From: erikavg@ix.netcom.com(Erik Shilling)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Zero, P-40, Me. 109 E-3, Spite Mk I, Hurricane
Date: 11 Aug 1996 19:34:52 GMT

     A different approach may convince some of the readers the
reason why our successes against the Japanese was so outstanding. 
After reading the following, don't feel sorry for Japanese, they
started the damn war.

All of the aircraft listed below are contemporaries of the P-40. As
an added comment and question, why do many insist upon comparing
apples and oranges.  Surely there can be no doubt in anyone's mid
that the F8F was superior to its forerunners, but it wasn't flying
in combat in December of 1941.  Why compare it to earlier fighters? 
Makes as much sense as camparing the F-16 with Germany's Fokker
triplane.

The P-40's contemporary fighter aircraft, were the Japanese AM62
21, and the Hayabusa Ki-43.  Germany's Me. 109 E-3, Briton's Spitfire
Mark I as well as the Hurricane.  

The P-40B was. . .
40 mph faster than the AM6-2 (21) Zero.  
50 mph faster than the Hyabusa, or Ki-43.
70 mph faster than the fixed gear I-96.
195 mph faster than the cruise speed of the Ki-21 Sally.
130 mph faster in a dive than any Japanese fighter.
3 times the roll rate of the Zero.
P-40 was 5 mph faster than the Me 109 E-3 at 15,000 feet
P-40 was 9 mph  faster than the Spitefire Mk.IA at 15,000 feet
The P-40 could out turn the Me. 109 E-3, and could out dive it.
The P-40 was not the dog that everyone seem to think it was.

The P-40B flown by the Flying Tigers had. . .
Self sealing fuel tanks. . . Japanese aircraft had none.
Armor plate that would stop any bullet fired from a Japanese
fighter or bomber encountered over Burma.
Bullet proof windshield that would stop any Japanese fighter or
bomber's machine gun bullets.
Very much stronger than the flimsily constructed Japanese aircraft.
A number of Zero's shed their wings at speeds slightly over 350 IAS
mph.  Japanese would not even attempt a dive that approached 350
IAS.  None of Japan's aircraft could even stand up to P-40's 30 and
50 caliber guns.  It only required a few incendiary bullet, even
from our 30 cal. guns, to set fire or explode their aircraft.

Although subsequent model P-40s did fall behind the new model
Me.109s and British Spitfires in performance, however in every case,
each new model Zero that came out remained inferior to their
contemporary P-40.  

Now why in the hell would anyone consider the Zero to be the best
fighter of the war?

Hell it didn't even start out that way. . .
The above is not just my opinion, but garnered from available
facts, and flying the P-40 in combat.

What was truly obsolete happened to be the turning or dogfighting
combat that had been used during of WW I.

Erik Shilling

-- 
Erik Shilling		Author; Destiny: A Flying Tiger's 
Flight Leader              Rendezvous With Fate.
3rd Squadron AVG
Flying Tigers

From: steven@brimstone.sci-park.uunet.pipex.com (Steven Vincent)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Zero, P-40, Me. 109 E-3, Spite Mk I, Hurricane
Date: 12 Aug 1996 16:03:50 +0100

roger.wallsgrove@bbsrc.ac.uk (Roger Wallsgrove) writes:

>If the P-40B was so brilliant, how come the Zeros and Oscars shot them
>out of the sky in the Pacific and SE Asia war zones in 1941/2?  And why 

Pilot quality and Training. The Japanese Pilots had come through the
best flight school for dogfighting combats in the world while the US
pilots in 1940 were in a similar situation to the USAF pilots going into
Vietnam.  Basically good pilots trained in formation and basic flying
but with little or no tactical combat doctrine. The Flying Tigers, like
Ed Schilling were drawn from this group of pilots but were trained in a
realistic combat doctrine to get the best out of their aircraft vs the
Japanese (i.e. Dive and Zoom Vertical, high speed tactics vs the Japanese
horizontal turning fight.

>did the RAF ship all of theirs out to less critical war zones or to the
>USSR?   Forget the numbers you've dragged up from (presumably) official
>or manufacturers test data (if such data were "real", the P-39 would have
>been the fastest fighter of its day!), in a REAL shooting war the P-40B 
>was outclassed.  Both the Zero and the Oscar were brilliant and innovative 

Ed's data is real but note the heights listed, 15000ft when fighters
were expected to sit at 20 or 25k in Europe. At low level the P-39
was one of the fastest fighters in level flight but any height
advantage can be turned into speed real quick!

The P-40B was behind the Spitfire V, which by 1941/42 was well into
service. Indeed the Alison engined P-40 never caught up with the 
Merlin engined spitfire. The other problem is that the European
and Pacific wars required performance at altitude, which the Alison
engined aircraft mostly could not deliver. (The Turpochargers on the
P-38 worked well enough to make that an exception.)

>designs, which gave the Japanese absolute air superiority for the first
>year or so of the Pacific war.  They had faults and failings, and zero 
>(sorry about the pun!) development potential (unlike the Bf109 and 
>Spitfire), but IN THEIR DAY they were great.
>Zero the best fighter of WW2?  One of, but not THE.

I have to agree with most on this thread, The Zero was a highly
overated capable aircraft but it was only the superb pilots flying
in in 41/42 that made it so dangerous.

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Zero, P-40, Me. 109 E-3, Spite Mk I, Hurricane
Date: 12 Aug 1996 08:45:20 GMT
From: erikavg@ix.netcom.com(Erik Shilling)

roger.wallsgrove@bbsrc.ac.uk (Roger Wallsgrove) wrote:

>If the P-40B was so brilliant, how come the Zeros and Oscars shot them
>out of the sky in the Pacific and SE Asia war zones in 1941/2?  

Answer:
I will answer this question with an analogy.  If I give you a high
powered rifle and tell you it is a club, and you foolishly use it as a
club, and I give another person a 45 cal. pistol, and he knows how to
use it.  Who do you think will be the victor. 

The same applies to fighters.   

If you don't use your equipment properly, you are going to lose the
fight.  The Americans unfortunately had been taught the antiquated
dogfighting technic that had been used in WW I, and wasn't successful
against the Zero.  

The answer to your question.  In the early stages of the war the allied
pilots were not using their equipment correctly.  (For your
information, the Allies never built an airplane that could turn inside
the Zero below 200 mph.)  So how do you think we eventually outfought
them at every engagement.  CHANGE OF TACTICS 

In 1943, when the P-38 was first used in the Pacific, the Zero pilots
were shooting them down in large numbers.  (See Subro Sakai's book
Zero.)  

Isn't this amazing when you consider that the P-38's top speed was 100
mph faster than the Zero, and pilots were still trying to dogfight the
Zero.   

