Some specific RAF P-40 questions

[thierry laurent]

Hi,

 

I've some questions regarding the Kittyhawks I/IA used in North Africa.

 

1. I've a color picture showing filled in MG muzzles with a kind of red wax/dope. The same picture also seems to show that the MG chute holes were closed with paper or newspaper(?). Can anybody confirm this?

 

2. Initial Kittyhawks correspond to the P-40D (AK571 / AK591 RAF sn). Hence, they would have been four machine guns models before switching to the six gun aircraft. However, wartime pictures of RAF airplanes including ones in this range (such as AK578 used by Neville Duke) only show 6 mg planes. I guess this means a change intervened somewhere before the final delivery to units.

 

3. According to Dana Bell, the P-40E left the factory in crates without any insignia. Markings were included in the crates with a quart of decal lacquer for each airframe. This implies that the appropriate markings were to be applied only when the aircraft was assembled in combat theater depots. I guess this explains why the British Kitties seem to have so few stencils even on the DuPont brown areas that were not repainted. I think that the British sn, fin flash and roundels were applied before Middlestone/Azure blue repaint in field maintenance areas. Otherwise this would not be logical to see the sn on Dark Green oblong areas and part of the fuselage roundel overpainted with Middle Stone on different airframes. Any insight?

 

4.Kittyhawk I decal instruction sheets state that codes were white whereas I've one color picture that clearly shows that the color is azure blue. However, the plane is a Kittyhawk III. Does this means the code color changed in the meanwhile?

 

5. It is commonly stated that British P-40 used the Sutton Harness. Is this correct as I've yet to find one picture that shows this clearly (and I've checked in more than twelve P-40 books!). I know that other harnesses such as the Q one were used as well. Hence, I'm wondering...

 

6. BTW, I've also read somwhere that Tomahawks built to British specifications (also used by the AVG) used a different type of seat that looked like the P-51B seat...!

 

TIA for any info.

 

Thierry

[Kahunaminor]

Thierry,

 

In relation to question 2

There were very few P-40D's made and I recall reading that whilst only four guns were fitted, the hardware and mounting points for all six were still present (although the guns themselves were absent). This may appear to make six guns but there were only four. I think this was in the Squadron P-40 walkaround or in action ( I don't have them to hand). I also think that they may have been requipped with the extra two guns at the request of the pilots, particularly Duke I think, as well. I am sure somebody who has more knowledge will be along shortly. You might also try over at Aussie Modeller http://www.aussiemodeller.com/pages/discus...roup/forum.html as a few of the guys, Peter Malone and Gary Byk for example over there specialise in Desert P-40's.

 

You might also try here: http://www.p40warhawk.com/index.htm

 

HTH

 

Regards

[csavaglio]

Some thoughts about your questions:

 

IRT #1, red tape was commonly put over gun muzzles to prevent foreign objects from entering the barrels. This would be shot through when the gun was first fired in the air. This is where the expression "cut through the red tape" comes from. It is entirely possible that other materials were used, but I've never heard of or seen it. I would assume that because of the environment (lots of fine sand) that it would be good to keep sand out of the chutes as well, which would help keep the sand out of the gun compartments.

 

As far as the others, specifically the harness and colors, the North Africa theater wasn't the best supplied, so it's possible that details changed often, many times with no consistency to S/N or type. Something like the color of the codes would depend on which depot painted it, what supply of paint they had, who painted it, who interpreted the directive, who cared about the directive, etc.

 

Another thing to note about RAF P-40s is the pitot tube. I'm not sure if it carries over, but P-40B/C's had a different style of pitot tube than the US ones.

 

Chris

[Edgar Brooks]

This is where the expression "cut through the red tape" comes from.

Er, no, 'fraid not; the expression has a legal background. Legal documents are often tied together with red ribbon; "cutting through the red tape" means dispensing with any delaying tactics, and getting to the heart of the problem.

Gun muzzles, generally, were covered with self-adhesive fabric patches (like sticking plasters - which, during emergencies, were sometimes pressed into service,) which could be almost any colour (there are blue and white versions visible in some photos,) and were then clear doped.

It was common practice, during the Battle of Britain, for armourers to paste newspaper over the ejection slots, so the practice could easily have carried over to other Squadrons.

