This is for the P-40N experts out there ...

[Scott Hemsley]

In 1/72, the Hasegawa P-40N canopy has a thin frame that bisects the entire length of the canopy, including the sliding 'hood'.  Drawings of RAAF and Dutch P-40N's  in the Pacific, have the frame only bisecting the portion of the canopy behind the sliding hood (which seems logical) and the period photos I've come across with a Google search, are rather inconclusive., either way.    So … which is it?  Can anyone conclusively state the extent of this frame - possibly with a period photo?   

 

Scott

[Mark Joyce]

Yes, it did.  Here's one photo, check bottom right P-40N:

Cheers,

 

Mark

 

 

[LDSModeller]

7 hours ago, Scott Hemsley said:

In 1/72, the Hasegawa P-40N canopy has a thin frame that bisects the entire length of the canopy, including the sliding 'hood'.  Drawings of RAAF and Dutch P-40N's  in the Pacific, have the frame only bisecting the portion of the canopy behind the sliding hood (which seems logical) and the period photos I've come across with a Google search, are rather inconclusive., either way.    So … which is it?  Can anyone conclusively state the extent of this frame - possibly with a period photo?   

 

Scott

Hi Scott,

 

This shot of a an RNZAF P40N at the RNZAF Rukuhia Open Storage

shows the top of the canopy with framing (lower section of the photo)

RNZAF P40N Rukuhia

 

Whilst this photo is not from above, it's close enough to see the (very thin mind you)

upper frame

RNZAF P40N -18 Squadron - Ondonga - November 1943

 

Regards

 

 Alan

PS Mark above beat me to it (very good photo too)

 

 

[alt-92]

10 hours ago, Scott Hemsley said:

So … which is it?  Can anyone conclusively state the extent of this frame

It also depends on the block number (35-CU & 40-CU) apparently. 

[Scott Hemsley]

Thanks, Mark & Alan.  Those photos are just the type I thought I was after.  :-)

 

Now after reading alt-92's response, I did a bit more digging on the subject a/c I'm doing.  Apparently it was originally produced for the USAAF as P-40N-20-CU ,Warhawk s/n 43-23484 … before entering the RCAF inventory late Jan. '44..  Based on alt-92's reply, am I to take it that only the two block numbers he quoted had the frame extended onto the sliding hood?

 

Scott

[Seawinder]

From what I was able to find online, the frame members were internal on at least some planes. I have no idea if/how that would correlate with block numbers.

[alt-92]

25 minutes ago, Seawinder said:

I have no idea if/how that would correlate with block numbers.

@Scott Hemsley : my reply was based on clicking around while looking into this topic:

There might be some overlap wrt research possibilities, one of the links refers to -40-CUs having the canopy change (no good reference, but it did trigger me).

 

Not a P-40 expert, but pictures tend to turn up some interesting things

 

Edited April 25, 2020 by alt-92

[Scott Hemsley]

After some deliberation, I've decided to go with the framing the entire length of the canopy as in the above photos.  Even the few photos I have of the RCAF Kittyhawk IV's are inconclusive, although the angle of one 'suggests' that the framing is there.  However, I did discover (since added) that the Kittyhawk I's (I do possess a overhead photo of my subject, there) did have that centre frame down the middle of the canopy.  That detail may have well escaped me for it not been for this quest.  Thanks to all who responded!

 

 

Scott

[Jackson Duvalier]

P-40Ns are a bit of a worm tin with regard to production blocks and options and I make no pretense at expertise.  Just a warning that P-40N production was about as heterogeneous as could be whilst remaining a single mark.  Some P-40Ns only carried four guns, for instance; some didn't have the trademark P-40N greenhouse and so on.  Check your photos and references!  Here's a basic outline, shamelessly lifted from the world's biggest (cough) "objective" open-source reference site:

 

Quote

P-40N-1, the first 400 aircraft with a lighter structure, 4 wing-mounted MGs, smaller diameter undercarriage tires, aluminum radiators and oil coolers, and head armor.

A civilian P-40N. Note the revised canopy introduced on the N-5.

P-40N-5, 1,100 aircraft with a revised cockpit canopy, 6 wing-mounted MGs, and wing racks for bombs or drop tanks.

P-40N-6, P-40N-5s modified in the field with fuselage mounted cameras for reconnaissance.

P-40N-10, 100 winterized aircraft with 4 wing-mounted MGs.

P-40N-15, 377 aircraft with 6 wing mounted MGs, a relocated battery,[6] and larger wing fuel tanks.

P-40N-16, P-40N-15s modified for reconnaissance.

P-40N-20, 1,523 aircraft with a V-1710-99.

