your question here?

Which German fighters? The He 162 was not heavily armored and all Bf 109s except for a few specially modified bomber interceptors (a practice more common with Fw 190s) lacked significant armor protection. Again, my concern is with vague wording and broad generalizations. If you focus the writing it becomes a non-issue. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 02:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

All versions of Me 109 lacked significant armor protection! What a laugh. What do you consider significant armor protection for a World War II fighter? Nevermind. With this statement I believe you have demonstrated total ignorance on this topic. I am going to request a review of this dispute by Wikipedia officials.

the Flying Tigers destroyed 297 aircraft for the loss of only 21 pilots and their aircraft. Alternative counts have been as low as 115-21, but never any lower. A significant margin of victory regardless. [citation needed]

These statistics are identical to those in the Wikipedia article on the AVG.

I have requested administrator intervention against your repeated personal attacks. I will have no further business with you. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 06:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Dive speed

My source is a comment by Erik Shilling, a former AVG 3rd Squadron pilot, on an electronic copy of a Tomahawk pilot manual I have.

19. The maximum permissible diving speed is 470 m.p.h. indicated. [ES: An indicated speed of 470 mph at 20,000 feet was a true airspeed of 658 mph ... or well into compressibility. A speed at which the controls became useless, and the plane could not recover from the dive.... This is what happened to Pete Atkinson over Toungoo.]

- Emt147 ^Burninate! 00:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

How did Erik know? And how did he make a comment on an "electronic copy" of a 1941 pilot manual? Are you sure you're not referring to http://www.warbirdforum.com/manual.htm ? Okay, I see that you are. Yes, Erik commented on that at my request (I keyed in the manual and sent him a copy). He was only guessing at 20,000 feet, of course, and only guessing at compressibility. Nobody knows what happened to Atkinson. --Cubdriver 00:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Funny how this information makes a full circle, doesn't it? :) It's interesting to compare the Tomahawk manual to the P-40E manual I also have. For example the dive speed in the Tomahawk manual is 10 mph slower. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 00:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Thats not surprising since the Tomahawk is lighter and has a less powerful engine.

Irregardless, all of the Dive speeds quoted are vastly higher than anything quoted anywhere for a Zero or a Ki-43... Drifter Bob Incidentlaly, I also don't think the fight manuals trump pilot sources necessarily. In many cases they will refelect more conservative numbers than might actually be experienced in combat by pilots with their life on the line.

High dive speeds were apparently routine in the P-40. In "Flying American Combat Aircraft of WW II" Sunflower University Press (2004) ISBN 0-81173124-3 John Andrews describes dive bombing in a P-40

"The P-40 could dive very fast. Our technique in combat when dive-bombing consisted of turning in full left-rudder trim at 10,000-12,000 feet, making a half roll to the left and then a full-power dive onto the target in as close to a vertical attitude as we could estimate from the cockpit. Using the standard 100 mil gunsight, we would pull our nose up through the target and drop our 1,000 lb bomb just after the target disappeared under the nose. By that time we were down to about 2,000 feet and up to 450 miles per hour. We would leave the left rudder trim during a soom back to 10,000 - 12,000 feet, yawing in this climb and confounding the gunners on the ground who would shoot out in front of our nose but not in our flight path."

Andrews had 225 hours in the P-40, (125 in combat) and also flew the Spitfire V and VIII and P-47 in combat as well.

He also said, interestingly that "In tight turns, if the controls were coordinated, the [P-40] aircraft would out-turn any fighter, (except maybe the early Spits) as the Germans learned in their Me 109's when fighting Warhawks in the Mediterranian."

I think I'll add that to the page. Drifter Bob

Amended the Caldwell portion ;

112 Squadron was not a 'predominatly Polish' squadron - confusion I think with Skalski's 'Polish Fighting team' ( a Polish fighter unit) attached to the DAF in 1943 - they flew Spitfires in any case. Cladwell also felw Kittyhawks and served with 250 Squadron too. [[Harryurz 11:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)]]

Why was the Caldwell anecdote moved from RAAF to RAF?

Cubdriver, why did you eliminate that quote from the 49th FG entry?

Caldwell joined the RAAF in Australia and was always an RAAF officer; however, in North Africa he served in RAF units. Grant65 | Talk 10:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok Thanks I wasn't aware of that Drifter Bob

The article as a whole is a mess, and esp the Units section. I tried to improve it by improving the endless Units section below the variations and specs, but someone objected to that. So I made a start on shortening the Units section by eliminating the first reundant quote. Of course pilots like the plane they flew! Even Buffalo pilots for the most part liked their planes. This section just says, over and over again, that the pilot liked the P-40 and says virtually nothing about the unit's activities, which is surely the point of the section. --Cubdriver 12:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Which Buffalo pilots were those? Finnish Aces? I don't know of too many U.S. or RAF Buffalo pilots who had a lot of nice things to say about the aircraft after they had been in combat for a while. For that matter I've read plenty of anecdotes of pilots complaining about given fighter types in various theatres where they were not doing well, including Buffalos and P-39's in the Pacific and early P-38's in the ETO to name a few.

