Sahara H87 A3 Kitttyhawk,1of 540 direct British contract (last pre lend lease) oldest H87?

.

Sahara H87 A3 Kitttyhawk,1of 540 direct British contract (last pre lend lease) oldest H87?

Joined: May 16th, 2004, 9:14 pm

April 25th, 2012, 2:14 am #1

per "Curtiss Fighter AircraftA photographic history "

The H87 A3 Kitttyhawk Mk1(not Mk1a) is one of 540 direct British contract (last pre lend lease) starting Ak591...

This was a close to the US P40E (not E1)these were the first of the six .50 wing gun H87

(the only earlier model H87 was the four .50 wing gun model, the H87A2 Kitttyhawk Mk1 20 built & P40D 22 built )

The next block after this was 1500 H87 A4 Kitttyhawk Mk1a = US P40E1 and the first lend lease H87 Kitttyhawk

So this is a rare bird..should be the oldest Curtiss H87 in existence and only direct British contract(pre lend lease)Curtiss H87 in existence ...

I would think this is one the RAF would want to recover asap

Last edited by humebates on April 25th, 2012, 2:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: May 16th, 2004, 9:14 pm

April 25th, 2012, 3:10 am #2

Sahara Kittyhawk built to British contract (not lend lease) so Curtiss should paint to British contract colors....

However the gun bay door that seems to have been painted at Curtiss factory (note Curtiss applyed decal still in place) is painted a light gray (not US Dupont paint versions of British sky or azure blue)

Also the shell ejector shoots were taped over and paint red?

Last edited by humebates on April 25th, 2012, 3:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: March 4th, 2005, 6:50 pm

April 25th, 2012, 3:52 am #3

per "Curtiss Fighter AircraftA photographic history "

The H87 A3 Kitttyhawk Mk1(not Mk1a) is one of 540 direct British contract (last pre lend lease) starting Ak591...

This was a close to the US P40E (not E1)these were the first of the six .50 wing gun H87

(the only earlier model H87 was the four .50 wing gun model, the H87A2 Kitttyhawk Mk1 20 built & P40D 22 built )

The next block after this was 1500 H87 A4 Kitttyhawk Mk1a = US P40E1 and the first lend lease H87 Kitttyhawk

So this is a rare bird..should be the oldest Curtiss H87 in existence and only direct British contract(pre lend lease)Curtiss H87 in existence ...

I would think this is one the RAF would want to recover asap

Quite a few of the surviving RCAF Kittyhawks are H87A-3s that were direct purchased by the RAF and diverted to Canada. RCAF 1028 (AK752) being the oldest survivor.

Jim
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: December 16th, 2009, 4:47 am

April 25th, 2012, 5:18 am #4

per "Curtiss Fighter AircraftA photographic history "

The H87 A3 Kitttyhawk Mk1(not Mk1a) is one of 540 direct British contract (last pre lend lease) starting Ak591...

This was a close to the US P40E (not E1)these were the first of the six .50 wing gun H87

(the only earlier model H87 was the four .50 wing gun model, the H87A2 Kitttyhawk Mk1 20 built & P40D 22 built )

The next block after this was 1500 H87 A4 Kitttyhawk Mk1a = US P40E1 and the first lend lease H87 Kitttyhawk

So this is a rare bird..should be the oldest Curtiss H87 in existence and only direct British contract(pre lend lease)Curtiss H87 in existence ...

I would think this is one the RAF would want to recover asap

Hi Jim

Sorry but what you are looking at in the Sahara is a P-40E-1CU. The fact it has a Wing Ammo box plated as a A-3 means nothing, as these parts were interchangable. The proof that it is a P-40E-1 is in both the videos and the stills, the associated features you would expect to see on an H87A-3 are not present.

Buz
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: May 16th, 2004, 9:14 pm

April 25th, 2012, 5:35 am #5

Can you elaborate as to what features you see as prove an E1 vs A3
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: December 16th, 2009, 4:47 am

April 25th, 2012, 5:45 am #6

The A-3 (non lend lease model has blue formation lights below the front on the cockit about halfway down the fuselage, they look like small circles.

The E-1 does not. Have a look at the links attached to this reply and see what you think, and if you can or can not see them on the Sahara Wreck.

http://www.network54.com/Forum/149674/m ... not+an+A-3

Buz
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: February 24th, 2002, 4:17 pm

April 25th, 2012, 12:35 pm #7

But did it end exactly with the A-3 production run. Or, was it phased out in the A-3 run? Given the way US production went, it m ay or may not have been changed with the beginning of a new production designation run. Given the absence of serial numbers on many early USAAF P-40Es, it is difficult to tell.

Interestingly, there is not one, but two plates indicating A-3.

With position light.



Wish I knew if Spitten' Maggie on Oahu was an E or E-1. Or, perhaps it is a D. Oh well.







There is no such thing as an unbuildable kit, just some kits one may consider not worth building.

Ive realized that most people ... tend not to be direct when they feel something is shoddy because they want to be liked, "which is actually a vain trait".
[Walter Isaacson's (author of Steve Jobs) recounting of his interview with Jony Ive, Chief Designer at Apple @ page p. 461]



BUY THIS BOOK
http://tinyurl.com/Ididntseeitcoming
Last edited by modeldad on April 25th, 2012, 1:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: February 27th, 2005, 1:47 pm

April 25th, 2012, 12:48 pm #8

-if so- what details do you need to be more sure about?
From the S.S. on the P-40, it would seem the main difference is the incorporation of extra bomb racks on the wings to enable the "triplet" bomb loadout. If it's an 'E, then you delete the rack details under the rack detail with the modelling weapon of your choice.

One detail I noticed on the crash aircraft, and have subsequently noticed on a few other early aircraft- is the vertical tubular hole on the rear spine- what exactly is this for?

(Note- I currently feel quite bad about even linking to a picture of the P-40, as If Terry is correct, then I need a period of adjustment to de-humanise things a bit.)

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-EnOh ... 520161.jpg
Last edited by RacerRich on April 25th, 2012, 12:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: February 24th, 2002, 4:17 pm

April 25th, 2012, 1:04 pm #9

What is the issue of the bomb racks?



There is no such thing as an unbuildable kit, just some kits one may consider not worth building.

Ive realized that most people ... tend not to be direct when they feel something is shoddy because they want to be liked, "which is actually a vain trait".
[Walter Isaacson's (author of Steve Jobs) recounting of his interview with Jony Ive, Chief Designer at Apple @ page p. 461]



BUY THIS BOOK
http://tinyurl.com/Ididntseeitcoming
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: March 1st, 2004, 7:55 pm

April 25th, 2012, 1:19 pm #10

-if so- what details do you need to be more sure about?
From the S.S. on the P-40, it would seem the main difference is the incorporation of extra bomb racks on the wings to enable the "triplet" bomb loadout. If it's an 'E, then you delete the rack details under the rack detail with the modelling weapon of your choice.

One detail I noticed on the crash aircraft, and have subsequently noticed on a few other early aircraft- is the vertical tubular hole on the rear spine- what exactly is this for?

(Note- I currently feel quite bad about even linking to a picture of the P-40, as If Terry is correct, then I need a period of adjustment to de-humanise things a bit.)

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-EnOh ... 520161.jpg
"One detail I noticed on the crash aircraft, and have subsequently noticed on a few other early aircraft- is the vertical tubular hole on the rear spine- what exactly is this for?"

Don't know for sure as I'm not a P-40 nut but its in almost the same position as the flare launcher tube in Spitfires. It could be an RAF specific fitting, what other pictures have you seen it in?
Quote
Like
Share