|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Oct 15, 2024 6:11:50 GMT 12
...and also found a beautiful shot of P-40K-10 NZ3052 at Ohakea - with a lovely number '12' on rear fuselage! She was 'OD-12' then. Where is this photo please? |
|
|
|
Post by Antonio on Oct 15, 2024 7:40:02 GMT 12
...and also found a beautiful shot of P-40K-10 NZ3052 at Ohakea - with a lovely number '12' on rear fuselage! She was 'OD-12' then. Where is this photo please? These ones from AFMoNZ  2001-093.3L  2001-093.3n |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Oct 15, 2024 7:56:07 GMT 12
Oh yip, I remember them now.
|
|
|
|
Post by A4k on Oct 15, 2024 9:50:33 GMT 12
Brilliant Antonio, cheers!
I hadn't seen that bottom one, just found a slightly cropped version of the top shot at AirHistory.net
|
|
|
|
Post by Antonio on Oct 15, 2024 16:26:49 GMT 12
There is a third one as well: Note the replacement engine cover still in original camouflage pattern  2001-093.3m |
|
|
|
Post by A4k on Oct 15, 2024 18:04:17 GMT 12
Great photo, thanks mate.
|
|
|
|
Post by Antonio on Oct 16, 2024 16:10:12 GMT 12
in the 70s or possibly the 80s, Wings Magazine published a drawing showing the profiles of the P-40 models that we operated.
This was in the modelling section.
I saved it but for the live of me, I cannot find it.
Anyone able to help?
|
|
|
|
Post by A4k on Oct 16, 2024 18:40:29 GMT 12
Never saw that one sorry.
|
|
|
|
Post by camtech on Oct 16, 2024 19:37:50 GMT 12
July 1980, I think. One page of "Modelwings".
I'll try to copy it for you.
|
|
|
|
Post by camtech on Oct 16, 2024 19:46:08 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by A4k on Oct 16, 2024 22:33:35 GMT 12
Thanks Antonio and Camtech!
I never knew that detail about the difference in the exhausts. Always learning something :-)
As the exhausts of the Rukuhia bird I'm researching appear to be fishtails, I'm going to go out on a limb and say she's P-40K-15 NZ3060.
I just can't say for definite if she was coded OD-'9' or not...NZDF-Serials say she was coded '9' in the Pacific (photos found back this up), and likewise 'coded 9' in service with 4 OTU. I 'assume' they mean her 'OD' number was '9' aswell, but I can't prove or disprove it. We keep searching...
On close inspection of available stbd side images of her at Rotten row, she does appear to have the remains of a number with 3 horizontal lines (2,3,5,6,8 or 9) but the verticals aren't so obvious. I would need to see a clearer image to say for sure.
My personal feeling is a '3' or a '9'. The '9' of course would tick all the boxes and put this puppy to bed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Antonio on Oct 17, 2024 7:51:14 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by davidd on Oct 17, 2024 8:38:49 GMT 12
In the side-view sketches of differences between various P-40 models, one is missing - the P-40K-1 variant, the short-fuselage model with a fin "fillet" which extended leading edge of fin forward to give a unique, and to my eye, rather ugly sillhouette. Some (all?) late-production P-40E-1s also featured this fillet. And there were two of these (P-40K-1s) in RNZAF service, acquired in Tonga of course, although one was written off (by a flight commander I recall) in Tonga prior to getting an "NZ" serial number. The other was of course the one that became 3108. Also there seems to be a movement spreading around the world to re-name the air filter cover fitted on both sides of the upper nose cowling of all later P-40 models (directly forward of the exhaust stubs) as "grills". Their proper name makes a lot more sense in my opinion, although this is based on it describing its purpose rather than appearance. However I agree that fishtail or flared exhausts are suitable names for the purpose of elaboration.
|
|
|
|
Post by A4k on Oct 17, 2024 10:34:23 GMT 12
That's true David - They forgot the K-1, but added the L-1, only one of which we received (NZ3074) by mistake, and returned to be replaced by the K-1s!
The K-1 tail was quite ugly too for the fairly sharp angles in the leading edge. Very distinctive, but not pretty.
I didn't know about the late model Es having the fin fillet. Interesting.
|
|
|
|
Post by davidd on Oct 17, 2024 16:18:17 GMT 12
Yes, photos of these ugly fins on P-40Es exist, but I have never found out if these were "original" on the production line, or if they were retro-fitted at a later date. I have never made any attempt to sort this out as photos of these late E models are not that common. If anyone can find a photo of an early "E" with the modified fin, that would raise the possibility that it was retrofitted.