I included the two 49th FG quotes (two is not "over and over" in my book) because they stood out prominently on the 49th website, and were the candid testimony of two combat veteran pilots with experience in other fighter types and no particular axe to grind one way or another about the P40. I know some people consider the testmiony of fighter pilots to be virtually irrelevent in WW II aviation history, but some others consider it a valuable primary source.

I dont understand the general idea that the article is such a big mess or that it is too long. How long is it supposed to be (this to other people currently editing as well please) I kind of thought the longer the better, I would personally appreciate this much information on most major WW II fighters on Wiki. it would make it a much more usfeul resource. Or is it only meant to briefly review the technical data and a small sampling of the old cliches? The P-40 happened to be one of the most mass produced and widely used fighters of the war. It played a major role fighting in the air forces of the the USAAF in THREE different theaters, and an often critical role in the air forces of at least FIVE allied nations. Should that be left out?

Drifter Bob 11:20, 28 March 2006 (CST)

The article in its current state is badly written. The English and the grammar are marginal, it flows very poorly, it lacks organization, there is no "introduction - body - conclusion" structure to the sections and subsections, it is excessively verbose without the need to be so, and it is not written in the appropriate style for an enyclopedic article. You know, the basics of good writing. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 04:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Diving Again

I notice your source, Erik Shilling, says 'Some of our [P-40] pilots reached 510 mph in a dive'

http://home.att.net/~C.C.Jordan/Shilling2.html

TAS or IAS? There is a big difference. Pressure buildup the pitot tube at high speeds can also produce falsely high IAS.

Also, signing as Drifter Bob does not make you a Wikipedia user. If you plan to contribute, I encourage you to create a user account and not edit as an anonymous IP address. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 04:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I thought you were 'through dealing with me?'

Why don't you read the source article I linked to and find out for yourself before asking. I think you might find your answer there.

Drifter bob 18:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Interesting read but with a strong (understable) bias. It really does not reveal anything new -- the P-40 was an energy fighter compared to the Zero. It's obvious to anyone who examines the performance of the two aircraft. That's no reason why this cannot be an objective and well referenced article written in good English. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 03:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

FYI I only meant to read the bit about the dive speed. But I encourage reading up more on the aircraft in general as well, especially if you plan to play such a major role in the shaping of this article. While you are at it I highly reccomend reading that P-40 in soviet aviation article. I think it is an eye opener.

Balance and Bias

As for the writing, they say a camel was a horse designed by commitee. I'm not sure it always necessarily works out that way but definately, when you have semi-anonymous individuals who seem to rub each other the wrong way and may have hidden agendas, it can end up a bit sticky in the short term. I cannot call the current environment cooperative. I have enough faith in Wikipedia however that over the long term 'the truth will out', however gradually. Hopefully once some of the basic concepts are worked out the writing will gradually improve as well. Given the huge amount of resistance I have encountered in trying to add a few facts to this page I'm not personally willing to try a general rewrite.

Generally speaking, I'm interested in knowing the truth about the P-40, and really all WW II aviation and major military kit. If I thought it was the dog it was portrayed as in books from the 60's-80's, I would have never contributed to this article to begin with. But I'm not satisfied with going along with opinions which don't seem to match the evidence, good or bad, popular or otherwise. On the contrary, I'm very interested in finding out the details about what really happened in WW II and how these aircraft really performed, good bad or ugly, and I think it's amazing how much propaganda, prejudice, and mistaken journalistic assumptions we have retained from the War era. In the last ten years however a great deal of new evidence has emerged about aviation in WW II, due to more comparisons of records between researchers in different nations, more pilot testimonials being published, and the increasing availability of records from the former Soviet Union.

I believe the P-40 is a big part of the puzzle of Aviation in WW II, it played a crucial role in several key fronts, a role which has still not been clearly assessed in my opinion for a variety of reasons, mostly very silly ones. A mass produced weapon from the arsenal of Democracy, it was not always a perfect fit everywhere that it was used, but what its actual effect was remains to be seen IMO. My only goal for this Wikipedia article is that it actually reflect the best current evidence about the aircraft, so it can serve as a tool to learn still more. A better understanding of the P-40 will lead to a more nuanced understanding of the Bf 109, A6M, and a fuller appreciation of less well known types suchas the Ki 27, Ki 43, Ki 44, Ki 61, Macchi 200 / 202 /205, Fiat G.50 / 55 etc. etc. etc.

