Letters - Submit

Aviation History

Correction

Subscribe Today

• Did you enjoy our article?
• Read more in Aviation History magazine
• Subscribe online and save nearly 40%!!!
 

The painting used on the cover of the July 2000 issue of Aviation History, Robert Taylor’s Home Run, was incorrectly credited in the table of contents. The cover credit should have read: The Military Gallery, Ojai, Calif. (detail). We regret the error.

P-40s Defended

Robert Guttman did a good job on the P-40 story in the May issue. I didn’t think the “far from the best” subhead was really called for, but then he never flew the bird.

I flew every model but the F and L, several in combat. That includes the notorious “alphabet soup” P-40 put together from wrecks by 75th Fighter Squadron mechanics in 1944. As I recall, the fuselage was from a P-40E, one wing from a K and one from an M. Other components represented yet other marks. It was a bit cranky, but it flew. I put two or three missions on it.

Mr. Guttman denigrates the P-40 because the Japanese Zero could out-turn and outclimb it. He fails to mention that the Zero could out-turn and outclimb any Allied fighter whatever, even including the fabled Spitfire. RAF guys had to swallow their pride and learn from Claire Channault, of the American Volunteer Group, how to fight the Japanese.

I do think some mention should have been made of the P-40 as a fighter-bomber. In that capacity it was the best the U.S. Army Air Forces had, right up to the end of the war. Sure, the P-47 could carry more weight and take more punishment–but it used twice as much gas and needed twice as much runway.

The P-40 could carry anything you could hang on it, and was a solid dive-bombing and strafing platform. Unlike the P-51 (let alone the P-39!), the Warhawk could absorb unlimited groundfire from the cockpit back, where the great majority of hits occurred. And unlike the P-51, the P-40 could be safely bellied in when the chips were down and the wheels weren’t.

For me, the real thoroughbred quality of that airplane showed through in the intangibles. The old Warhawk always had that little bit extra to give you when you had to have it.

Please don’t take this letter as carping criticism. You do a great job and put out a great magazine. Keep up the good work.

David Rust
Woodville, Texas

The editor responds: Thanks for writing. I particularly like to hear from those who “were there.” And it’s great to have a letter from a P-40 pilot who sticks up for one of our great warbirds.

As a historian who has a special interest in the air war of World War II, I would like to compliment your fine magazine. I especially enjoyed Robert Guttman’s article concerning the Curtiss P-40. It is my belief that aviation writers have shortchanged the P-40. This led me to think that the P-40 was the best Army Air Corps fighter at the beginning of the war but was inferior to the RAF Hurricane. But when I was doing graduate work on my master’s thesis on the American RAF ace Lance Wade, I found that both the British and the Germans considered the P-40 superior to the Hurricane. In an effort to cut pilot losses, the RAF wanted to replace the Hurricanes of No. 33 Squadron with P-40s. German pilots commented that the P-40s were more dangerous in turning combat than the Hurricane.

Michael D. Montgomery
Haughton, La.

The editor responds: Thank you for your kind comments about our magazine and Robert Guttman’s P-40 piece. The P-40 has always been a favorite of mine, and I never did like to hear it being knocked. Glad to hear your findings about how it was respected by the enemy.

The Wildcat’s Guns

On page 12 of the May issue of Aviation History (”People and Planes”), Captain Swede Vejtasa relates that “he especially appreciated the higher firepower [of the Wildcat (F4F)]–six .50-caliber machine guns that could be fired together or in pairs.” I have flown both the F4F and the General Motors FMs, none of which had more than four guns.

Help HistoryNet by bookmarking to