Chennault had written a manual on fighter tactics, which discouraged
dogfighting as outdated.  The military brass disagreed with Chennault,
and as a result Chennault was given an early retirement from the Army
Air Corps.  Unfortunately the American military took Chennault for a
Fool.  The same as the court martial board had taken Billy Mitchell as
a fool, when he claimed that bombers could sink any battle ship afloat.
Even though he proved it by sinking a German WW I battleship he was
court martialed.

>Why did the RAF ship all of theirs out to less critical war zones or to the
>USSR?

Answer:
The Brits are an amazing people and this is not intended as a put down.
I don't pretend to be able to answer what was in the mind of the
British Air Arm at the time.  However, this question is best answered
by another question, and a comment.
  
My guess is that whom ever high ranking RAF that made such a decision,
were not very good judges of aircraft.  My guess was that President
Roosvelt pressured the Brits into releasing 100 P-40s which were to be
used by the American Volunteer Group.  Also why do you think the Brits
accept the Brewster Buffalo over the P-40?

>   Forget the numbers you've dragged up from (presumably) official
>or manufacturers test data (if such data were "real", the P-39 would
>have been the fastest fighter of its day!), in a REAL shooting war the
>P-40B was outclassed.  

Why should I forget the numbers?
I ask you the same question.  Where in hell did you drag up the numbers
which apparently you must have based your opinion upon? 

Were you ever in combat.  I ask this only because it makes a great deal
of difference as to how you look at performance figures.

>In a REAL shooting War.

I assure that my data is very much REAL, and we were damn well in a
REAL WAR.  How in the hell do you think the Flying Tigers were able to
destroy 297 Japanese aircraft, CONFIRMED NOT CLAIMED, (Although my
friend Dan Ford likes to refer to them as claimed.) and how did we
loose 4 pilot that were killed in aerial combat, 3 became POWs, 1 MIA
and 9 lost attacking ground targets, and 2 were killed because of
Japanese bombing?????????????

My P-40 numbers were dragged up from my Diary, Which at one time I was
a military test pilot before going to China.  Also I have several
hundred hours in flying the P-40B and P-40E, some of which was in
combat.  

Tex hill, a high ranking ace with the Flying Tigers and also Johnny
Alison, who was an ace with the 14th AF flew a captured Zero.  Tex upon
landing said they would never swap a P-40 for a Zero.  Concerning the
Zero, my figures are also based upon an interview I had with Saburo
Sakai, Japanese leading living ace. 

>Both the Zero and the Oscar were brilliant and innovative 
>designs, which gave the Japanese absolute air superiority for the first 
>year or so of the Pacific war.  

Innovative:
This is down right laughable, I have flown a CW-21, an aircraft built
by Curtiss Wright in 1938 that's empty weight was 3150 lbs which was 10
mph faster than the Zero, could out climb the Zero by more than 2500
f/p/m, and 100 mph faster in a dive faster and had a higher role rate
as well.  Why didn't the military buy it.  Just dumb I guess.

They had faults and failings, and zero (sorry about the pun!)
development potential (unlike the Bf109 and Spitfire), but IN THEIR DAY
they were great. Zero the best fighter of WW2?  One of, but not THE.

Roger, NOT EVEN CLOSE. Again I ask the question.  What in the hell do
you base your opionion upon????????????  How about reviewing my
provable figures and respond to
them. 

Erik Shilling
-- 
Erik Shilling		Author; Destiny: A Flying Tiger's 
Flight Leader              Rendezvous With Fate.
3rd Squadron AVG
Flying Tigers

Subject: Re: Zero, P-40, Me. 109 E-3, Spite Mk I, Hurricane
From: erikavg@ix.netcom.com(Erik Shilling)
Date: Aug 13 1996
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military

In <Dw2x2t.Ay1@cfanews.harvard.edu> gregg@hrc2.harvard.edu (Gregg
Germain) writes: 

>Concerning roll rate:
>
> I have a question.  Were the P-40 ailerons fabric covered? Or metal?

All three control surfaces were fabric. Ailerons, elevators and rudder. 
Being lighter the controls were less subjected to flutter.

Erik Shilling 
-- 
Erik Shilling		Author; Destiny: A Flying Tiger's 
Flight Leader              Rendezvous With Fate.
3rd Squadron AVG
Flying Tigers

Subject: Re: Zero, P-40B, Spite Mk 1A, Me 109E-3, Hurrycane
From: erikavg@ix.netcom.com(Erik Shilling)
Date: Aug 13 1996
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military

erikavg@ix.netcom.com(Erik Shilling) wrote:
>> All of the aircraft listed below are contemporaries of the P-40.

phabala@vega.math.ualberta.ca Peter Habala wrote:   
>I don't think so.

>>In late Dec 1941, when AVG started to fly against Japs.

snip 

The P-40s were operational in the 31st Pursuit Squadron at Selfrige
Field in late March of 1940.     

P-40s were already operational with the Pursuit Squadron at
Selfrige field in late 1940.  This was a little over one year
before the AVG was in combat.  Also the Mark 5 went into production
in early 1941 almost one year after the P-40 was operational. 
Therefore I did not consider it to be a contemporary of the P-40. 

>To put it another way, Spitfire Mk.IA, Hurricane and Bf.109E-3
>are more of a 1939-40 era airplanes than anything else.

So was the P-40, but even so the Mk 5 Spite below 15,000 feet was
not as fast as the P-40B.  Even though the Mk 5 Spite was faster
than the Mk 1A. It was faster only at a higher altitude.  Its speed
like every fighter ever built, with a supercharged engine,
diminished with altitude.   

The importance of including the altitude along with top speed of
any aircraft is illustrated as follows.  The Spite Mark 1A's top
speed was 362 mph at 18,200 feet, But its top speed at S/L was only
280 mph.

The Me 109E-3 top speed was 355 mph at 16,400 feet, although its
top speed was 305 mph at S/L.  Therefore the Me was slower at
15,000.
  
Another illustration was the P-51D that arrived in service in 1944,
had a top speed of 437 mph at 25,000 feet.  This same P-51's top
speed at 5,000 was only 315 mph.  The P-40 could actually exceed
this speed at 5,000 feet.  The P-40 with the same supercharged
engine would have exceeded the P-51' speed of 437 at 25,000 feet. 

To compare the top speed of any A/C with another, the altitude at
which it is obtained has to be given, otherwise you are comparing
apples and oranges.  

This is why I specified 15,000 feet.

>Otherwise your comment on Japanese planes is correct. They were
>not as great as considered in 1941-42 by Allied pilots, the trick
>was not to play their game.

>Zero was definitely a very good plane, but already at the time
>there were better planes flying in Europe. THE best? Definitely
>not.

