P-40 C service history of one a/c

[Stig Jarlevik]

Personally I think the so called twin P-40 is a hoax

Probably some Curtiss staff - personal built, what ever it was, just for fun. They then added a former P-40 serial to the fin, just to make it look more "real"

Looking at it, it really looks crappy to me and I doubt anyone would have wanted to fly a contraption like that.

Unfortunately Aviation Archeology is down again, so I cannot check their present details, but the real P-40C 41-13456 had a accident on 18 Feb 1943 at Craig Field. I don't know exactly what LACGL stands for, but some kind of landing accident no doubt.
Checking if anything else happened at Craig Field that day, I notice that an AT-6B 41-17179 had exactly the same kind of accident (LACGL) that day on that same field. Hardly a co-incident!
No way that the USAAF had the real P-40C bailed back to Curtiss to have "fun" with and later convert it back to a standard P-40C again. If you want me to believe that, I certainly need more data than any site gives.

Cheers
Stig

[Revi16]

Originally Posted by Stig Jarlevik

Personally I think the so called twin P-40 is a hoax

Probably some Curtiss staff - personal built, what ever it was, just for fun. They then added a former P-40 serial to the fin, just to make it look more "real"

Looking at it, it really looks crappy to me and I doubt anyone would have wanted to fly a contraption like that.

Unfortunately Aviation Archeology is down again, so I cannot check their present details, but the real P-40C 41-13456 had a accident on 18 Feb 1943 at Craig Field. I don't know exactly what LACGL stands for, but some kind of landing accident no doubt.
Checking if anything else happened at Craig Field that day, I notice that an AT-6B 41-17179 had exactly the same kind of accident (LACGL) that day on that same field. Hardly a co-incident!
No way that the USAAF had the real P-40C bailed back to Curtiss to have "fun" with and later convert it back to a standard P-40C again. If you want me to believe that, I certainly need more data than any site gives.

Cheers
Stig

Landing Accident Ground Loop
https://www.aviationarchaeology.com/src/help.htm#ACTION


More than one accident at an airfield in one day during training wasn't uncommon. These two aircraft may or may not have been involved in the same accident.

[Ted51abcdk]

Steig:
LACGL stands for Landing Accident Ground Loop. The number that follows was for the severity of the damage to the airframe. That number was 1-5, with 1 being the least damage, ie a slight dent, to a 5 which was for salvage. That numbering system changed in November of 1944 to 1-4, the #5 being dropped. those number 1 incidents were then applied to the Form 14a Minor Accident Reports. Hope that this helps a bit. Ted51

[Stig Jarlevik]

Thanks Ted

Yes I can read that from the link Revi sent. Interesting one can reach that page but nothing else....

Revi

Yes I agree, two ground loops (severe ones) at the same day is not impossible, so they are probably not connected after all.

However I still think the twin P-40 is a hoax....

Cheers
Stig

[Revi16]

I agree, it never flew and I'm not really sure what the point of it was? The Air Force certainly didn't ask for it.