The earlier P-40s were prone to rolling (cannot remember in which direction) during a medium dive at speed - Bryan Cox hilighted this characteristic in one of his books, and I have also read in the pilots' notes of other types of aircraft that these could have very similar characteristics. These facts were also mentioned in the P-40 pilots' notes too, so nobody should have been surprised by these tricks. That stated, it is often a surprise to people that the RNZAF was often left with just a very few sets of pilots' notes when new types were introduced, so most pilots were lucky to get those photographically reproduced cards with a few notes on engine limitations and some lists of actions prior to take off, some flight limitations, and actions prior to landing - it seems as if it never crossed anybodies minds that these pilots' notes were intended for ALL pilots flying the type (which happened as a matter of course in all larger air forces, so why it was a problem in New Zealand is anybody's guess. However I believe that by the time the Corsair entered service in March 1944, that these problems had been overcome. The first P-40 test flown in NZ in about April 1942 had no no accompaning pilots' notes and the test pilot had some trouble getting it landed. Like many fighter aircraft, apart from fuel load, the heaviest removable equipment carried was the guns and ammunition, and the first Kittyhawk was not fitted with the guns, let alone ammunition, so it was no wonder he got into trouble. Believe it or not, the very first Vampire tested in NZ in 1951 also suffered from the same "problem" (no guns fitted), but I do find it rather difficult to believe when they would have all the technical notes for the aircraft, incluuding eights and balance. Even more surprising was that the test pilot concerned was DH Australia's chief test pilot, brought over for the express purpose of getting all the RNZAF's first batch of Vampires safely into the air, and then back down again. I have always hoped this story was not true, but can anybody confirm it. Of course the Chief Engineer Officer at Hobsonville at the time should have been all over these aircraft too. Sensibly they did not land the Vampires back at Hobsonville, they were taken to Whenuapai for the rest of their running in and testing, then to Ohakea.
Have just checked the RAF Pilots' Notes for the Kitty Hawk Mk. I Aeroplane (as written in AP 2014A, printed by BAC (British Air Commission I believe) July 1941 by the CW (Curtiss Wright) Corp. This is what is written in this publication in Section 2 (Handling and Flying Notes), Paragraph 19 (Diving). Note that this source states that it is yawing to the right rather than rolling - perhaps I should re-look in Bryan Cox's book - I seem to recall that this was when he was at Ohakea during his OTU training, and dived on a local church or town hall, and considerably frightened himself.
The maximun permissible diving speed is 460 IAS.
The maximum permissible diving revs are 3120.
As speed increases, the aircraft tends to yaw to the right and it is necessary to overcome this by the application of rudder bias. The lateral trim also tends to change during the dive, depending on the position of the aileron tab.
With the C of G in the aft position, there is no appreciable change of fore and aft trim as speed increases, and stick loads during the first part of the recovery are very heavy. Tab may be used to help overcome this, but if this is done, the greatest care must be exercised to avoid pulling out too quickly during the final recovery and thereby exerting undue strain on the aircraft.
Before entering a dive -
(i) Propeller into COARSE pitch.
(ii) Throttle to be set approcimately 1/4 open.
Special Note: The RAF actually spelled this aircraft's name as Kittyhawk!
|
|
|
|
Post by davidd on Oct 17, 2024 16:35:39 GMT 12
Something else about the copy of the Kitthy Hawk Mk. I Pilots' Notes that I have in my possession is the list of the three "owners" of this little book.
"S/Ldr Mackenzie, not to be taken away."
"F/Lt J R Hutcheson"
"P D Gifford"
It was the latter who presented me with this valuable publication before he died - it arrived in the mail, out of the blue - how lucky am I? McKenzie and Hutcheson were both flight commanders of 488 Squadron in Singapore (and later 14 Sqdn), and Peter Gifford rose to flight commander in 19 Squadron (and deputy CO) after tours with 14 Squadron in the South and SW Pacific.
|
|
|
|
Post by A4k on Oct 17, 2024 18:11:21 GMT 12
Interesting David, cheers for that.
Re the flying weights sans- armament, I wonder if that affects civilian operators of the types much on the airshow circuit, or if they carry counter weights to compensate?
|
|
