Talk:Curtiss P-40 Warhawk

message: There is a quote from Drabkin's book in the section on operational history with USSR. It fits the original interview with Golodnikov available online in Russian, but makes a few important mistakes by taking the pilot's words out of context. Here is the quote as given in this wiki article:
The radio was also good. It was powerful, reliable, but only on HF (high frequency). The American radios did not have hand microphones but throat microphones. These were good throat mikes: small, light and comfortable.
I realize that this must be the translation supplied in the book by the author, but there are two serious issues with this, and both could lead a reader to wider, incorrect implications about Soviet fighter pilots in WWII. Here is the source for this specific quote (archive of interviews on airforce.ru).
====Why only HF?====
First, the erroneous juxtaposition of "it was powerful, reliable, but only on high frequencies". This should not read as the radio was only powerful and reliable at HF; instead, it is the segue into the next part. In it, the pilot tells the interviewer that since half of the regiment still had Hurricanes which had UHF radios, the regiment commander (Safonov, an ace and a Hero of the Soviet Union) had to install a UHF radio inside his personal P-40, in order to be able to talk to any combinations of his subordinates. They further discuss that this was not a major problem since the radio only added about 40 pounds to the takeoff weight. Here is the original quote:
Радиостанция была хорошей. Мощной, надежной, но на КВ. Сафонов, когда на «томахаук» сел, то он ведь «харрикейновскую» станцию себе поставил, потому, что половина полка еще на «Харрикейнах» летала, а там рации УКВ были. Так и летал с двумя станциями.
Radio [in a P-40] was good. Powerful, reliable, only HF, though. When Safonov transitioned to his Tomahawk, he made sure to have a radio from a Hurricane installed as well, because half the regiment still flew Hurricanes, which used UHF. So he flew with two radios.
This means that the mention of the frequency band is not relevant to the pilot's evaluation of the strengths of P-40 or its radio, and is not a comment on their utility. It can be excised from the quote (<...>) without interfering with its purpose and avoiding misreadings.
====...Hand microphones?====
Second, the slight mistranslation of "hand microphones". In the original interview, Golodnikov indeed says:
На американских станциях уже был не микрофон, а ларингофон. Хорошие ларингофоны, маленькие, легкие, удобные.
Which is correctly translated as:
American radios then already had laryngophones (throat microphones) instead of microphones. Those laryngophones were good: small, light, comfortable.
But he does not mean handheld mics / handsets. The key to this is a preceding part of the interview: in it, Golodnikov discusses Hurricanes, which had normal (non-contact) microphones mounted inside the pilot's oxygen mask. It was an unusual arrangement for Soviet fighter pilots, who tended to never wear oxygen masks unless absolutely needed, reasoning that it let them move their heads more freely (they mention it often). Which is why Golodnikov pecifically mentions this in the first place, saying that this forced Hurricane pilots to always wear their masks in combat, which caused inconvenience (because pilots struggled to adjust the mask straps so that they weren't too tight, and yet didn't shift during high Gs). That is also why he later specifically notes that P-40s had more convenient and familiar laryngophones, instead of mask-mounted mikes.
I'm not sure how to correct this, since I suspect the quote is taken directly from an authoritative source. Maybe a footnote? --AyeBraine (talk) 22:40, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccurate translation in a quote from Drabkin 

message: Second, the slight mistranslation of "hand microphones". In the original interview, Golodnikov indeed says:
На американских станциях уже был не микрофон, а ларингофон. Хорошие ларингофоны, маленькие, легкие, удобные.
Which is correctly translated as:
American radios then already had laryngophones (throat microphones) instead of microphones. Those laryngophones were good: small, light, comfortable.
But he does not mean handheld mics / handsets. The key to this is a preceding part of the interview: in it, Golodnikov discusses Hurricanes, which had normal (non-contact) microphones mounted inside the pilot's oxygen mask. It was an unusual arrangement for Soviet fighter pilots, who tended to never wear oxygen masks unless absolutely needed, reasoning that it let them move their heads more freely (they mention it often). Which is why Golodnikov pecifically mentions this in the first place, saying that this forced Hurricane pilots to always wear their masks in combat, which caused inconvenience (because pilots struggled to adjust the mask straps so that they weren't too tight, and yet didn't shift during high Gs). That is also why he later specifically notes that P-40s had more convenient and familiar laryngophones, instead of mask-mounted mikes.
I'm not sure how to correct this, since I suspect the quote is taken directly from an authoritative source. Maybe a footnote? --AyeBraine (talk) 22:40, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: ...Hand microphones?

