# The P-36 a Zero Killer??? (P-36 Hawk/Hawk 75)



## gjs238 (Apr 24, 2014)

Inspired by the thread _The P-39 a Zero Killer???_, I'm wondering if the P-36/Hawk 75, with a 2-stage supercharged engine like the F4F, would have performed better for the Army and Marine units in the PTO - Midway and Guadalcanal periods?

In the P-39 thread it was discussed how poorly the P-400's and P-39's performed at altitude and how valuable the 2-stage F4F's were.
Even the P-40 entered the discussion.

While an older design, might 2-stage P-36's have provided the altitude performance lacking in the other Army fighters?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 24, 2014)

P-36s did ok for the Brits operating over Burma from bases in India. The Dutch also used some in the East Indies in early '42 but I don't have specifics on how well they fared compared to the Brewsters and CW-21Bs that the ML-KNIL also operated.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 24, 2014)

Vs the P-40 you trade performance at altitude ( 15,000 ft and above with any real difference coming in at something over 20,000ft) for performance at lower altitudes. The radial engine version without a super low drag cowling like the Fw 190 is going to have 15-22% more drag (It was 22% when comparing the XP-40 in final configuration to a P-36A) than the Allison powered version. 

Just figure at what point you have _more_ than 15-20% power than the Allison engine. 

Please remember that the P-36 and Hawk 75 aircraft did NOT have the self sealing tanks, armor and beefed up wing structure of the P-40 let alone the weight of armament. 

P&W did figure out how to efficiently cowl a 2 stage R-1830 engine and stick it in a P-40 airframe *but* it was not flying until the late summer/fall of 1942 in prototype form which means it is 6-9 months form service use which is way too late.


----------



## gjs238 (Apr 24, 2014)

Good info.



Shortround6 said:


> Please remember that the P-36 and Hawk 75 aircraft did NOT have the self sealing tanks, armor


Too bad. If added, might still outperform naval F4F?



Shortround6 said:


> and beefed up wing structure of the P-40


Maybe this is one of the things that weighed down the P-40?



Shortround6 said:


> P&W did figure out how to efficiently cowl a 2 stage R-1830 engine and stick it in a P-40 airframe *but* it was not flying until the late summer/fall of 1942 in prototype form which means it is 6-9 months form service use which is way too late.


Interesting. Perhaps the altitude issue was the driver?


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 24, 2014)

The proposed Hawk might out perform the Wildcat but by what margin? 
a few mph or 20-30mph?
100fpm in climb or 300-400fpm in climb?
And what do you give up? 
American P-36s were grounded for a time until the wing structure (heavier skinning?) could be beefed up due to wing skin buckling in flight. And that is at P-36 weights. Add several hundred pounds of armor, several hundred pounds of self sealing tanks, several hundred pounds of guns and ammo and then perform a few 6-7 G turns of dive pull-outs and see how strong you want the wings to be? 

the weight of the .30 cal guns in the wings of a P-40 B/C were 94.4lbs so switching the cowl guns for .30 cals gives you a gun weight of 141.6 lbs and an ammo weight of 191.1lbs (at 500rpg) for a total of 332.7lbs. The gun weight of P-40 with _four_ .50s is 
313.7lb which leaves you with 19lbs for ammo 
.50 cal ammo weighs _about_ 30lbs per hundred so even 200 rpg for four guns weighs 240lbs. 

The P-40 Airframe that was bailed to P&W for experimental engine work was one of the first P-40 airframes ( no letter) and had no armor, self sealing tanks or guns. P&W had the airframe for over a year and half before the final tests were run. 
P&W also had trouble building _enough_ two stage engines in 1941 which is why one batch of Wildcats (the F4F-3A) got single stage supercharged engines. I don't know when the supply situation improved. 

BTW both a Hawk 75 and a Seversky fighter with an early 1939 version of the two stage engine were test flown in the 1939 fighter trials that saw the P-40 selected as the winner.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Apr 24, 2014)

having reread Bill Bartsch's *Every Day a Nightmare* a few months ago, I was startled to see that, according to at least one of the the P-40E pilots of the 17th PPS, in the absence of Hawker Hurricanes. the only aircraft that could begin to contemplate an intercept of the IJN raiders was the B-339 Buffalo with it's *Wright single stage, two speed supercharger.* Of course, that aircraft apparently had other performance, tactics, maintenance, numbers or pilot-training related problems that made it ineffectual in any role. The P-40E's pilots of the 17th muddled through that phase of the war and when folded into the 49th FG defending Darwin, began to achieve some significant success that had previously eluded them over Java and the PI.