Good airplane, Perhaps, but good compared to what?    
                                             
Erik Shilling

-- 
Erik Shilling		Author; Destiny: A Flying Tiger's 
Flight Leader              Rendezvous With Fate.
3rd Squadron AVG
Flying Tigers

From: erikavg@ix.netcom.com(Erik Shilling)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Zero, P-40B, Me 109E-3, Spit Mk1A ect
Date: 15 Aug 1996 05:15:40 GMT

In <4utrv0$p4l@news.orst.edu> gold@mustang.oce.orst.edu (Chris
Goldfinger) writes: 

>Erik, You have convinced me that the P-40 was an underrated
>aircraft.  Comparing speed with the P-51 though may be going
>a bit too far.  I can't quote performance figures, but I have watched
>many stock P-40's waxed by stock P-51's down low at Reno. 

They were pulling stock Manifold Pressure.
The P-51' are pulling over 120 in MP.

Max take off MP for P-40 is 46 in.  I don't believe the P-40s at reno
are really trying to win, but just there fore the fun.  Don't fprget
thjere are many Merlin engine that are trashed (blown to pieces at
Reno) After all 120 In MP even for a merilin is one hell of a lot of
Manifold Pressure.

Erik Shilling 
-- 
Erik Shilling		Author; Destiny: A Flying Tiger's 
Flight Leader              Rendezvous With Fate.
3rd Squadron AVG
Flying Tigers

From: erikavg@ix.netcom.com(Erik Shilling)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Zero, P-40B Me 109 etc.
Date: 16 Aug 1996 16:04:13 GMT

In article <4uqfvu$e82@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com>
erikavg@ix.netcom.com(Erik Shilling) writes:
Charles Scott wrote:
> >Concerning roll rate:
> >
> > I have a question.  Were the P-40 ailerons fabric covered? Or metal?
> 
Answer.
All three control surfaces were fabric. Ailerons, elevators and
rudder. Being fabric covered, controls were lighter and less
subjected to flutter.

 Erik Shilling 

>Interestingly, according to Len Deighton in "Fighter", the reason
>for the very high stick forces in most WWII fighters designed at
>or around 1937 - 1942 was the use of fabric on the ailerons.

I don't think so.  I believe it was for two reasons and both
interconnected.  A fabric covered control surface would normally be
lighter than a metal covered one.  The more weight aft of the hinge
line, the more weight there had to be ahead of the hinge line to
prevent control flutter.  Increasing the A/C's total weight.  Also
as I understand it, fabric in itself is less prone to flutter at
high speed. 

some snipped.

>The first operational models of the A6M Zero, as has been
>discussed here, had ailerons that virtually locked up at higher
>speeds.  The pilots knew this, obviously, and complained about it. 

snip

>If you look at the wing plan form of the Zero, you will notice
>that the ailerons are HUGE and cover a substantial portion of the
>wing.  With no assist of any kind and being fabric to boot, is it
>any wonder that the ailerons became immovable at high speed?
snip

I'll try a very simple and crude explaination of the Zero's
problem, although I'm sure some may disagree.

in each illustration the control is on an airplane which is
traveling from right to left as seen by the reader.

This represents the Zero's aileron design.
<--------  The horizontal V represents the hinge line, and as it
can be seen, this one would require a lot of strength to move the
control, especially at high speeds.

This is more indictive of the P-40's
--<------ Here it can easily be seen that it takes less force to
move the control since its area is smaller, and the air striking
the area forward of the hinge helps move the control. 

----<----  In this case, once the control is deflected, the air
will be so effective on the front of the control, it will cause
control snatch, and the pilot will have to use a great deal of
force to prevent it from going full lock.  Not Good.

--------< Antiservo needed, such as can be seen on some aircraft
with flying elevator controls.

Erik Shilling
-- 
Erik Shilling		Author; Destiny: A Flying Tiger's 
Flight Leader              Rendezvous With Fate.
3rd Squadron AVG
Flying Tigers

Subject: The P-40 & the USN
From: jl@www.mpm.edu (John Lundstrom)
Date: Aug 20 1996
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military

Here is the text of a despatch from Admiral Nimitz to
Admiral King sent on 20 June 1942:

ALL AIR COMBAT REPORTS BATTLE OF MIDWAY EMPHASIZE EXTREME
AND APPARENTLY INCREASED SUPERIORITY PERFORMANCE OF 0 FIGHTERS
X ALTHOUGH THESE PLANES ARE MORE VULNERABLE THAN OURS THE 
PRIMARY SOURCE OF ANY COMBAT SUCCESSES TO DATE BY NAVY FIGHTING
PLANES HAS BEEN OWN EXPERT TACTICS OPPOSED TO FAULTY ENEMY
TACTICS X OVERALL RESULTS HAVE BEEN BAD AND WILL BE SERIOUS
AND POTENTIALLY DECISIVE WITH IMPROVEMENT THAT MUST BE EXPECTED
IN ENEMY TACTICS X 

CONSIDER ACTION ALL OF FOLLOWING LINES TO BE OF HIGHEST IMPORTANCE
X PROVIDE P-40F PLANES OR COMPARABLE TYPE FOR ALL MARINE FIGHTING
SQUADRONS ASSIGNED TO OUTLYING BASES X IF P-40F OR COMPARABLE TYPE
CAN BE MODIFIED FOR AIRCRAFT CARRIER OPERATIONS PROVIDE THESE
PLANES FOR CARRIER FIGHTING SQUADRONS X TAKE ANY POSSIBLE STEPS
TO LIGHTEN F4F4 AND INCREASE AMMUNITION CAPACITY EVEN AT COST OF
REDUCTION IN NUMBER OF GUNS X GIVE ABSOLUTE PRIORITY TO 
PRODUCTION AND DELIVERY NEW F4U FIGHTERS.

	I have not found where any serious consideration was later
given to putting P-40s on carriers. Basically fighter leaders like
Lt.Cdr. John S. (Jimmy) Thach and Lt.Cdr. James H. Flatley spread
the word on how to beat the Zero, and in the Guadalcanal Campaign
the Wildcat held its own. However, I wonder how the Marines on
Guadalcanal would have done with P-40s instead of Wildcats. The
Wildcats climbed much more slowly, but I think they had superior
high altitude performance necessary because the bombers usually
came in above 25,000 feet.

	I find it interesting that Nimitz expected the Japanese to
recognize their own faulty tactics and improve them--something
that never happened. For their own part the Japanese to this day
think the Zero totally dominated all opposition until faced with
P-38s, F4Us and F6Fs in 1943.

                                John Lundstrom

Subject: Maneuverability -- was Airacobra
From: erikavg@ix.netcom.com(Erik Shilling)
Date: Jan 31 1997
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military

       When I said that I could prove that the P-40 was more
maneuverable than the Zero, several promptly challenged me and
asked for my proof.  I hope the following will satisfy their
challenge.  

But first of all, one must know the definition of maneuverability
so here's Webster's.   

