Talk:Curtiss P-40 Warhawk

Inaccurate translation in a quote from Drabkin
There is a quote from Drabkin's book in the section on operational history with USSR. It fits the original interview with Golodnikov available online in Russian, but makes a few important mistakes by taking the pilot's words out of context. Here is the quote as given in this wiki article:

''The radio was also good. It was powerful, reliable, but only on HF (high frequency). The American radios did not have hand microphones but throat microphones. These were good throat mikes: small, light and comfortable.''

I realize that this must be the translation supplied in the book by the author, but there are two serious issues with this, and both could lead a reader to wider, incorrect implications about Soviet fighter pilots in WWII. Here is the source for this specific quote (archive of interviews on airforce.ru).

Why only HF?
First, the erroneous juxtaposition of "it was powerful, reliable, but only on high frequencies". This should not read as the radio was only powerful and reliable at HF; instead, it is the segue into the next part. In it, the pilot tells the interviewer that since half of the regiment still had Hurricanes which had UHF radios, the regiment commander (Safonov, an ace and a Hero of the Soviet Union) had to install a UHF radio inside his personal P-40, in order to be able to talk to any combinations of his subordinates. They further discuss that this was not a major problem since the radio only added about 40 pounds to the takeoff weight. Here is the original quote:

''Радиостанция была хорошей. Мощной, надежной, но на КВ. Сафонов, когда на «томахаук» сел, то он ведь «харрикейновскую» станцию себе поставил, потому, что половина полка еще на «Харрикейнах» летала, а там рации УКВ были. Так и летал с двумя станциями.''

''Radio [in a P-40] was good. Powerful, reliable, only HF, though. When Safonov transitioned to his Tomahawk, he made sure to have a radio from a Hurricane installed as well, because half the regiment still flew Hurricanes, which used UHF. So he flew with two radios.''

This means that the mention of the frequency band is not relevant to the pilot's evaluation of the strengths of P-40 or its radio, and is not a comment on their utility. It can be excised from the quote (<...>) without interfering with its purpose and avoiding misreadings.

...Hand microphones?
Second, the slight mistranslation of "hand microphones". In the original interview, Golodnikov indeed says:

''На американских станциях уже был не микрофон, а ларингофон. Хорошие ларингофоны, маленькие, легкие, удобные.''

Which is correctly translated as:

''American radios then already had laryngophones (throat microphones) instead of microphones. Those laryngophones were good: small, light, comfortable.''

But he does not mean handheld mics / handsets. The key to this is a preceding part of the interview: in it, Golodnikov discusses Hurricanes, which had normal (non-contact) microphones mounted inside the pilot's oxygen mask. It was an unusual arrangement for Soviet fighter pilots, who tended to never wear oxygen masks unless absolutely needed, reasoning that it let them move their heads more freely (they mention it often). Which is why Golodnikov pecifically mentions this in the first place, saying that this forced Hurricane pilots to always wear their masks in combat, which caused inconvenience (because pilots struggled to adjust the mask straps so that they weren't too tight, and yet didn't shift during high Gs). That is also why he later specifically notes that P-40s had more convenient and familiar laryngophones, instead of mask-mounted mikes.

I'm not sure how to correct this, since I suspect the quote is taken directly from an authoritative source. Maybe a footnote? --AyeBraine (talk) 22:40, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Bogus performance numbers
It seems bogus performance numbers we inserted in this edit:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Curtiss_P-40_Warhawk&oldid=892171324

P-40E had top speed of about 570 km/h. Also the engine power seems to be incorrect after this edit.

The undo button no longer works because there has been too many commits after that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hkultala (talk • contribs) 16:43, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I just want to say, the bad data on this article including the lowball estimate for top speed here, are a key example of why I will no longer edit Wikipedia articles or donate money to the Wikipedia foundation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8807:5606:3E00:29C7:59C1:170E:7C2B (talk) 18:16, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source that contradicts the figures in the article? Note that the top speed listed in the article is for an altitude of 15,000 ft.  I have a source that states that the top speed of the P-40E is 350 mph (562 km/h), but it does not specify at what altitude this speed could be achieved.  However, that same source notes that the P-40E's performance dropped significantly above 12,000 ft due to the lack of a supercharger, so that is a likely explanation for the perceived "lowball estimate" for the top speed here.  If you have a source that states the top speed at a specified lower altitude, feel free to update the specifications. -  ZLEA  T \ C 18:58, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It did, of course, have a supercharger, like all WW2 fighters. It was a single-speed, single-stage supercharger with a critical altitude of about 12,000 feet, which meant a top speed at around 13-15,000 feet for the P-40E. Other models had different critical altitudes and top speeds.
 * This 1941 US Army test of a P-40E gives a top speed of 361.7 mph at 3,000 rpm (full power) and at 15,000 ft
 * http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/P-40E_40-405_PHQ-M-19-1320-A.jpg
 * This 1943 British test (at a low boost setting of 42" Hg) gives a top speed of 344 mph at 13,800 ft
 * http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/ET573_Normal_Cowling.pdf
 * Speed tests for the P-40E range from 334 mph to 365 mph, depending on weight, altitude, RPM and boost setting. Average at higher boost settings actually used in combat was about 350-355 mph. What the article currently shows is the lowest end of that range of test outcomes, done at the lowest power settings.
 * Other models were considerably faster. This test of a P-40F made 374 mph
 * http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/P-40F_41-13635_FS-M-19-1578-A.pdf 2600:8807:5606:3E00:590B:134E:8C1:8FCD (talk) 15:33, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