Bottom line, perhaps a P-36 in sufficient numbers might have made a difference without the 2 stage SC, if in sufficient numbers? The Dutch pilots apparently liked the P-36 very much from what I've read in Bartsch and looked forward to receiving P-40Es I suppose with an assumption that they were better performing?


----------



## gjs238 (Apr 24, 2014)

oldcrowcv63 said:


> having reread Bill Bartsch's *Every Day a Nightmare* a few months ago, I was startled to see that, according to at least one of the the P-40E pilots of the 17th PPS, in the absence of Hawker Hurricanes. the only aircraft that could begin to contemplate an intercept of the IJN raiders was the B-339 Buffalo with it's *Wright single stage, two speed supercharger.* Of course, that aircraft apparently had other performance, tactics, maintenance, numbers or pilot-training related problems that made it ineffectual in any role. The P-40E's pilots of the 17th muddled through that phase of the war and when folded into the 49th FG defending Darwin, began to achieve some significant success that had previously eluded them over Java and the PI.



Didn't the 1st AVG have the same problem, using P-43's for that role?


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 24, 2014)

oldcrowcv63 said:


> having reread Bill Bartsch's *Every Day a Nightmare* a few months ago, I was startled to see that, according to at least one of the the P-40E pilots of the 17th PPS, in the absence of Hawker Hurricanes. the only aircraft that could begin to contemplate an intercept of the IJN raiders was the B-339 Buffalo with it's *Wright single stage, two speed supercharger.* Of course, that aircraft apparently had other performance, tactics, maintenance, numbers or pilot-training related problems that made it ineffectual in any role. The P-40E's pilots of the 17th muddled through that phase of the war and when folded into the 49th FG defending Darwin, began to achieve some significant success that had previously eluded them over Java and the PI.



I wouldn't have bolded the description of the Wright's supercharger. The Buffalo was good at higher altitudes when it was not weighted down with armor and all possible fuel (up to 240 gals!!); the fuel tanks were not protected, and there was no easy way to protect them anyway. In case USAF wants a fighter without protection, they can strip down the P-40 and they have themselves a performer. The Cyclone in any gear was still making less power than V-1710, while making far less exhaust thrust, too.


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 24, 2014)

Sorry Tomo but your statements about unprotected fuel tanks in the Buffalo are not correct. The RAF Buffalos did have protection, both armour plate and externally-applied "faux" self-sealing capability. I'm not saying the solutions were great compared to proper self-sealing solutions but they represented a considerable improvement on unprotected tanks.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 24, 2014)

No problems at all  Id actually appreciate more details about the mods tried on the RAF Buffaloes. 
Going by the AHT, the Finnish Buffaloes have had no protection for tanks, 2 x 80 US gals. They were lightest ones, and were the most acclaimed in service. The USN and other export versions were heavier. The F2A-2 and -3 introduced three additional, leak-proof fuel cells; the 2 x 80 gal tanks remained unprotected. The weight soared, the performance went in opposite direction.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Apr 24, 2014)

AFAIK, the 240 gallon fuel load out as strictly in the USN F2A-3. The story, as explained to me, as to, "Why so much fuel?" It was supposed to be for use in making very long range RADAR directed intercepts.


----------



## RpR (Apr 24, 2014)

From what I have read, very recently again, the P-36s greatest shortcoming was its lack of firepower.


----------



## davebender (Apr 24, 2014)

You don't need a two stage supercharger for operations below 20,000 feet (i.e. where most aerial combat took place). A good single stage system such as that employed on most DB601/DB605 engines will work just fine.

However there's a fundamental problem with your topic. A6M was CV based. P-36 was land based. IJA Ki-27 and follow on Ki-43 will be your primary opponents.


----------



## gjs238 (Apr 24, 2014)

davebender said:


> You don't need a two stage supercharger for operations below 20,000 feet (i.e. where most aerial combat took place). A good single stage system such as that employed on most DB601/DB605 engines will work just fine.
> 
> However there's a fundamental problem with your topic. A6M was CV based. P-36 was land based. IJA Ki-27 and follow on Ki-43 will be your primary opponents.



