https://www.kpax.com/man-dies-in-wwi...milton-airport

I think thirty or so of the engine failures I've experienced have been R-2600's.

Allison's, too (but not piston ones).

An inherent problem throughout the war with the Allison V-1710 was supercharger-related, so much so that the first introduction of the P-38 late in the war on a Berlin escort raid saw 50% of the aircraft drop out with engine problems. I have a picture somewhere of Lefty Gardner's P38 that I snapped from a B25, as one engine blew, just off our right wing, many years ago. The P-40 was a conundrum; it was chosen as a low altitude airplane with an engine designed to produce its power at higher altitudes (in an airframe not really suited for higher altitudes). Most Allisons used single-stage exhuast-driven blowers, producing less power on takeoff, and not a combination produced by Allison (but aftermarket by GE, et al). Allison engines lacked an intercooler, further limiting the amount of manifold pressure, and were subject to detonation issues if pushed. 70+ year old engines pushing high pressures for takeoff make for failure potentials in valves, pistons, rods, and other components. Segmented manifold tubes are subject to failure, as are the superchargers, which are optimum for flight above 15,000, but not for lower altitude. While by the war's end, most aircraft used 2-stage turbochargers and superchargers (and combinations), such was not the case on the Allison's (one of the reasons that many preferred the Merlins), and certainly not on the P40.

That big mouth, often emblazoned with the AVG's shark mouth, is to handle the three radiators for the liquid cooled engine. It got hot and it got pushed hard to make power. Three partially for redundancy, but primarily just for adequate cooling. A major vulnerability, too.

Even the R-2600, mentioned previously, used a two-stage supercharger (though we hard-wired ours to the low blower position, and even using lower manifold pressure with no anti-detonation fluid for takeoff) still experienced a number of lifted heads and other associated issues. A key issue with Allison was that to make adequate power, the engine had to be pushed harder, which mean it was working harder to produce the same power as Merlin. A telling difference for the two is illustrated in the P51, which was increased by seven inches with the Merlin installation, not for engine size, but to handle the xtra room for the intercooler and the two-stage turbocharger.

Having said all that, Ehlen's P40 was an E model, or purported to be an E-model, but was a combination of frames put together, and bore the bureau number of other aircraft, later changed to a unique number incorporating other aircraft's ID. It was damaged in a landing mishap and rebuilt some time ago. It was a Warhawk 1. Some E model and beginning with the F, used Merlin engines. Ehlen's did not.

Some commented that the aircraft looked intact and that it should have been a survivable forced landing. The damage is extensive, including destruction right through the cockpit, which burned. It wasn't survivable. It doesn't look remotely survivable.

I make no speculation as to the cause of this mishap, because I don't do that. The observations above about the unreliability (by modern standards) of older equipment are quite accurate. I've had a LOT of engine failures in older equipment; the clueless and uneducated are prone to say it's from flying bad equipment. It's not. Those who think so simply express a gross ignorance of the heritage of aviation. There were types flown during the second world war that killed airmen more in training than in combat. A number of aircraft in that era were inherently unreliable, prone to catching fire in flight (I've found the bombay literally filling with avgas, adjacent to sparking inverters, in flight), to expander tube brakes that routinely faded as they warmed up, to liquid cooled engines that overheated extremely rapidly with coolant loss, to the normal and routine engine oil consumption of 3-7 gallons per hour or more...things that most who have no experience with older aircraft wouldn't know.

Why take off with the canopy rolled back, instead of closed? Because it's a prudent preparation for an emergency egress when one goes down after takeoff.

These aircraft weren't grossly overpowered. The engines worked extremely hard to produce the scant 1,000 hp that they did. The P40 was one of the highest-production aircraft of the second world war, and it did have success, largely due to it's numbers, but also had a horrible loss rate, and it's successes were in spite of it's limitations, not because of its spectacular performance. It lacked climb and the performance to match most contemporary tactical aircraft; it's success was the result of pilots capitalizing on the P40's few advantages (better dive speed, stronger wing--five spars, etc). It's also well to remember that these airplanes are well outside their life expectancy. They were never designed for the long term. Mishaps like this, loss of both pilot and aircraft, are sad moments. Aside from the obvious tragic loss of Mr. Ehlen, there were only 14 P40's remaining in the US. I know the feeling of heading downhill after takeoff in a single engine airplane, all too well. It sucks. Off field, the outcome is not guaranteed, but it's something one accepts by strapping in at the outset. It's something we all accept by pushing the power up at the start of the flight; pick up one end of the stick, we pick up the other, whatever it may be.

Let's not start calling it suicide without any basis in fact. There's nothing about the image above that would suggest suicide. The aircraft was landed flat, and care was take in doing so, else there would have been fuel tank rupture. If it was a suicide attempt, it was a poor effort; clearly the picture shows an aircraft put down in a forced landing with some skill. It was landed, not crashed. The end result, a fatality, has no outward indication of any effort to sabotage or cause greater damage. Have those making such wild, unsubstantiated speculative charges, ever made an off-field forced landing? No information is presently given. It's unprofessional to speculate in absence of fact, and certainly unfair to the pilot, who very well may have done everything right.