War hawk
You are invited to participate in Talk:War hawk about whether War hawk should be moved to Hawk (foreign policy). R2 (bleep) 16:28, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Weak landing gear
This article says "Pilots used to British fighters sometimes found it difficult to adapt to the P-40's rear-folding landing gear, which was more prone to collapse than the lateral-folding landing gear of the Hawker Hurricane or Supermarine Spitfire. In contrast to the "three-point landing" commonly employed with British types, P-40 pilots were obliged to use a "wheels landing": a longer, low angle approach that touched down on the main wheels first. " I'm curious to know where the person who wrote that picked this us, and whether there isn't a certain amount of original research involved, or speculation on the part of whatever writer they were using as a reference, in any. The P-40 may have had a weak gear design, but it was nothing inherent in the fact that the gear retracted backwards, which is what this statement implies. The F6F Hellcat used rear-retracting gear, and it was operationally used on harsh, no flare carrier landings on a constant basis. I've never heard that they had problems with the gear collapsing. The F4U, also designed as a carrier plane, also used rear retracting gear, as did numerous other types, including the Fairey Battle, the Il-2 Sturmovik, the DeHavilland Mosquito, and many others. In fact, I'd venture that the rear-folding gear was the most common type in use on twin and multi-engined bombers. It was standard proceedure for RAF pilots to use the 3-point touchdown, while for the USAAF is was standard to touch down on the wheels first. I'm curious exactly how many instances con be found of the P-40 acutally suffering gear collapse due to using the 3-point landing, or if it was just a case of the RAF being cautious and flying the plane the way the flight manual recommended, either because it was in the book, or because they suspected the gear might collapse. There is no reason that a rearward landing gear should be more likely to collapse if it is built strongly enough. Perhaps the P-40 was not designed to that limit, since they didn't expect the 3-point landing to be used, but that's a case of the individual design being problematic, not a universal issue with rearwards folding gear. Any gear that wasn't designed for the stress would have problems with collapsing, whether it folded forwards, backwards, or laterally. For that matter I don't really understand why a 3-point landing should put any more fore and aft stress as any other type of landing. I could see no-flare carrier-style 3-point touchdowns overstressing regualr gear, but RAF style 3-point landings were no harder than any other type when done properly, and the fact that the tail is tilted downwards should add more FORWARDS force than anything else; a tailwheel plane with normal landing gear is angled so that the gear wants to stay open when it's sitting at rest on the ground. While in any landing the resistance of the wheels hitting the ground will cause a net aft force vector, theoretically a nose up landing should reduce the total aft vector, not increase it, unless they are in the habit of landing very abruptly. And that would be a problem whatever type of landing you are using. So perhaps only RAF fighters used the 3-point touchdown operationally, but it's obvious that they had no problems with the rearwards folding gear in the Wellington, Mosquito, Hampden, Halifax, Stirling, Lancaster, etc.

64.223.104.59 (talk) 04:24, 24 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I take it as being descriptive, not causative. - BilCat (talk) 05:12, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Tomahawk v Kittyhawk
Could someone tell me why, other than, possibly, some esoteric Wiki guideline, are there are only specs for one model of this plane ? Most books talk about the early and late models as being much different in performance, they even have different names, yet, when I was doing some research to establish the actual performance difference between the Tomahawks and Kittyhawks it wasn't on Wiki ! Ludicrous.....--JustinSmith (talk) 21:01, 19 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Because WPAIR has decided to list specs for only one variant in aircraft articles, airliners being the major exception. And yes, there's a guideline for it. Sorry that you feel that is ludicrous, but that's the way it is. BilCat (talk) 21:54, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

