PDA

View Full Version : The Strangest P 40!



Hptm.Keule
03-26-2006, 12:20 PM
Hello!

Do You know some thing abbout thise variant of P 40?
Please comment!

Regards!

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/p40-3.jpg

Max.Power
03-26-2006, 12:25 PM
* avoids eye contact with it..

* backs away slowly

PlaneEater
03-26-2006, 12:49 PM
That was an experiment aimed towards creating landing gear better suited for winter / arctic operations (ie, the Aelutians and VVS lend-lease aircraft).

They decided to try catipillar tracks because skis wouldn't fit in the gear wells when they were retracted.

From what I recall, it didn't work well and was abandoned.

DuxCorvan
03-26-2006, 12:51 PM
I see a standard H.81/P-40 with landing gear adapted for soft terrains, as sand, etc.

Never heard of this feature being operationally used.

major_setback
03-26-2006, 04:16 PM
Do You know some thing abbout thise variant of P 40?
Please comment!


Well...if you put it on a conveyor belt and the speed of the tracks match the speed of the conveyor belt....

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

AVG_WarHawk
03-26-2006, 06:44 PM
Originally posted by major_setback:
Well...if you put it on a conveyor belt and the speed of the tracks match the speed of the conveyor belt....

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Precisely!

On the other hand, I doubt that modification ever got beyond the experimental stage.

WWMaxGunz
03-26-2006, 09:29 PM
It looks like it's been photoshopped.

Keep digging, the web is such a wondrous true place.

Hptm.Keule
03-26-2006, 11:58 PM
Soft ground gear...definitely!
Thanks!

pdog1
03-27-2006, 12:59 AM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
It looks like it's been photoshopped.

Keep digging, the web is such a wondrous true place.

Yes it is photoshopped... people have nothing better to do right?
Please, i saw same thing in a book but on A-20.
I guess that was photoshopped too eh?
It did not matter anyway they were not needed... US was very good at repairing captured runways.

Gibbage1
03-27-2006, 02:40 AM
As said above, it was for mud/snow landings. It failed simply because tracks can NOT operate at the sort of speed needed for landing or takeoff. Also the footprint was rather small and it still sunk.

There are some nice pics of P-38's on Ski's for the same sort of thing. Ski's worked, but they added quite a big of drag. These tracks added less drag in the air for a cost of extreme drag on the ground http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Capt.LoneRanger
03-27-2006, 03:21 AM
It's a tank. Period.

A.K.Davis
03-27-2006, 10:38 AM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
It looks like it's been photoshopped.

Keep digging, the web is such a wondrous true place.

It bears absolutely no evidence of being Photoshopped. Have you ever even touched the Photoshop program, or is this just a new catchphrase for "I lack the necessary knowledge and articulation to contribute to this topic"?

quiet_man
03-27-2006, 11:46 AM
Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:
It's a tank. Period.

NO NO, it's no 190 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

quiet_man

DuxCorvan
03-27-2006, 12:12 PM
Tank you. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

aa_radek
03-27-2006, 03:07 PM
Hah! That's priceless! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Talented mechanic; "Oh and once the tracks are on let's attach lots of helium ballons to it so it doesn't sink into the mud when landing!"

Sergio_101
03-28-2006, 03:20 AM
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/bombers/xb36-13.jpg

The idea was not a failure at all.
It was not applicable to aircraft then in production.

Note the above photo of the main gear of a XB-36!

Photo dated March 29, 1950.

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/bombers/b3-69.htm

No word about it being a failure!
It could re-appear.

Sergio