RE: The thread title:
This is a play on the thread _The P-39 a Zero Killer???_, so I ran with that title.

RE: 2-stage:
So much has been written of the poor altitude performance of the P-400's and P-39's in the Guadalcanal campaign and how the F4F's, in short supply, were used for those tasks.
I seem to remember reading the 1st AVG had the same issues with the P-40.
Hence the query about P-36's powered with the same 2-stage engine as the F4F.


----------



## varsity07840 (Apr 24, 2014)

BobR said:


> From what I have read, very recently again, the P-36s greatest shortcoming was its lack of firepower.



Firepower is meaningless when you can't lose the guy on your tail. Read Lew Sander's report of his combat with Zeros on Dec. 7th.

Duane


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 24, 2014)

davebender said:


> You don't need a two stage supercharger for operations below 20,000 feet (i.e. where most aerial combat took place). A good single stage system such as that employed on most DB601/DB605 engines will work just fine.
> 
> However there's a fundamental problem with your topic. A6M was CV based. P-36 was land based. IJA Ki-27 and follow on Ki-43 will be your primary opponents.



While a lot of aerial combat did take place below 20,000ft it is a _fact_ that the Japanese often came in at altitudes over 20,000ft in many of these early campaigns and many complaints about poor altitude performance were made by the pilots and commanders involved. Fighters were often several thousand feet above the bombers they were escorting so they could use the altitude advantage to "boom and zoom" the defending fighters. something the defenders got tired of in hurry, even if the fights often descended to lower altitudes. 
If fighters are climbing to reach the bombers they will most likely be at _climb speed_ or close to it and not at level speed or even max cruise on the level. They will be around 100mph slower and it takes time to accelerate to near top speed even if the plane levels off and stops climbing. With the planes diving from above they have more speed in hand than even max level speed and can afford to burn off a bit in a turn. 

The "single stage system such as that employed on most DB601/DB605 engines" worked just fine in part because the 109 was so small and light. Take the DB 601 out of a 6,000-6,400lb 109 and stick it in a 8300lb P-40E and see how well it performs at altitude. 

The A6M was often land based. The ones that attacked the Philippines were land based, the ones that attacked Northern Australia were land based (most of the time?) and the ones over Guadalcanal were land based.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 24, 2014)

BobR said:


> From what I have read, very recently again, the P-36s greatest shortcoming was its lack of firepower.



Firepower also depends on the target. P-36A and Hawk 75s varied a bit but the majority of the Hawk 75s to see service after the fall of France had 6 rifle caliber MGs compared to the BoB Spitfire and Hurricane's 8. But in Asia the Japanese planes didn't have the self sealing tanks and armor the Germans had. The Ki 27 had two 7.7mm guns and the Ki 43 had (for the most part) one 12.7 and one 7.7mm Mgs ( early 1942 saw some of them with two 7.7mm guns) and early Zeros were down to a pair of 7.7mm guns after the first 7-8 seconds of firing time. 

Granted six .30 cal guns is nowhere near the firepower of six .50 cal guns but having 3-4 times the firepower of some of the Japanese aircraft ( the American and British .30 cal and .303 guns fired faster than the Japanese 7.7 gun) means that "lack of firepower" really isn't a good excuse. Given the weight/performance problems of some of the American aircraft perhaps less firepower and more performance may have been a better solution.


----------



## HBPencil (Apr 25, 2014)

oldcrowcv63 said:


> in the absence of Hawker Hurricanes. the only aircraft that could begin to contemplate an intercept of the IJN raiders was the B-339 Buffalo



That reminds me of something I read in vol 2 of the Bloody Shambles trilogy. According to Shores the RAF in Burma performed a series of mock dogfights between a Hurricane II and a Buffalo and found that the Buffalo was better above 20,000ft.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 25, 2014)

Would you be so kind to describe in what condition were the Hurri II and Buffalo, like armament installed, fuel, ammo, protection?


----------



## GregP (Apr 25, 2014)

I have no problem believing the Buffalo could be well flown and might have been a good maneuvering aircraft.

The vast majority did NOT do well. The few ... the Finns ... did. Pilot training has a VERY high percentage of how an aircraft does in a fight.

So ... did the Brits put Lieutenants and Captains in the Hurricanes and fresh recruits in the Buffalos, or what? The devil is in the details here ... the results depend almost entirely on the scenario, the pilots, and the load out of the aircraft involved. If the sides were about equal. I might take notice. 