1.     To perform a movement in military or naval tactics in order
       to secure an advantage.
2.     An intended and controlled variation from a straight and
       level flight path in the operation of an aircraft.
3.     To make a series of changes in direction and position for       
       a specific purpose.
4.     Evasive movement or shift of tactics.
5.     To manage into or out of a position or condition.
6.     To bring about or secure as a result of skillful management.

As you can see, a comparison of roll is the most important
attribute an airplane must posses in being more maneuverable than
another one.  Turning in a tight turn has absolutely nothing to do
concerning maneuverability.  
      A different approach may convince some of the readers the
reason why our successes against the Japanese was so outstanding.
After reading the following, don't feel sorry for Japanese, they
started the damn war.
 
       All of the aircraft listed below are contemporaries of the
P-40.  As an added comment and question, why do many insist upon
comparing apples and oranges?  One must not compare aircraft that
weren't flying on December 7, 1941, otherwise it makes as much
sense as comparing the F-16 with Germany's Fokker triplane.
 
The best known contemporary fighters of the P-40 were the Japanese
AM62 21, and the Hayabusa Ki-43.  Germany's Me. 109 E-3.  Briton's
Spitfire Mark I, as well as the Hurricane.  Not as well known was
North American's A-36A, forerunner of the P-51.  Grumman's Hellcat,
Brewster's Buffalo, Seversky's P-35 and P-43, as well as Vultee's
P-66.  

The P-40B had a high roll rate than any of them and was. . .
16 mph faster than the P-43, however its top speed was at 25,000 ft
40 mph faster than the AM6-2 (21) Zero.
40 mph faster than the A-36A
50 mph faster than the Hyabusa, or Ki-43.
60 mph faster than the P-35
70 mph faster than the fixed gear I-96.
195 mph faster than the cruise speed of the Ki-21 Sally.
130 mph faster in a dive than any Japanese fighter.
3 times the roll rate of the Zero.  the higher the speed the higher
the difference.
P-40 was 5 mph faster than the Me 109 E-3 at 15,000 feet.  
P-40 was 9 mph faster than the Spitefire Mk.IA at 15,000 feet
The P-40 could out turn the Me. 109 E-3, and could out dive it.
The P-40 was not the dog that everyone seem to think it was.

One interesting fact is that when comparing top speed of all of the
above mentioned fighters at 15,000 feet, the P-40 was faster than
any including the P-38 and P-47.

An additional fact is that most combat, especially in the pacific,
was done below 20,000 ft, since the Japanese bomber usually flew
below this altitude.  Therefore, for the Japanese to defend their
bomber against attacking fighter combat was actually around 15,000
ft. 

The P-40B flown by the Flying Tigers had. . .
Self sealing fuel tanks. . . Japanese aircraft had none.
Armor plate that would stop any bullet fired from a Japanese
fighter or bomber encountered over Burma.
Bullet proof windshield that would stop any Japanese fighter or
bomber's machine gun bullets.
All of our aircraft were much stronger than the flimsily
constructed Japanese aircraft.  A number of Zero's shed their wings
at speeds slightly over 350 IAS mph.  Japanese would not even
attempt a dive that approached 350 IAS.  None of Japan's aircraft
could even stand up to P-40's 30 and 50 caliber guns.  It only
required a few incendiary bullet, even from our 30 cal. guns, to
set fire or explode their aircraft.
 
Although subsequent model P-40s did fall behind the newer model
Me.109s and British Spitfires in performance, however in every
case, each new model Zero that came out remained inferior to its
contemporary P-40.
 
Now why in the hell would anyone consider the Zero to be the best
fighter of the war, or even consider attempting to dog-fight with
Zero?
 
Hell it didn't even start out that way. . .
The above is not just my opinion, but garnered from available
facts I assume still available today.  Also tests conducted by the
US military on captured fighters, as well as the outstanding result
of those who flew the P-40s when using proper tactics against enemy
aircraft.  

What was truly obsolete happened to be the turning or dogfighting
combat that had been used during of WW I.

       One author, writing for the Smithsonian's Air & Space magazine
claims, "The Zero to be the most fabulous fighter to come out of
the war."  What an ill informed ludicrous statement.  They either
never flew the Zero, never fought the Zero as it should have been,
and most likely are not pilots, nor aeronautical engineers, so how
the hell do they know.
       Aviation buffs always come up with the statement that the Zero
was more maneuverable than the P-40.  Emphatically not true.  Flown
properly the P-40 was an outstanding fighter, especially in the
Chinese theater of war.   
       Actually the P-40 was more maneuverable than the Zero. 
Unfortunately, those that claim otherwise do not know the defini-
tion of maneuverability as defined by Webster's dictionary.
 
Interesting comments by Saburo Sakai concerning the Zero:  

       In a short but informative interview with Saburo Sakai, Japans
leading living Ace, I said, "Commander, what was the Zero's top
speed?"  His answer, "The A6M2 had a top speed of 309 mph.  and a
maximum allowable dive speed of 350 mph.  It became extremely heavy
on the controls above 275 mph, and approaching 350 mph, the Zero's
controls were so heavy it was impossible to roll.  A further
comment by Sakai was that the skin on the wings started to wrinkle,
causing the pilot great concern, since a number of Zero's had shed
their wings in a dive."  A captured Zero tested by Americans
military, showed its top speed to be 319 mph, this was a later
model, the AM6M5, and was tested without guns or ammunition. 
Therefore Saburo Sakai's statement that the top speed of the A6M2
and A6M3 of 309 mph would seem correct.)  
       Compare this to the P-40's 355 mph, and he the maximum
allowable dive speed of 480 mph, (occasionally our pilots dove as
fast as 510 mph) 130 mph faster than the Zero.  The P-40's roll
rate at 260 mph was 96 degrees per second, three times that of the
Zero's mere 35 degrees at the same speed.
       Japanese pilots were taught the antiquated importance of
Dogfighting, or turning combat as used in WW I.  Unfortunately our
military pilots were taught the same thing, dogfighting.  But the
Americans didn't have the equipment with which to be successful. 
When the Japanese encountered Chennault's hit and run tactics, they
were at loss.  It wasn't in their book, and they didn't know how to
handle the situation.  Even Tokyo Rose complained bitterly on one
of her English language broadcast, saying that the Americans were
coward and afraid to stay and fight..........

       If you have stuck with me this far I'll comment on the tumble
and the Bell P-39 and the P-51's high speed stall problem in a
future posting, assuming of course for those who may be interested.

       Also there are those including Dan Ford, a frequent visitor on
this net, who say the AVG never fought the Zero.  I believe I have
undisputable proof that we did, but will also post this information
in a sperate posting. 
 