Drifter bob 16:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I certainly agree with your general approach. My concern was with the neutrality of the article -- read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. As it stands now, I find the article to lack a fair assessment of P-40's strengths and weaknesses. All military aircraft have a lot of idiosyncracies and P-40, being a child of the 1930s, was no exception. Its power/weight ratio was poor compared to any of its contemporaries, Soviet, German, or Japanese. It utilized electrical systems for everything -- were they reliable? The Allison V-1710 engine never had a reputation for being particularly good or liked. And so on... For an example of a more balanced combat assessment, look at "Flying the... " sections in F-4 Phantom II or F-105 Thunderchief. Plusses AND minuses. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 04:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't mean to derail the brief interlude of relative civility here, but frankly I don't buy your arguments or think you have demonstrated a sufficient level of basic general knowlege about the P-40 or it's contemporaries to be taken seriously. Your tone is condecending (such as repeating 'helpful' links to wikipedia articles on basic concepts like neutrality) and your idea of a 'balance' of strengths and weaknesses is extremely skeewed toward the negative. Are you for example implying that the P-40 was the only 'child of the 1930's' among it's peers? Do you have any evidence that the electrical systems were highly unreliable? I have 11 books on the P-40 specifically and have read hundreds of pilot assessments and I'm not aware of any.

You on the other hand were apparently not even aware that the P-40 had a faster dive speed than the zero! And statements like "Its power/weight ratio was poor compared to any of its contemporaries, Soviet, German, or Japanese" or that the V-1710 was a terrible engine (when it seemed to do a fine job of powering the P-39 for Soviet purposes!) fall into the same category as your previous assertion that the Bf-109 had no significant armor; they demonstrate a basic lack of knowlege about this aircraft.

For all it's current flaws, the article as written does fairly represent the strengths and weaknesses of the type. Maybe you should read it gain. Here they are:

Weaknesses

• Poor effective service ceiling, limited to 16,000' in most types
• Poor rate of climb
• Fair power / acceleration
• Fair visibility

Strengths

• Excellent structural strength
• Excellent dive speed
• Good roll rate
• Good turn rate
• Good level speed at low / medium altitudes
• Good firepower

Bottom line: the crippling lack of a high altitude supercharger made the type unsuitible for use as a fighter in the primary conflict zone in England or for escorting bombers over Europe. However, in secondary zones where it could be used at lower altitudes, it was a good fighter by early war standards and played a critical role in several theaters. By around mid 1943 it had basically outlived it's develpment potential and became obsolete as a figher but remained useful as a fighter-bomber.

I don't think any of the above are deniable, and contrary to implictions of some writers the three major weaknesses were hardly unique to the type either. It is also a fact that in most of the theaters that it was deployed the type did very well. It is undeniable that it performed excellently in the CBI where it was preferred by many pilots over the Mustang. The Australians and New Zealanders generally praised the type. Squadrons like the 112 RAF, the US 23rd FG, 49th FG, 57th FG, 324 and 325 FG all had good records with the type, as did most of the Soviet units which used it. So where is the evidence that it was anywhere near as poor of a fighter as the F-105 for example?

I think it's also worth considering that for decades the conventional wisdom on the P-39 was that it was a terrible fighter aircraft, the so called "iron dog". Certainly, in the Pacific, CBI, and North Africa it performed poorly, much more poorly than the P-40. But in Soviet hands, it was clearly an excellent fighter. There is simply no denying it. I believe the conventional wisdom is also wrong on the P-40, and so is your opinion whatever its source.

Drifter bob 10:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Spoon feeding and other concepts

The Wikipedia help links are just that -- help. You didn't understand my concerns with neutrality so I referenced the Wikipedia policy on the issue. You still don't understand what NPOV means. I spent a considerable amount of time helping you write a better Wikipedia article and yet again you are taking things very personally without good reason and accusing me of ignorance even though you know nothing about me. Given these actions, I'm not suprised that you are unwilling to give the reader of the article any credit and intend to spoon-feed them opinions rather than present facts and let them draw educated conclusions. I regret making another attempt to reason with you. Good day. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 04:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

It's funny you should say that, because that seems to be preicely your own technique. Lets examine what we each have done with regard to this website in the last few weeks: I have added anecdotes from veteran fighter pilots experienced with the type, doubled the number of references, expanded the technical information and historical data from actual squadrons which flew the type, and expanded technically detailed comparisons to other fighter types. I have not in the least shied away from describing the faults of the aircraft, I only pointed out that it also had some merits.

You on the contrary have posted several redundant links in this dicussion page referring to Wikipedia rules, as if nobody but yourself understood them. You complained that the now balanced article was actually biased, you inserted demands for dozens of footnotes on every other point in the article, at least half of which were either from the old version and / or were clearly spurious (the relevent facts were addressed in Wikipedia articles or in links already present). Then without further discussion, and despite the fact that I immediately documented most of the vast number of footnotes requested, you further disrupted the site by contesting it's neutrality. Lacking evidence of bad data, you have made generalized complaints abbout the writing quality, insinuating falsely that I was responsible for it. Finally on this discussion page you made several remarks which demonstrate a lack of knowlege about the material covered in this Wikipedia article, namely the aircraft and it's contemporaries.

You suggest that I'm making unwarranted aspersions about your level of knowlege, when in reality I am only commenting on your statements on this very page, none of which you have further addressed.

I'm more than willing to allow other individuals interested in this page to judge who is adding constructive material to this site and who is sandbagging and disrupting without cause.

209.30.130.107 03:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)