message: You are invited to participate in Talk:War hawk#Requested move 21 May 2019 about whether War hawk should be moved to Hawk (foreign policy). R2 (bleep) 16:28, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[War hawk]] 

message: This article says "Pilots used to British fighters sometimes found it difficult to adapt to the P-40's rear-folding landing gear, which was more prone to collapse than the lateral-folding landing gear of the Hawker Hurricane or Supermarine Spitfire. In contrast to the "three-point landing" commonly employed with British types, P-40 pilots were obliged to use a "wheels landing": a longer, low angle approach that touched down on the main wheels first. "
I'm curious to know where the person who wrote that picked this us, and whether there isn't a certain amount of original research involved, or speculation on the part of whatever writer they were using as a reference, in any. The P-40 may have had a weak gear design, but it was nothing inherent in the fact that the gear retracted backwards, which is what this statement implies. The F6F Hellcat used rear-retracting gear, and it was operationally used on harsh, no flare carrier landings on a constant basis. I've never heard that they had problems with the gear collapsing. The F4U, also designed as a carrier plane, also used rear retracting gear, as did numerous other types, including the Fairey Battle, the Il-2 Sturmovik, the DeHavilland Mosquito, and many others. In fact, I'd venture that the rear-folding gear was the most common type in use on twin and multi-engined bombers. It was standard proceedure for RAF pilots to use the 3-point touchdown, while for the USAAF is was standard to touch down on the wheels first. I'm curious exactly how many instances con be found of the P-40 acutally suffering gear collapse due to using the 3-point landing, or if it was just a case of the RAF being cautious and flying the plane the way the flight manual recommended, either because it was in the book, or because they suspected the gear might collapse. There is no reason that a rearward landing gear should be more likely to collapse if it is built strongly enough. Perhaps the P-40 was not designed to that limit, since they didn't expect the 3-point landing to be used, but that's a case of the individual design being problematic, not a universal issue with rearwards folding gear. Any gear that wasn't designed for the stress would have problems with collapsing, whether it folded forwards, backwards, or laterally. 
For that matter I don't really understand why a 3-point landing should put any more fore and aft stress as any other type of landing. I could see no-flare carrier-style 3-point touchdowns overstressing regualr gear, but RAF style 3-point landings were no harder than any other type when done properly, and the fact that the tail is tilted downwards should add more FORWARDS force than anything else; a tailwheel plane with normal landing gear is angled so that the gear wants to stay open when it's sitting at rest on the ground. While in any landing the resistance of the wheels hitting the ground will cause a net aft force vector, theoretically a nose up landing should reduce the total aft vector, not increase it, unless they are in the habit of landing very abruptly. And that would be a problem whatever type of landing you are using. 
So perhaps only RAF fighters used the 3-point touchdown operationally, but it's obvious that they had no problems with the rearwards folding gear in the Wellington, Mosquito, Hampden, Halifax, Stirling, Lancaster, etc.
64.223.104.59 (talk) 04:24, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I take it as being descriptive, not causative. - BilCat (talk) 05:12, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weak landing gear 

message: This article, like many other sources, says that Edward Elliott was the pilot on the XP-40's first flight. In 1938, however, Elliott had not yet left the US Navy, and was stationed at Pearl Harbor. In 1939 he was deployed with his squadron on the USS Langley to China and the Philippines. He didn't leave the Navy until March 15, 1940. These facts have been confirmed by talking to his son, Marc, and his official Navy biography is here: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Enlisted_Naval_Aviation_Pilots/PMSahgM2tWkC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22e.+e.+elliott%22+pilot&pg=PA125&printsec=frontcover 174.86.185.248 (talk) 14:55, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the contradiction in sources is problematic. Your link says Elliott flew for Curtiss after his Navy discharge, not before. I think we must remove his name from this article. Binksternet (talk) 16:42, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  First flight of XP-40