2020 P-40 E Warhawk Flight 

That was beautiful.

designed in the mid-1930’s, first flight in ‘38. but ok i get it.

True

Here here. Spot on!

Actually, if you include it's predecessor, this is a pre-WW2 plane. The P-36 is almost 20 years older than the war. And seeing as the P-40, is mostly just a P-36 with a V12 on it, I'd say that for a 50-60 year old platform, the Hawk platform is easily one of the best planes of the war. If not in history.

Yes, the italians made some very handsome planes too, macchi 202 and 205`s for example. P-51 from americans later on was a beauty too.

its low pressure vortices (and high humidity)sliding off the end of the blades, very much like the wingtip vortices you'll see on a modern jet fighter, yes very cool.. there are photos of a B-17 doing it at altitude.

Glad I'm not the only one that noticed that.

Prop-trails

They had to get those things ready for Chenault and the AVF.

I agree! I have always admired the beauty of the P-40 above all other WW2 fighters.

My grandfather was a chief engineer on the Kelly Johnson team in Burbank working on the P38.. in my opinion, almost all the planes coming out back then were magnificent works of art. And the P40 is right there in front with them

Le p51 mustang pour moi c'était le meilleur avion de chasse de la deuxième guerre mondiale avec le Spitfire anglais le mustang partager le même moteur que le Spitfire anglais le rolce Royce merlin c'était un très bon moteur et fiable le mustang était aussi plus rapide que le Spitfire anglais car il était entièrement en aluminium

The P-40 was derivative of the P-36 Hawk, designed by Northrup. So unless your grandfather is Don Berlin he doesn't deserve singular credit for anything, although he may have been an engineer on the project.

Me too!

Agree. I'm Japanese, but I think it's a masterpiece in the sense that it produced the necessary number of units under the necessary conditions and achieved the expected results. This plane is perfect for shark teeth!

The Flying Tigers/AVG were the best known but at the expense of virtually everyone else who used it. The P-40 achieved most of its marks in the service of other air forces, mostly British and Commonwealth. They did sterling service in North Africa and held the line in New Guinea in a way that very few other types could or did. It was not a great aircraft but importantly, it was good enough. Its achievements were less about its technical qualities and more about the way the squadrons were led because the P-40 had no decisive technical advantages. Much was learnt from Chenault and the exploits of the AVG but they never actually fought against Zeros. The aerial battles in defence of Port Moresby and the Battle of Milne Bay showed wha a well-led group of mostly raw novices could do.

@@thethirdman225 ...yes,.. they did fight Zeros

In WW2 Aussie RAAF were flying the P40E against the Japs over New Guinea. Zero could out fly the P40, but would break up if they followed the Kittyhawk in a dive. So Aussie pilots employed this tactic. Til one of the senior officers accused them of being cowards and ordered them to dogfight the Zeros, lead to needless deaths of Aussie fighter pilots.

You need to read about its achievements in the hands of British and Commonwealth forces. Chenault may have established the ground rules but the AVG never fought against Zeros. The Australians did, in the defence of Port Moresby and the Battle of Milne Bay. Milne Bay was as far south as Japanese land forces ever got.

ahem !!!! Marion please ??? Lol

Actually. Power to weight is one of, if not the only things holding the P-40 back. Other than that it handles amazingly for a fighter. It can turn harder than a Zero, it is arguably the fastest rolling plane ever made, and while it may not be as good as a Spitfire, is still a great climber. In it's current form, rather lackluster energy retention. Mostly due to the poor power to weight ratio. If you were to put a more sensible engine on it, like the A-36/P-51 engine, and put half fhe engine over the wings, the A-36/P-51 engine would require less fuel, decreasing the net weight of the plane. The power in the A-36/P-51 is comparable to the P-40's power output, for about 2/3s the mass/weight. Better power to weight ratio. In that instance it's likely that the P-40 would put most if not all other single egine fighter planes to shame.

@@raspiankiado *_"Other than that it handles amazingly for a fighter."_* The Australians who flew it had different opinions on that matter. Those who had flown the Spitfire mostly said it handled like a tractor. Most agreed it was pleasant enough but comparatively heavy on the controls. Also its handling above 20,000 was marginal at best. *_"It can turn harder than a Zero, it is arguably the fastest rolling plane ever made, and while it may not be as good as a Spitfire, is still a great climber. In its current form, rather lackluster energy retention. Mostly due to the poor power to weight ratio."_* The AVG experience and that of the RAAF says otherwise.. Its climb rate was inferior to the A6M Zero, especially the _'Hamp',_ as was its turn rate. It had no advantages in either case. Australian pilots were told that if they had a Zero on their tail to push the stick into a forward corner and push both same rudder pedal for all it was worth. This allowed a bunt manoeuvre the Zero could not follow. It had some other handling peculiarities the Australian pilots used and it was faster in a dive. However, the P-40 did not have any significant technical advantages and in fact, was at something of a disadvantage if the playing field was even. It did well when the force flying it was competently led. In Port Moresby and Milne Bay it was, indeed, competently led. Sqn Ldr John Jackson, 75 Sqn, RAAF, was a very aggressive commander who used the lessons learnt by Chenault's AVG and applied them well. Since his squadron consisted almost entirely of raw recruits, they did extremely well against the Japanese in Port Moresby. One squadron, all suffering from dysentery, malaria and a lack of decent food - which they probably could not have kept down for long anyway - defended the port until relieved after 44 days. *_"If you were to put a more sensible engine on it, like the A-36/P-51 engine, and put half fhe engine over the wings, the A-36/P-51 engine would require less fuel, decreasing the net weight of the plane. The power in the A-36/P-51 is comparable to the P-40's power output, for about 2/3s the mass/weight. Better power to weight ratio."_* There were versions of the P-40, the 'F' model and I think there was an 'L' model, that used the Merlin. However, the Merlin wasn't always the solution to the problem. It worked beautifully in the Mustang, indifferently in the P-40 and poorly in the Beaufighter. The fact is that the P-40 possessed no decisive advantages over the A6M or the Bf-109F and later. Its greatest asset was that the squadrons that operated it were very well led.