P-40N-25, 500 aircraft with a revised instrument panel and non-metal fuel tanks.

P-40N-26, P-40N-25s modified for reconnaissance.

P-40N-30, 500 aircraft with valve and electrical system changes.

P-40N-35, 500 aircraft with system changes and a new radio

P-40N-40, 220 aircraft with a 1,360 hp V-1710-115 engine, metal covered ailerons, improved fuel tanks, new radio and oxygen system, and flame-dampening exhaust stacks. An order for 780 aircraft was cancelled.

TP-40N, 30 various P-40Ns modified or factory built with a second seat for training purposes.[1] Other known designations included RP-40N-26(TP-40N-25) and P-40N-31 (TP-40N-30).

XP-40N (P-40XN), one P-40N modified with a bubble canopy. Designation was not official.

Hawk 87V and 87W, export versions, 586 built for the RAF as Kittyhawk Mk.IVs. Some were diverted to other allies.

 

[Scott Hemsley]

According to your summary, Jackson … my subject a/c is a Kittyhawk IV (aka P-40N-5), one of several purchased by the RCAF from the USAAF in Alaska.

 

Scott

Edited April 25, 2020 by Scott Hemsley

[Jackson Duvalier]

23 hours ago, Scott Hemsley said:

According to your summary, Jackson … my subject a/c is a Kittyhawk IV (aka P-40N-5), one of several purchased by the RCAF from the USAAF in Alaska.

I can't vouch for total accuracy as I merely lifted that summary from Goodthink-pedia, but it appears the Dash Five block had the transparencies, bomb racks, and gun arrangement most of us typically associate with "P-40N."

 

I'm curious as to how thoroughly an airframe used in Alaska would (or would not) be refinished.  Those birds got weathered something terrible.

[Scott Hemsley]

^{Whatever the case may be, Jackson … your summary caused me to take a long hard look at the limited refs I have for the airframe I'm doing & those bomb racks were there (albeit in shadow, but there, nonetheless).  Thanks for bringing that to my attention … I probably would have missed it, otherwise.}

 

^Scott.

[BS_w]

Quote

P-40N-1, the first 400 aircraft with a lighter structure, 4 wing-mounted MGs, smaller diameter undercarriage tires,

On P40N-1, the wing had provision for six guns. Six were delivered but four mounted only.

The wheels were 30" dia, smaller (27") will be fitted on N-5 and up

[Hornet133]

Quote 'On P40N-1, the wing had provision for six guns. Six were delivered but four mounted only'

 

Make that with some units had only 4 mounted.

 

All RAF and RAAF N-1 airframes that I have seen used 6 wing guns. Most USAAF units reduced the armament to 4 guns BUT for instance 80 FG in Burma had 6 guns mounted on their  N-1 machines.

[BS_w]

the frames at the top of sliding canopy and rear vision are H section

and effective on P40N-5 and up

 

[KRK4m]

Actually a quite different subject, but also for the P-40N experts out there.

Which USAAF P-40 group (there were five of them: 33rd, 57th, 79th, 324th and 325th) in the MTO flown the P-40N variant there?

Are there any pictures known? Were these aircraft really left in NMF or did they sport standard OD/NG scheme. Or maybe even the desert one?

There are numerous pictures known of the RAF and Commonwealth Kittyhawk Mk.IVs from Italy, but the USAAF P-40Ns are some kind of enigma.

Any help will be appreciated

Cheers

Michael

 

[Graham Boak]

I don't know of any photos either, but at ;east the majority of the P-40s flown by the USAAF in the Mediterranean were the Merlin-engined variants.  Did any of these units have the Allison-engined P-40N?

[Mark Joyce]

3 hours ago, KRK4m said:

Which USAAF P-40 group (there were five of them: 33rd, 57th, 79th, 324th and 325th) in the MTO flown the P-40N variant there?

Cheers

Michael

 

Hi Michael,

 

None of those groups flew the P-40N (or M, for that matter), at least not 'operationally."  I have many of the 79th Fighter Group's records and a couple of P-40Ns (and Ks, as well, which the 79th didn't fly operationally) are listed on the 85th Fighter Squadron's rosters for a very short period; they seem to be "passing through," in a sense.  For instance, it shows a P-40N "received from 386th Service Squadron, 58th Service Group" for a week or two.

 

And contrary to the movie "Red Tails," the 99th FS didn't fly P-40Ns either.

 

Two other groups in the MTO, the 27th and 86th, also flew P-40s briefly in the spring of 1944, but as far as I know not the "N."

 

If someone has information otherwise, hopefully they can provide it.  I'm always trying to learn more and more about the specific groups you mention.

 

Cheers,

 

Mark