. American harnesses were usually (can't guarantee always, but it seems likely) replaced by the Sutton (the infamous so-called "Q" harness, as far as I can discover, was only fitted to the Tempest, during the war.) I've looked at several Daily Inspection Schedules, for American aircraft used by the RAF, and all ask the rigger to check the "pin & triangle for cracking and distortion," and that can only apply to the Sutton.

Edgar

[thierry laurent]

Thanks!

 

The color picture I mentioned is in the Roger Freeman book "The Royal Air Force of WW2 in color". I'm not absolutely sure this is newspaper but this is probably paper. I think I'll use copies of 1/35 newspaper. Edgar, any info regarding the color of tape normally used by the field crews: a brown one?

 

Thanks for the Sutton pic. Regarding the harness, I think I'll finally put a Sutton. I guess that nobody will demonstrate easily I'm wrong! There was an article on Hyperscale about this topic but the link is unfortunately broken for some years.

 

In the meanwhile, I indeed found that the third MG station was ready to be used and the muzzle aperture was simply closed by a small plate in the wing edge. Hence, it was easy to add the missing MG.

 

Finally, Curtiss changed its painting policy for export planes in 1942 and the RAF standardized as well the painting process of its Desert Air Force planes. This means that Kittyhawk II and III colors are obviously different. Hence, this may as well apply to a code color change. I'll use white.

 

Thierry

[Edgar Brooks]

I can't say, for sure, in what colour the patches started out, since they appear to have been pre-painted, somewhere, but white would be my choice, since they could easily have been the same material as used for standard covering, which was Irish linen, (a creamy colour,) or Egyptian cotton, which is pure white. American Spitfires, in Italy, seem to have used white patches (they could have been painted white, of course,) while the RAF, in the desert, had them in blue. Thinking a bit more, on the subject, U.S. P-51s appear to have used a (rubber?) bung, which went into the l/e hole, so maybe the P-40s used the same idea?

We've all probably heard the apochryphal story of condoms being used on 20mm cannon (maybe in a dire emergency - rather fitting, when you come to think what condoms are designed to prevent,) but we have to wonder if red condoms were available in 1942, and, also, the cannon covers had squared-off ends (I think I'll leave it, there.)

Edgar

[thierry laurent]

Thanks for the info!

 

BTW, there is a picture in the Detail & scale showing a US Warhawk with paper sheets on the ammo chute holes!

 

I discovered another difference between the US and British P-40s: early Kittyhawks used a different bomb support with sway braces located further, near the tail of the plane. However, finding a good picture of this device is another matter... :-(

[Kahunaminor]

Thanks for the info!

 

BTW, there is a picture in the Detail & scale showing a US Warhawk with paper sheets on the ammo chute holes!

 

I discovered another difference between the US and British P-40s: early Kittyhawks used a different bomb support with sway braces located further, near the tail of the plane. However, finding a good picture of this device is another matter... :-(

 

 

Thierry,

Try the Australian War Memorial website: http://www.awm.gov.au/ and see if they have some photos.

 

Regards,

 

Kent

[thierry laurent]

Thanks a lot Kent!

 

Indded, I found some interesting pictures on this site.

 

This will also help me to illustrate some of the comments. Look and you'll see the difference I mentioned regarding the bomb supports. I used pictures of two 112sq Kittyhawks taken from a similar angle to show the difference. The right one is AK778 is from the initial Kittyhawk I batch (P-40D) whereas the left one (ET790) was from a later IA one (P-40E). Some other initial batch airframes (such as Neville Duke AK578) had no support on the known pictures. Consequently, I suspect that the bomb shackles were field installed on the first batch whereas they were standard on the later ones.

 

I also enclosed two other pictures showing the use of the Sutton harness in Kittyhawks. The first one shows a Kittyhawk II of the RAAF 450Sq in Malta (circa July 43) whereas the other shows a RAAF Kittyhawk I of the 76sq in New Guinea (circa July 42).

 

Regards.

[Kahunaminor]

Thanks a lot Kent!

 

Indded, I found some interesting pictures on this site.

 

This will also help me to illustrate some of the comments. Look and you'll see the difference I mentioned regarding the bomb supports. I used pictures of two 112sq Kittyhawks taken from a similar angle to show the difference. The right one is AK778 is from the initial Kittyhawk I batch (P-40D) whereas the left one (ET790) was from a later IA one (P-40E). Some other initial batch airframes (such as Neville Duke AK578) had no support on the known pictures. Consequently, I suspect that the bomb shackles were field installed on the first batch whereas they were standard on the later ones.