Otherwise the Hurricane is the MUCH better performing aircraft in actual war, given the relative records of the two protagonists.


----------



## nuuumannn (Apr 25, 2014)

> Otherwise the Hurricane is the MUCH better performing aircraft in actual war, given the relative records of the two protagonists.



This isn't so easy to quantify, to be honest, Greg. The Hurricane did not do anywhere near as well over Singapore as it did over Britain and elsewhere; in fact, it did no better than the Buffalo over Singapore. The problem wasn't the individual aircraft, but a shortage of spares, adequately trained pilots with combat experience, no early warning, not enough aircraft, poor intel etc. Even if the Brit squadrons had Spitfires in Singapore, the result would still have been the same.

Since the only other comparison between Hurricanes and Buffaloes where the two of them fought side by side is in Finland, both did very well there against the Russians. The FAA did use a limited number of land based Buffaloes in the Desert in North Africa, but their number was very small.


----------



## Juha (Apr 25, 2014)

FiAF Hurricanes didn't do very well against Russians, partly because we didn't have 100 oct fuel for them. Brewster B-239s on the other hand did extremely well in 1941 and 42.

Juha


----------



## eagledad (Apr 25, 2014)

Hello Greg P!

Check out the following link on what the British that about the Buffalo vs the Hurricane I

http://www.warbirdforum.com/eagle.htm

It does not contradict your statement about the Buffalo and Hurricane II, but does indicate the effect of the extra equipment added to the Buffalo had on its performance.

Eagledad


----------



## ssnider (Apr 25, 2014)

eagledad said:


> Hello Greg P!
> 
> Check out the following link on what the British that about the Buffalo vs the Hurricane I
> 
> ...



from the same website on the Brewster vs Huricane

"Hurricane Mk II: Straight from the Hans Wind, the top-scoring Brewster ace, while keeping a lecture to new fighter pilots: "Hurricane is the easiest enemy plane to shoot down. Under 3000 metres (9000ft) it's no match for us. It's slow and very clumsy and stiff. When you meet a Hurricane, immediately start a dogfight, then it can only depend on our good will. Aim to the front part of it, then it usually flares up" (This was taken from the "Lent{j{n n{k|kulma II")"


----------



## RCAFson (Apr 25, 2014)

The RAF Buffalo had terrible performance:

BUFFALO I AS430 
Engine: R-182OG105A*
Test weight: 6,430lb 
Climb: 10.5min to 20k ft. 
2,240fpm up to 8,200 ft
Celing: 31,800 
Vmax: 294mph at 18,700ft. (data from The Secret Years)

The Buffalo wing loading at 30.8lbs was far higher than a Hurricane 1 (26.2lb at 6750lb) and the Hurricane could out roll the Buffalo at all except the very highest speeds. A Buffalo at 6430lb would be no match for a Hurricane 1 at 6750lb. The Belgian Buffalos taken over by the RAF only weighed 5746lb but they were not equipped to RAF standards. The Secret Years also states" "The unique undercarriage proved too fragile in service use."

*1100hp TO to 1500ft
900hp normal at 6700ft
800 military at 17100ft


----------



## muskeg13 (Apr 25, 2014)

I've read several accounts of how maneuverable the P-36/Hawk 75 was against many of it's pre/early-war competitors. Was it a Zero killer? Not really, but it was credited with at least 2 Zero kills at Pearl Harbor. It probably could have been more of a Zero killer if it was employed longer, in greater numbers and was flown by the right pilots. The USAAC withdrew the P-36 from combat service soon after PH, as it was replaced by more "modern" types. IMO, except for the P-39/P-400, retiring the P-36 was the right call. Having none of the reference books remaining in my library, I resorted to the old standby and found several interesting entries. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-36_Hawk:

Comparison of a borrowed French Hawk 75A-2 with a Supermarine Spitfire Mk I revealed that the Hawk had several advantages over the early variant of the iconic British fighter. The Hawk was found to have lighter controls than the Spitfire at speeds over 300 mph (480 km/h), especially in diving attacks, and was easier to maneuver in a dogfight (thanks to the less sensitive elevator) and better all-around visibility. The Hawk was also easier to control on takeoff and landing. Not surprisingly, the Spitfire's superior acceleration and top speed ultimately gave it the advantage of being able to engage and leave combat at will.