Regards,

Erik

Subject: Re: have you flown a Zero
From: erikavg@ix.netcom.com(Erik Shilling)
Date: May 20 1997
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military

Subject: Re: Have you ever flown a Zero

Erik Shilling (erikavg@ix.netcom.com) wrote:

: It is difficult for me to understand why a man, who has never
:seen a B or C model P-40 other than a photograph, insists in
:previous posts, that I, who had several hundred hours in the
:P-40B, argues with me saying I flew the P-40C.

gustin@hhipe.uia.ac.be Wrote:

>Presumably the reason is that the contracts described the aircraft
>as Model H81A-3, which is usually assumed to be roughly equivalent
>to the P-40C. This probably because the aircraft were built to
>British contracts for the Tomahawk IIB, which is certainly assumed
>to be equivalent to the P-40C. It is often hard to correlate
>company designations and USAF designations in a reasonable way,
>and here the RAF was also involved, with its own rules and
>regulations. 
     *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *
Why we knew what model Curtiss hawk we flew.
     I don't get the connection between what ever it was that Dan
read, and the flight manual that we read before we flew the P-40s.
Also I am talking about the model we flew, NOT THE MODEL Dan read
about. One also must take into consideration the hours the pilot
spends spent in the cockpit memorizing where each and every
electric switch and circuit breaker was, every engine control, gear
control, flap control, cowl control etc. before he flies. 
     Herein lay crux of the problem. Very few laymen know the IN-
DEPTH amount of study required before flying a fighter plane, and
why so few such as Dan and others, don't have the vaguest concept
of why the fighter pilot's knowledge of his airplane is so all
encompassing.
     Then before flying, you are given a blind fold test where you
have to be able to touch and name each controls while blind folded. 
Surely if we had been given an aircraft flight manual which
disagreed with our equipment we would have immediately questioned
it.  After this drill, wouldn't one have every right to think that
we knew the exact model Curtiss we flew?
     The pilots operating flight manual gave engine power setting
Fuel flow parameters, aircraft weight and runway lengths require,
Climb speed, stall speed, top speed, cruise speeds at different
altitudes, range and endurance, rate of climb. and speeds at all
altitudes including speed at service ceiling.(I may have even missed
some.
     With this information indelibly etched in my mind, I resent
Dan Ford's Challenge that I don't know what model Curtiss airplane
I flew. As a matter of fact, I can still close my eyes and in my
minds eye, see and locate every control in the cockpit. I can
practically do this with almost every airplane that I have ever
flown such as the DC3, DC4, DC6, DC7 and C-46. I want to point out
that this for a test pilot this is not an unusual accomplishment.
>    You ask if it were possible that some pen-pusher at Curtiss
>made a mistake, or the company was slightly dishonest, or the
>difference between the A-2 and the A-3 models was not that
>clearcut.
     Possibly, BUT the nameplate showed our airplanes as being H81-
A2 Dan even went so far as to suggest that someone changed name
plates on our airplane???
     Although externally the model B and C looked alike it was here
the similarity ended. There was a big difference between the P-40
B and C models, which I will describe. For one thing the C and B
models had an entirely different fuel system.  The C had a belly
tank and less internal fuel than the B. The B did not have the
capability of attaching a belly tank, nor could it carry a 500
pound bomb in leu of the fuel tank.  Also the C had bomb shackle on
the wings where up to four 250 pound bomb could be hung. The B did
not have this capability. The C's self sealing material was
internal and the B's was external. 
     Another BIG difference between the B and C was that the P-40C
was the slowest of the P-40s (14 mph slower than the B). The B's
top speed was 354 mph and C's 340 mph, therefore the differences
between the two models was quite cleancut. 
  I would think that a reasonable person would stop and think that
what he had read was incorrect, especially when what he reads is in
disagreement with some one who has a considerable number of hours
in the airplane under discussion. With this in mind, does it really
make sense to argue with anyuone who has flown the model aircraft we
had??
     The only concession I'll willing to make, is that perhaps some
may be using the C's top speed instead of the B's.

: This is why I use the figures supplied to me by Japan's leading
: Aces, Saburo Sakai's who says the top speed of Zero was 309 mph.
: Therefore I use those that are more accurate than Dan's 321 mph. 

>Well, we had this discussion earlier... It is a big loss of
>performance, but it is hard to say what the effects of prolonged
>service was on the A6M, the maintenance at combat bases, or the
>fuel that was available to Sakai. Maybe the Japanese had a
>shortage of trained ground crews: I don't know, but it seems
>logical. Then, of course, one can question how reliable Sakai's
>instruments were, if his aircraft was in a battered condition. 

Sakai did not always fly the same plane, after all he flew Zero for
most of the war. If your airplane was out for maintenance you flew
which ever airplane that was combat ready. Surely not all of the Zeros
flown by Sakai had instrument problems.

: Dan wrote:
: >I'm sure the Model 21 could knock the socks off a P-40B/C at 
: >30,000 feet, in the unlikely event that a P-40 could get up that
: >high."

     These two statements are ridiculous. for one thing Curtiss never
built a P-40B/C, and when an American says "Knock the Sock off," it
implies that one is better than the other by a great margin. Not
marginally better. The only thing the zero was capable of besting the
40 at any altitude was its ability to turning in a smaller circle.
     NO knowledgeable pilot flying the forty would attempt to
dogfight the Zero, Hayabyusa, or any other Japanese fighter.
Incidently the Americans never built a fighter capable of
dogfighting the Zero. That was the mistake the Americans made
during the early part of the war. However, it takes more than just
dogfighting to be victorious in combat.

     Since the service ceiling was 32,400 feet it was no problem
for the forty to get to 30,000 feet.

: I don't give a damn what altitude you choose, the P-40's top
:speed was still higher than your beloved Japanese A6M 21.

>Perhaps the unspoken question is: What was the performance at high
>altitude of the Sakae engine? That of the Allison V-1710 was not
>very good, and that probably explains Dan's statement. 

Nothing explains Dan's statement since this is not true either,
since the forty was still faster at 30,000 feet. Even if this
wasn't true all we had to do was dive.

: The Flying Tigers will soon have a Web page of their own, where
: readers may address questions to the original flying tigers
: themselves. The names of those Flying Tigers who are willing to
: participate will be posted. 

>Sounds great... 

Erik Shilling

From: cdb100620@aol.com (CDB100620)
Subject: Re: P-38 - Best piston engine fighter ?
Date: 17 Jan 1998
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military

>The P-40 was considered outclassed by the Bf109

By whom?
Granted, the 109 had superior high altitude performance, but that wouldn't have
been a concern on the eastern front.  The P-40 could outroll the Me, outdive it
(although the Me had an initial advantage), outturn it, had comparable speed, a
more rugged airframe, more survivable plumbing arrangement, and superior
firepower.  The one major advantage (aside from high altitude performance) the
Me had over the P-40 was a superior rate of climb.  But the P-40 had a slightly
superior zoom climb.  Of course, the P-40 had greater lift capacity and range.