There are planes on Wiki with more than one set of specs, and rightly so. But in any case it is a ludicrous guideline, particularly when we are actually talking about two planes with different names. And they had different names because their performance was so different.--JustinSmith (talk) 06:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * While the RAF considered the Model 81 and 87 to be different aircraft, the USAAF (the primary user) considered them to be two variants of the same aircraft. Most major differences between the aircraft were due to the F-series V-1710 engine, while most of the other changes were refinements based on combat experience.  By the way, can you provide a link to an aviation article with more than two sets of specs? -  ZLEA  T \ C 23:31, 20 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I know there have been a few, but I can't recall which at the moment. The ones I thought were only have one now. BilCat (talk) 02:14, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The Model 87 had significant structural differences to the Model 81 and they were clearly different airframes - a simple side-by-side comparison shows this clearly enough. The Commonwealth air forces called the Type 81 the Tomahawk (in its various marks) and the Type 87 the Kittyhawk (in its various marks) because of this. An entirely redesigned fuselage is hardly cosmetic.
 * It was the USAAF's decision not to give the Type 87 a new pursuit designation which has caused this conflation over the years, to the point where it is now accepted without question that the two types were the same aircraft. They were separate models, and the designers knew this clearly enough.
 * This is something which the article might address. 2A00:23C7:3119:AD01:21D9:76A6:4DE9:B8EE (talk) 04:34, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * We can't exactly address that without reliable sources. - ZLEA  T \ C 15:01, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Are there not any? 2A00:23C7:3119:AD01:2C2E:4B94:F5AB:8BCB (talk) 22:35, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * If you have reliable sources, feel free to provide them. - ZLEA  T \ C 02:55, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * There are reliable sources easily available. JustinSmith is right, there is too much variation between types to only list one. In addition to Hawk 81 and Hawk 87 types, there were also 3,000 made with merlin XX engines which had much better performance, with critical altitude at just under 20,000 ft instead of 12,000 ft. This was the type used by 16 US fighter squadrons in North Africa and Italy, plus 2 RAF squadrons and 18th Fighter Group in the Solomons. Here are performance data:
 * P-40B (Tomahawk IIA for British) Allison V-1710-33 engine, 347 mph at 15,000 ft ('without experimental filter')
 * http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/P-40B_Official_Performance_Summary.jpg
 * P-40C (Tomahawk IIC for British) Allison V-1710-33 engine, 342 mph at 14,400 ft
 * http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/P-40C_41-13377_FS-M-19-1457-A.jpg
 * P-40D (Kittyhawk I for the British, mainly used in Western Desert) Allison -1710-39 engine, top speed 354 mph at 15,175 ft
 * http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/P-40D_40-362_PHQ-M-19-1267-A.pdf
 * Kittyhawk IA (export version of P-40E) British test done at low power, Allison V-1710-39 engine, 344 mph at 13,800 ft
 * http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/ET573-level.jpg
 * P-40E, US test full power, Allison V-1710-39 engine, 361 mph at 15,000 ft
 * http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/P-40E_40-405_PHQ-M-19-1320-A.jpg
 * P-40K, US test, Allison V-1710-73 engine, 365 mph at 12,000 ft
 * http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/P-40K_42-9761.pdf
 * P-40F, US test, Packard V-1650-1 (Merlin XX) engine, 374 mph without sway braces, 369.5 with sway braces
 * http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/P-40F_41-13635_FS-M-19-1578-A.pdf
 * Kittyhawk II (British version of P-40F) top speed 370 mph at 20,400 ft 'without air cleaner'
 * http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/Kittyhawk_II_performance_9sept42.jpg
 * P-40N-10 (Kittyhawk IV for British), Australian test, Allison V-1710-81, 354 mph at 9,200 ft
 * http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/A29-412-level-speed-WEP.jpg
 * P-40N, Allison V-1710-83, 378 mph at 10,550 ft, 371 mph at 17,300 ft
 * http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/P-40N_42-9987_FS-M-19-1535-A.pdf 2600:8807:5606:3E00:590B:134E:8C1:8FCD (talk) 16:23, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * So @ZLEA are you going to object or revert if I change the speed number of the P-40E? 2600:8807:5606:3E00:9520:BB77:8CB4:FC4 (talk) 20:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It is generally discouraged to mix specifications from different sources, so you would have to establish a consensus first. - ZLEA  T \ C 22:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

First flight of XP-40
This article, like many other sources, says that Edward Elliott was the pilot on the XP-40's first flight. In 1938, however, Elliott had not yet left the US Navy, and was stationed at Pearl Harbor. In 1939 he was deployed with his squadron on the USS Langley to China and the Philippines. He didn't leave the Navy until March 15, 1940. These facts have been confirmed by talking to his son, Marc, and his official Navy biography is here: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Enlisted_Naval_Aviation_Pilots/PMSahgM2tWkC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22e.+e.+elliott%22+pilot&pg=PA125&printsec=frontcover 174.86.185.248 (talk) 14:55, 24 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree that the contradiction in sources is problematic. Your link says Elliott flew for Curtiss after his Navy discharge, not before. I think we must remove his name from this article. Binksternet (talk) 16:42, 24 January 2023 (UTC)