On September 20th, Sergeant André-Armand Legrand, pilot of the H75A-1 n°1 in the Groupe de Chasse II/5 La Fayette was credited of the first Allied air victory of World War II on the Western front with shooting down one Messerschmitt Bf 109E of the Luftwaffe 3/JG53, over Oberhern. During 1939–1940, French H75 pilots claimed 230 air to air kills (of a total of 1,009 air to air kills by the French Air Force during the 1939-40 time period) and 81 probable victories in H75s[15] against only 29 aircraft lost in aerial combat. While only 12.6% of the French Air Force single-seater fighter force the H75 accounted for almost a third of air-to-air kills during the 1940 Battle of France.[14] Of the 11 French aces of the early part of the war, seven flew H75s. The leading ace of the time was Lieutenant Edmond Marin la Meslée with 15 confirmed and five probable victories in the type. H75-equipped squadrons were evacuated to French North Africa before the Armistice to avoid capture by the Germans. 

and

The only combat by U.S.-operated P-36s took place during the Pearl Harbor attack. Five of the 39 P-36A Mohawks at Pearl Harbor, delivered previously by the USS Enterprise, were able to take off during the attack and were credited with shooting down two Japanese Mitsubishi A6M2 Zeros for the loss of one P-36, among the first U.S. aerial victories of World War II.

I don't think we need a thread "Was the P-26 Peashooter a Zero Killer?"


----------



## Glider (Apr 26, 2014)

French Hawks did very well against the 109D but against the 109E she was outclassed. British Mohawks held there own against the Ki43 the losses being pretty much even which for an aircraft that didn't have a speed or dive advantage was as good as you could expect.


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 27, 2014)

RCAFson said:


> The Secret Years also states" "The unique undercarriage proved too fragile in service use."



More unresearched myth-quoting, I'm afraid. The RAF's Buffalos in the Far East, which were the heaviest operated by British forces, had no greater problems with the undercarriage than any other aircraft, indeed probably fewer. 

There are only 2 instances of of Buffalos in the Far East being lost or damaged because of undercarriage failure - that's 2 incidents across 167 aircraft operating in training and operations for a period of approx 8 months. Hardly fits the category of "too fragile for operational use" in my opinion. There were other occasions where pilots didn't complete landing procedures correctly but that's a pilot error issue not a problem with the aircraft.


----------



## RpR (Apr 28, 2014)

varsity07840 said:


> Firepower is meaningless when you can't lose the guy on your tail. Read Lew Sander's report of his combat with Zeros on Dec. 7th.
> 
> Duane


I am sure the guys who were blown out of the sky before their landing-gear was even retracted would agree with you but sadly they are dead.


----------



## RpR (Apr 28, 2014)

Shortround6 said:


> Firepower also depends on the target. P-36A and Hawk 75s varied a bit but the majority of the Hawk 75s to see service after the fall of France had 6 rifle caliber MGs compared to the BoB Spitfire and Hurricane's 8. But in Asia the Japanese planes didn't have the self sealing tanks and armor the Germans had. The Ki 27 had two 7.7mm guns and the Ki 43 had (for the most part) one 12.7 and one 7.7mm Mgs ( early 1942 saw some of them with two 7.7mm guns) and early Zeros were down to a pair of 7.7mm guns after the first 7-8 seconds of firing time.
> 
> Granted six .30 cal guns is nowhere near the firepower of six .50 cal guns but having 3-4 times the firepower of some of the Japanese aircraft ( the American and British .30 cal and .303 guns fired faster than the Japanese 7.7 gun) means that "lack of firepower" really isn't a good excuse. Given the weight/performance problems of some of the American aircraft perhaps less firepower and more performance may have been a better solution.


Unless you were there I would think real hard before throwing the word excuse around.

The P-36 used in Hawaii had five .30 and one .50.
The ones who flew it and lived said it was under-gunned; go tell them they are making excuses.

The Hawk had a climb rate of 3,400 fpm and a wing loading of 23.9 lbs.
The Zero had a climb rate of 3.100 fpm and a wing loading of 20 lbs.

When the P-40 was put into service, pilots who had flown the P-36 were disappointed that the P-40 did not handle as well as the Hawk, plus as it was "improved" it got slower.
The main problem with the P-40 was not the aircraft the people running the company that built it.