 

I also enclosed two other pictures showing the use of the Sutton harness in Kittyhawks. The first one shows a Kittyhawk II of the RAAF 450Sq in Malta (circa July 43) whereas the other shows a RAAF Kittyhawk I of the 76sq in New Guinea (circa July 42).

 

Regards.

 

Glad I was able to help. You will also notice the different pitot tube on the two a/c.

 

Regards,

 

Kent

[Edgar Brooks]

Hello

as to the tape covering the gun ports, we spoke of this the other night at the model club, one of our older member was a photographic fitter in the RAF during the war and added that the tape he saw was red in colour and came on a roll as edgar said like large sticking plasters and the armourer after cleaning and loading the guns would rip of a section and press is over the barrel end, keeping dust and sand and also helping to prevent freezing, the colour he said was almost a brick red which would account for the patches over ports that look well yes brick red and in close up film you see the tattered remains around the edges as it fires,

if it has a sutton harness has this then been through a depot on the way to the front? or were this factory fitted to RAF specs?

That information should be communicated to every modelling magazine's editor, worldwide; it might put a stop to the "red doped" reports, which proliferate. Get a loudspeaker, and stand outside Telford, this year.

From various sources, it seems that all American a/c were fitted with American harnesses, in the factory, probably because they had no idea who the end-user would be. Contrary to some reports, deliveries usually went to a distribution unit/M.U., for unpacking and erection, and it was probably there that the harness would have been changed, before the ATA collected it and carried out the delivery.

Edgar

[thierry laurent]

Thanks! Very interesting info.

 

There was some misunderstanding regarding my tape question! I was refering to the tape used to stick the paper on the wing underside! Or was it simply some glue?

 

I found additional info regarding the bomb pylon. The Squadron walkaround booklet has two pictures showing a field-created bomb launcher attached to the tank pylon. It also confirmed my theory that initial Kittyhawks I were not equiped to launch bombs. According to the Kagero MTO book, Clive Caldwell was one of the pioneers testing bomb launching from a P-40. The main problem lies in the need to avoid the propeller during the lauch (for quite obvious reasons!). The launcher prototype showed in the Squadron book was quite cumbersome and complex. It was built to lower the bomb position and ease the release. However, I'm sure this device created a lot of drag. I guess this is why they finally re-located the field-made pylon further. Pictures of the prototype rail in the Squadron book and pictures showing the final field modification (such as the one I published here) seem to show the same rail. I'm nonetheless still wondering regarding the sway braces as I'm not sure they were identical...

 

I really wanted to add a bomb (the Tamiya Spit ones are ideal) but I'm not so sure I'll do it! I opened another can of worms...

 

BTW, I assembled the RB Sutton set some weeks ago. Jeez!!! I know now I may do complex origamis...

[Out2gtcha]

Question for those in the know here.......

 

Thinking about starting a RAAF P-40.

As Edgar stated, if the harnesses they replaced the US belts with were not the infamous "Q" harnesses, would the Sutton "A" Harness be closer to what they replaced the US belts with?

 

Id love to use Radu's belts here but the Q and A Suttons are all that are offered, and im not knowledgeable enough about them to know which would be more appropriate.

 

Thanks in advance,

Brian

[Kahunaminor]

Question for those in the know here.......

 

Thinking about starting a RAAF P-40.

As Edgar stated, if the harnesses they replaced the US belts with were not the infamous "Q" harnesses, would the Sutton "A" Harness be closer to what they replaced the US belts with?

 

Id love to use Radu's belts here but the Q and A Suttons are all that are offered, and im not knowledgeable enough about them to know which would be more appropriate.

 

Thanks in advance,

Brian

 

Brian,

 

It is my understanding (which I may have gotten confused) that it would very much depend on which model P-40 you were looking to build. The early E's (Kittyhawk 1/1A etc) which only had the unfavourable US two point belt fitted as standard had these replaced with the Sutton harnesses. Radu's "QK" harness would be okay for this. I believe the later M's and N's (Kittyhawk III and IV) as a general rule retained the US harness as it had been altered to a four point harness and thus were acceptable to the powers that be and the pilots. I might suggest you ask over at Aussie Modeller and see if Peter Malone can advise you further.

 

HTH

 

Regards