The 325FG flew 128 combat missions with the P-40 in the MTO.
Results:
Shot down in air-to-air combat:
96 Me 109
26 MC 202
7 Me 323
3 Ju 52
3 Fi 156

In addition, the 325's P-40s dropped 329,000 lbs. of bombs.

Losses:
17 to enemy fighters
6 to flak
5 to unknown causes (probably weather, fuel or mechanical)
3 to engine failure
2 to mid-air collision
1 to small-arms fire
1 to hitting high tension wires.

The 325FG had two brilliant victories over the Me 109 while equipped with the
P-40.  On July 1, 1943, while on a fighter sweep over southern Italy, 22 P-40s
were bounced by 40 Me 109s.  Results: one P-40 shot down, 20 Me 109s shot down.
On July 30, 1943, similar situation:  20 P-40s on a fighter sweep over Italy
bounced by 35 Me 109s.  One P-40 shot down, 21 Me 109s shot down.
In these two battles, the 109s engaged the P-40s in classic, turning
dogfights--and lost big time.  The Curtiss fighter could outmaneuver the German
fighter, take hits that would wreck the Me, and dish out much greater firepower
than the 109.  The Me's only clear superiority was in the climb, which was not
helpful.  It could not out-turn the P-40s, dive away from them or outrun them.
Nor could it outshoot them or take as much punishment as they could.
Add in the fact that the Mess. drivers faced a very aggressive bunch of pilots
(the motto of the 325 was "Shoot the Bastards"), and it's no wonder they found
themselves "screwed, blued and tattooed."
Never sell the P-40 short.

From: cdb100620@aol.com (CDB100620)
Subject: Re: P-38 - Best piston engine fighter ?
Date: 19 Jan 1998
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military

>And...typically you state "UNKOWN CAUSES" as due to mechanical failure
>or nature, no way one or two would have been shot down...

Not on combat missions at the time they were lost.
 Some guy making a beer run to Tunis disappears.  Write his mom and say he died
gloriously in combat.  Remind the other troops to keep alert and fly the damned
airplane all the time.

>If the Luftwaffe could put up 40 fighters

Didn't say they were Luftwaffe.  Said they were Me 109s

>probably Bf109G-6, engaged in
>a manner which they knew would lose the fight, especially since the
>P-40 was a long known type? Sounds very odd to me...

Dr. Williamson Murry, formerly  lecturer at the Air War College, has noted that
there were two Luftwaffes:  the one of popular myth, peopled with experten,
which did exist but was a very small part of the German air force; and the
overlooked one that always made up the majority of the German air force.  This
was comprised of pilots who had trouble landing their own aircraft, let alone
being able to  successfully engage in combat.

>>>The P-40 was considered outclassed by the Bf109
>
>>By whom?
>
>RAF/SAAF

Certainly the SAAF suffered grievous losses at the hands of the Luftwaffe in
North Africa, and the RAF had some rough times, too.  But an examination of
what happened will reveal the British and Commonwealth forces using poor
tactics.  It has been commented on more than once that while RAF units in
Britain were flying finger-four formations after the Battle of Britain, RAF and
Commonwealth forces in the Med were still routinely flying Vics and line-astern
formations long afterward.  They were also using the completely useless
Lufberry Circle.

>What time period?

Arrived in North Africa in Jan., 1943.  Equipped with P-40Fs and P-40Ls.
Replaced with P-47s in Sept. 1943.

The 325's CO, Col. Robert Baseler, maintained as his personal aircraft during
this period an Me 109G-6 nicknamed "Herman the German."  All the 325 pilots
flew it and became quite familiar with the many failings of the Mess.  (It was
this aircraft that was involved in the notorious mock straffing of the lFG 94FS
chow line.)  The 109 definitely could not outdive the P-40; however, its
initial acceleration in the dive was very good, but a P-40 would fall on it
like a cast-iron stove in very short order.  One problem the 109 had in a dive
was that its controls would freeze up very quickly.  It would take a foolhardy
pilot to push it much beyond 400 mph in a dive below 20,000 ft. or so.  The
P-40, on the other hand, was placarded at 485 mph.  The problem with the P-40
in the dive was not so much the controls stiffening into mobility so much as
that you had to keep feeding in rudder until at some point your leg lost the
battle.  But that would happen long after any diving 109 was overhauled and
ventilated.
The 109 was definitely a high altitude bird, and was in its element above
25,000 ft., where the P-40 was very definitely out of its element.  But the
P-40 was a very capable airplane below 18,000 ft. where most air fighting in
the MTO  and the Eastern Front took place.

>Don't forget that the Luftwaffe fighters were always out numbered in
>N-Africa, and its admirable that they at one stage had things under
>control.

Afraid I am of an age to find nothing at all admirable about Nazi Germany.  The
only admirable Luftwaffe figher was one that had dug a smoking hole in the
ground.

>Very Gung-ho...

Chinese phrase used by the USMC--not USAAF lingo.  Try "Easy does it."

>Why is there no mention of the fact that the USAAF had a very hard
>time in the early faze [sic] of their N-African adventure, not fit in your
>picture?

Don't follow the intent of this question.  My "picture" was to illustrate the
fact that the P-40 as a piece of equipment, when flown within its performance
envelope,  was not outclassed as a piece of equipment by the Me 109.  Stand by
that statement.
As for the USAAF having a very hard time in "their North African adventure" (as
did the U.S. Army in general), it has long been noted that the learning curve
of the Americans was exponential, and astonished both the British and the
Germans, neither of whom expected much from the Americans after witnessing
their first few combats.

>Why can't there be some more objectivity in these posts[?]

Objectivity on Usenet--in Newsgroups?  Surely, you jest.

>For every book or pilot quote you can make stating one thing, the idea
>you support, you can often find as many that repute it.

Ain't it the truth?  That's where critical judgement comes in handy.   It also
helps to be aware of your own prejudices and your own emotional attachment to a
subject.  Many young men who idolize the Nazi regime or elements of it (such as
the Luftwaffe) do so as a means of ego identification with a symbol of power.
The high school kid who is never picked when P.E. classes divide into teams
often has a collection of Nazi memoribilia at home.  Ditto the kid with a
dominating parent, or the person with a low-level, dead-end job.  Not always
the case, of course, and don't mean to imply this description applies to you,
but it is a common enough phenomenon to have long been noted as a routine
neurosis by psychotherapists.

>Luftwaffe and JG53 webpage
>"How good bad reasons and bad music sound
>    when we march against an enemy."

Good God!

From: cdb100620@aol.com (CDB100620)
Subject: Re: P-38 - Best piston engine fighter ?
Date: 20 Jan 1998
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military

> [Me 109] G-2/6 had considerable speed advantage [over the P-40].