The P-40 has never been fully accorded the respect it is truly due as a fighter. Always seems to be historically regarded as "inferior" to Japanese airframes such as the Zero, but the P-40 could fight on even terms and prevail if handled correctly. The Zero may have been able to turn inside a P-40 at low speed, but the reverse was true at high speed. Same with climbing ability; at low speed the Zero would float almost effortlessly upward, but with the throttle balls to the wall and particularly coming out of a dive, the P-40 would easily outclimb the Zero. In all cases, the P-40 could always outdive the Zero, meaning an American pilot was easily capable of escaping a disadvantageous position in a fight while on the other hand a Japanese pilot attempting to do the same would never be able to shake a pursuing P-40. As long as the P-40 kept its nose down and speed up, it could dictate the terms of the engagement, but slowing down and yielding to the temptation to get in a turning fight with a Zero would nearly always prove to be a fatal mistake. Of course the P-40 was a rugged airframe and could absorb tremendous amounts of punishment that would turn Japanese aircraft into airborne funeral pyres. The P-40 may not have been the "best" fighter of the Second World War, but it was pretty damn good and worthy of respect.

and today now that China is at odds with us perhaps their leaders should be reminded of the sacrifices made by the flying tigers on their behalf.

@@reubenblanco3021 I totally Agree. If not for the AVG. China would be speaking Japanese now.

The AVG did not fight the Zero. It fought against the Oscar, which was - to a large degree - just another version of the same problem. So the rules that Chenault and the AVG brought in were still valid. The P-40 was technically inferior to both the A6M and the Bf-109F and later. Its success came from the way in which it was used and not from its technical qualities, since it had very few technical advantages over either enemy type. But it was a good aircraft and with good leaders, like Sqn Ldr John Jackson 75 Sqn, RAAF and Sqn Ldr Peter Turnbull, 76 Sqn, RAAF, it was possible for even a squadron made up of raw pilots to do quite well. It held the line in the defence of Port Moresby and defeated the Japanese at Milne Bay, where it proved particularly adept at strafing.

@@DavidLee-xi1of You could say at least the same thing about the Red army, which drove a million Japanese troops out of Manchuria in 1945..

You've never heard a Bristol Centaurus. There's not a lot of difference between an Allison and a Merlin. Sleeve valve engines sound unique.

A few links I could find: General info: pacificwrecks.com/aircraft/p-40/41-35918.html And pics from AVSPECS, the company in New Zealand that did the restoration (scroll a few planes down): www.warbirdrestoration.co.nz/past-projects/

The Merlin wasn't smaller or lighter than the Allison. The P-40F and L models were fitted with Merlins. The P-40 was never going to be able to turn with the Zero. The Zero was over a ton lighter with a bigger wing.

raspiankiado Hey dummy.... the Allison was 300# Lighter than the 20 series Merlin and made more power !!!! DUUUUHH!!!!! You have not a clue what the hell you are talking about !!! The engine was what it is and where it was for a purpose, balance !!! !

The Merlin was a great engine but it was not the answer to everything. It worked beautifully in the Mustang, indifferently in the Kittyhawk and poorly in the Beaufighter.

Yes, it has to do with the shutter speed. To get a nice propeller blur, the shutter speed can be set slow. Unfortunately, that can also make the plane blur if the camera isn't panned perfectly. I hand hold the camera, so I use a higher speed which causes the strange effects of slow, stopped or reverse propeller movement.

My understanding is the US designation was Warhawk but the exported versions were Tomahawk then Kittyhawk as you noted.

Tomahawk was the British designation. Kittyhawk was the late model USAAF designation.

They were all 'Warhawks'. The early P-40B was known in the British service as the 'Tomahawk' and the P-40E as the 'Kittyhawk'. The same designations were also used by the RAAF.

Their strip is roughly 8 miles south of Oceana

Yes it is the Allison, it has the air scoop on top of the cowl, the few that had the merlin did not have the top air scoop, but one on the bottom !!!

It's in Virginia Beach, Virginia

@@pmg757 ohhh ok

@@pmg757 because there’s one of these planes in Carthage, North Carolina, and it looks a lot like that one on the video

@@britton1330 From what I can find, the Carthage bird is a non-flying replica that is part of a monument for Lt. Robert Hoyle Upchurch who was a Carthage native who died in 1944 while a pilot for the Flying Tigers. An article says the replica was restored in 2015 as an Eagle Scout project. It looks to have the Flying Tigers color and shark face but US Army Air Forces late war insignia.

@@pmg757 ohh sorry I didn’t know I have only been to it a cupola times I thought it was just not that used