Still not convinced with 4.10 Seafire FM.

[IceFire]

El... was it not the Hawk/P-36 that had the fantastic sustained turn rate and the P-40 had some degradation of this capability?

[ElAurens]

Originally Posted by IceFire

El... was it not the Hawk/P-36 that had the fantastic sustained turn rate and the P-40 had some degradation of this capability?

This may be correct, as the Hawk 75 was considerably lighter than the Hawk 81.

[JtD]

One number on one plane is all you got?

That's insufficient to make a statement about the relative performance of two aspects of two planes.

[ElAurens]

Sorry JTD, but it's been years, decades even, since I've read some of this stuff.

I do know that the Curtiss Hawks, 75, 81, and 87 were very maneuverable aircraft. Much more so than they are portrayed in the current popular aviation culture.

And I stopped being a rivet counting chart monkey a long time ago. It just got old.

Nothing personal JTD. Life is contentious enough without instigating slag fests on internet forums.

[JtD]

Then why don't you state just that:

Originally Posted by ElAurens

I do know that the Curtiss Hawks, 75, 81, and 87 were very maneuverable aircraft. Much more so than they are portrayed in the current popular aviation culture.

There'd be nothing to argue about.