This is certainly true at altitude--especially above 25,000 ft. or so.  But on
the deck not a lot of difference.  The Me 109 came into its own at altitude,
and that is why it was able to perform effectively as an interceptor of 8AF
heavies, a role that the P-40 would have been very poor at.  But a 109 forced
to fight on the P-40's terms basically had no advantages.  The 109 vs. P-40
battles in the MTO illustrate how important tactics and pilot skill are--even
more important than the airplane (as long as comparative performance is more or
less in the ball park).  Skilled German 109 pilots using generally good
air-to-air tactics were able to trash a significant portion of the Curtiss P-40
production run when they faced ill-trained British colonial pilots using poor
tactics.
When skilled American P-40 pilots using generally good tactics encountered
poorly trained German and Italian 109  pilots, they were able to knock them out
of the air fairly easily.

From: cdb100620@aol.com (CDB100620)
Subject: Re: P-38 - Best piston engine fighter ?
Date: 24 Jan 1998
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military

>RAAF was very keen to get rid of their P-40's  in the African desert and
>replace them with Spitfires

No doubt.

It's worth noting that, just as today people debate the merits of various WWII
fighter types, sometimes becoming quite vehement, the same was true during the
war, with some American fighter groups refusing to give up their cherished
mounts for "superior" replacements, and some groups that were forced to
relenquish their old steeds for a supposedly better type having dismal luck
with the new machines.  Then there were groups that hated the plane they were
assigned, did poorly with it, and pined for a replacement.  When they got a new
fighter type, they sometimes scored quite well with it.
The classic example is the 9FS of the 49FG forced much against its will to
trade in its beloved P-38s for P-47s.   At the time of the trade, the 9th was
the highest scoring USAAF outfit in the Pacific.  But for the entire six months
it was equipped with the P-47, the unit scored only 8 confirmed kills and fell
to third place in the ranking.  In the same theater, however, the 348FG,
equipped with P-47s, did an outstanding job, the CO Neel Kearby downing almost
as many e/a on one mission as the entire 9FS did during six months.
If a pilot didn't have confidence in his airplane, he would not succeed.  I
suspect the RAAF and SAAF pilots in North Africa had their confidence shaken
very early on.  A change of aircraft could have done wonders for their
outlook--and their actual success.

Here is some information on how the 325FG during its P-40 period scored its
successes in the MTO (aircraft destroyed are air-to-air only):

no. e/a destroyed       mission type                no. aircraft lost

42                         bomber escort            15
28                         fighter-bomber            3
31                         straffing                 8
43                         fighter sweep             9

It can be seen from this that bomber escort was the most dangerous asignment.
This was largely due to the policy in force in the MTO requiring close fighter
escort of the bombers.  This was particularly hard on the P-40, because the
plane had a poor rate of climb and not the best rate of acceleration.  Enemy
aircraft had the advantage of maneuvering at altitude above the allied
formation and making high-speed diving attacks against both the bombers and
their escorts.  In the SWPA, USAAF P-40 escorts were never constrained to close
escort and were thus much less vulnerable to the attentions of enemy
interceptors.
The kills the P-40s of the 325 made against Axis fighters during bomber escort
missions were the result primarily of two actions:  diving after the already
diving e/a, overhauling it and shooting it down--demonstrating the superior
diving ability of the Curtiss; or engaging in a classic turning dogfight and
besting the opponent--demonstrating the superior roll rate and tighter turning
circle of the P-40.

In debating the success of various fighter types, mission constraints, tactics
pilot skill and pilot morale all have to be factored in.
Nor should maintenance efficiency be left out.  A classic example of this is
the Ki-61, a good fighter the Japanese apparently spent very little time
training support personnel to maintain.  As a consequence, it became
notoriously unreliable in the field, with the result that pilot morale fell
drastically, and reports exist indicating some Japanese pilots refusing to fly
it, demanding instead the Ki-43, an aircraft of much inferior performance and
firepower.

From: cdb100620@aol.com (CDB100620)
Subject: Re: P-38 - Best piston engine fighter ?/Better than Me 109
Date: 24 Jan 1998
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military

>Som e things have beeen written in this newsgroup about the Me109G.
>Some where some body claimed that it was an effective high altitude
>bomber interceptor. I think that is not the case.
>
>

Very good descriptions of the weaknesses of the 109.

The comment about the 109 being an effective high altitude bomber interceptor
was in comparison to the P-40.  Performance of the P-40E and K  fell off
rapidly above 18,000 ft.; above about 20,000 for the F and above about 22,000
ft or so for the N.  (The F had the Packard Merlin with a single-stage
two-speed mech. supercharger and the N was significantly lightened.  The K had
more power than the E, but began pooping out at about the same altitude as the
E.  However, it could carry a bigger bomb load--the E a 500 lber and the K and
1,000 lber over the same range.
On the E or K, 22,000 ft. could be achieved with reasonable performance, but
above that full throttle would barely manage to keep the airplane flying
slightly faster than stalling speed. Raising the nose ever so slightly--or even
firing the guns while straight and level--could knock it into a stall,
depending on how good the engine was running that day and how good the pilot's
reactions were.  It took some careful stick handling to wheeze up above 25,000
ft.  It was done, too, with 49FG P-40s intercepting Japanese bombers above that
altitude.  Pilots flying the N model were able to intercept and shoot down
Dinah recon planes flying at 31,000 ft., but only after long chases.  But no
model P-40 was in its element at those altitudes.  The 109 could at least
operate in the 25,000 to 28,000 ft. environment with some degree of performance
margin.  The best the P-40 could do was hope to be above its foe and in
position to make a diving attack.  Were it attacked at that altitude, if the
P-40 driver was not sufficiently quick to recognize the danger and dive away,
he was in serious trouble.  On one raid over Darwin, P-40Es were at 26,000 ft.
positioning themselves to attack Japanese bombers at 22,000 ft. when they were
hit by the Zero escort diving from above.  The Curtiss machines were helpless
to counter a fighter threat at that altitude and three P-40s went down
immediately, the greatest single loss of the entire Darwin campaign.  My guess
is that an Me 109 at 26,000 ft. would have had a better chance against the
Zero.
 But maybe not.  The Zero was an airplane best never underestimated.

From: cdb100620@aol.com (CDB100620)
Subject: Re: P-38 - Best piston engine fighter ?/Better than Me 109
Date: 27 Jan 1998
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military

>Did the performance of P-40 really drop that quickly at altitude?

Yes.  Critical altitude for the P-40, depending on model, ranged between 18,000
and 22,000 ft.
The N could do all right in the c.22-5,000 ft. range, and routinely escorted
B-24s in the Pacific, but the Curtiss  was really not at its best at the higher
altitudes.  It could do yeoman work at low cover, however, and did fine at
escorting A-20, B-25s and B-26s.

A full power climb in a P-40 would fairly quickly overheat the engine, forcing
the pilot to level out, throttle back and hum a showtune until the gauges
dropped back to normal range.  At the E's critical altitude of 18,000 ft., it
would climb at only 800 fpm or so.  The higher the P-40 climbed, the harder it
was to keep it straight and level, and the slower and slower it went.  At 26 or
27,000 ft., an E might only be indicating 90 mph.
The P-40E was better than the comparable P-39 (D&F), which could not struggle
above about 23,000 ft., and was so unstable above 20,000 ft. that a very steady
and careful hand on the stick was needed to keep it from dropping out of even a
gentle turn.
The N was a whole different bird from the E, being substantially lightened, and
could run rings around the E.  Pilots who flew the N thought it was a really
hot ship--until they strapped into a P-38 or P-47.

From: erikavg@ix.netcom.com(Erik Shilling)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: P-40B AIR-TO-AIR AT "THE AERONUT"
Date: 28 Sep 1998 16:10:43 GMT

In <19980927180420.21912.00002873@ng99.aol.com> benl10@aol.com (BenL
10) writes:
>
>
>>From: albatrosdv@aol.com (Albatrosdv)
>>Date: Sat, Sep 26, 1998 19:57 EDT
>>Message-id: <19980926195747.12886.00002524@ng126.aol.com>
>>
>>
>>There are eight photos of yesterday's flight of the P-40B recently
>>restored by fighter Rebuilders.  The airplane was in Flying Tiger
>>markings, and this is the only photo flight it will ever make in those
>>markings.  It goes back to England later this year, to be painted in
>>Russian markings.
>>
>>http://members.aol.com/aerialnut/photos.html - >click "A Tiger In The Sky"
>
>Those are great shots of the Tomahawk in AVG markings of # 71 ! If you
>have Pistole's:  The Pictorial history of the Flying Tigers, you can see
>the demise of the original #71.  On March 10, 1942 a flight of 5 P-40s
>ran out of fuel outside Loiwing and were forced to land after being
>redirected from Lashio on a false alarm.  Tomahawk #71 came in hard,
>piloted by Ed Overend and flipped over on it's back, two others were also
>washed out completely. While Eric Shilling and others flew this
>particular P-40 due to surplus of pilots, #71 had Ed Overend's name by
>the cockpit.

Last Friday, which was September 25, I had a most pleasant
surprise. I was invited down to the Planes of Fame Museum at Chino
California. I was told that Steve Hinton's restoration company had
finished restoring the P-40C for the Duxford Museum in England, and
would I like to see it.

When I arrived, there in front of the hangar sat a beautiful P-40C
perfect in every detail. A flood of memories rushed through my mind
reminding me of the wonderful Flying Tiger days of some 57 years
ago. Memories that had faded almost into obscurity were now
awakedend. It was almost like yesterday, as I stared at the awesome
beauty of the P-40, and in my minds eye I started reliving the
experience of Burma and China.

I recalled many sad times, some were of the men that had been
killed, but for the most part it was overshadowed by the wonderful
experiences my comrades and I had shared during those carefree days
of our youth. Standing there and looking at the Curtiss Hawk, I'm
convinced it was the prettiest fighter ever built.

Much to my surprise it was painted in the Flying Tiger's motif of
the 3rd Pursuit Squadron. To top it off, its number was 71, with my
name E. Shilling, painted below the cockpit. Initially No. 53 had
been my aircraft and after I had converted No. 53 to the Photo
ship, I was assigned to No. 71 which I shared with Ed Overend.

Sitting in the cockpit I found that with my eyes closed, I was
still able to touch every control as though it were only yesterday
since I had flown one. Of special interest was the history of this
airplane. It was P-40C initially assigned to the 20th Pursuit
Group, and not an export version of the Curtiss Hawk. Other than
early in the war, I'm not sure when it had been transferred to
Russia. It had also been shot down early in the war and in a rather
cold climate was fairly well preserved. It was purchased by someone
in England, and shipped to the United States to be restored by
Steve Hinton's restoration company here in Chino California.

Because of those few who vehementally clung to the believe that the
model airplane the AVG's flew was a C, I was especially interested
in checking the model. I carefully check the airplane over, and I
ran across the proof I needed which reinforced my contention that
we in the AVG, flew the B model.

In all fairness to those who refer to restored Russian P-40 a "B"
model. It was a "C" model, but during the restoration it was restored
to the B configuration. Bomb shackels were removed, there are NO self
sealing fuel tanks, and the fuel system for the belly tank has been
eliminated, although the fuel selector placard still indicates a
belly tank position.

There is no external difference between the B and C, and the
difference is quite sublte unless you have flown either of the two
models. Sitting in the cockpit there are three things that will
tell the pilot which model P-40 he is in. The fuel selector valve
for the P-40C has an additional position which allows the pilot to
select the Belly tank. The Model B does not have a belly tank,
therefore no belly tank position. Also the C model had a belly tank
release to drop before engaging in combat. Also the C unlike the B
has bomb release handle and the B does not. Also when doing the
pre-flight inspection, the pilot opens the baggage compartment to
check for loose articles and look for oil and fuel leaks before
getting into the cockpit. The external sealing material was easily
seen during this inspection. Therefore anyone who has flown either
model P-40 would know the difference, and I find it rather
irrational for anyone to argue with a pilot he didn't know model P-
40 he was flying.

After many picture were taken with me in the cockpit, and looking
the plane over, a photo session was scheduled, using a B-25 as the
photo plane. I was given the honor of sitting in the bombardier
seat. Setting there when I saw the P-40 approaching I had an
unusual experience. For the first time I could see it through the
eyes of a Japanese as it bore down on them. It was not what I
expected. Looking at the P-40 with its snarling shark's teeth
coming in, I saw an awesome sight. It appeared as an intimidating,
frightening, deadly monster. I wondered if the Japanese had seen it
the way I now had viewed it. I had flown in formation with the  P-
40 for many hours, but never did I think of it in this light as I
did riding in a bomber over California.

This brings me to a related story about a B-25 in China. Nearing
the end of our contract, one of our AVG pilots shot down a B-25. In
a way it was not entirely his fault, and being a Navy pilot had
never seen a B-25. He did check with operations control, and asked
if we had any two engine twin tailed bomber in the area. Assured
that we hadn't he shot it down. Fortunately there were no
casualties other wounded ego and the loss of the B-25. Of further
interest was during the debriefing of the bomber crew they claimed
they were attacked by a Jap fighter plane.

I am off to Midland Texas, where the Flying Tigers will be inducted
as a unit into the CAF's Hall of Fame. Upon my return I will be
posting some of the picture or both event on my web site. until
then.

All The Best
Erik Shilling