If you go to sites dedicated to the Hawk, if some projected engines had been used, the Hawk would have been near as fast as the fastet in service P-40 with better handling.


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 28, 2014)

My great Uncle flew the P-36 and had nothing but admiration for the aircraft, even after being assigned the P-38 later on.

The problem was that the pilots that flew the P-36 had no combat experience when thrown up against a Japanese adversary, who in many cases, did have combat experience in their type.

The F4F had an uphill battle, facing down battle proven Japanese aircraft and pilots and eventually learned what did and what did not work, in beating them. *IF* the P-36 had remained the primary U.S. Army fighter during the onset of the war, like the U.S. Navy's F4F was, then it too, would have experienced the learning curve like the Wildcats did.

As it happens, the P-36 was being phased out, so history will never know what the P-36 was truly capable of against Japanese adversaries, with an experienced U.S. Army pilot in the cockpit.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 28, 2014)

BobR said:


> Unless you were there I would think real hard before throwing the word excuse around.



Let's see shall we



> The P-36 used in Hawaii had five .30 and one .50.
> The ones who flew it and lived said it was under-gunned; go tell them they are making excuses.



Really? sources please.
Most books say the P-36A had one .50 and one .30 and the P-36C had one .50 and _THREE_ .30 cal guns.

ONE experimental P-36D had TWO .50s and four .30s. Was this plane at Pearl Harbor?
Most sources say that the planes at Pearl Harbor were P-36As with the one.50 and one .30

Four P-36s got airborne from Wheeler Field and shot down (between them) two B5N1s. The few P36s that got airborne from Haliewa made no contact with the Japanese forces. Unless the pilots complaining about the lack of fire power were Lts Sterling, Sanders, Thacker and Rasmussen, the ONLY US pilots flying P-36s to make contact with the Japanese forces in ANY theater, it seems that the complaints of being under-gunned (especially with one .50 and five .30s) have little bases in fact. If the four pilots mentioned were, indeed flying P-36As with ONE .50 and ONE .30 then their complaint may be justified. The P-36 never made contact again with enemy forces in US service.

British Mohawks with (usually) six .303 guns did fight the Japanese for quite some time. 



> When the P-40 was put into service, pilots who had flown the P-36 were disappointed that the P-40 did not handle as well as the Hawk, plus as it was "improved" it got slower.
> The main problem with the P-40 was not the aircraft the people running the company that built it.



yeah, it got so slow that the slowest P-40 was around 20-25mph faster than the fastest P-36. Granted most the later P-40s couldn't climb for spit unless using WER. If you are trying to blame the Curtiss for the problems with the P-40 it would be nice to see some references. 



> If you go to sites dedicated to the Hawk, if some projected engines had been used, the Hawk would have been near as fast as the fasted in service P-40 with better handling.



care to post a link? Please note that one site "dedicated to the Hawk" seems to be a bit "fanboy" and one of the "proposed" engines didn't make it into service until late summer of 1943. 
The P-40s handling got worse as it aged. Adding self sealing tanks and armor ( with the US p-36s did NOT have) would affect climb and handling, adding guns and ammo would affect climb and handling. Beefing up the structure and landing gear to handle the increased weight of protection and increased firepower will also affect climb and handling ( and early P-36s had a few structural problems even at their lighter weight).

People who think you can shove two stage supercharged R-1830s or Wright R-2600s into a P-36 airframe and keep the P-36s handing characteristics must think they can repeal the laws of physics. 

BTW. The 2nd fastest P-40 ever after the "Q" model was an airframe used by P&W for engine development of the R-1830. Problem is that had unprotected tanks, no guns, no armor and didn't set it high speed run figures until around Sept, of 1942 which is way too late to think about production ( in service in the spring/summer of 1943?)


----------



## Glider (Apr 28, 2014)

This link might be of interest. Its one I put together a while ago that outlined the air combats the RAF Mohawks had against the IJAF.

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/p36-mohawks-vs-jaf-2922.html


----------



## varsity07840 (Apr 28, 2014)

Shortround6 said:


> Let's see shall we
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 28, 2014)

varsity07840 said:


> They also replaced the .30 cal with another .50 and installed armor taken from wrecked P-40s.
> 
> Duane



That may be so, and it is possible that they stuck the wings from a P-40C on a P-36 fuselage ( I don't know that they did) but since any P-36 that so modified never saw actual combat it is hard to figure out just who "flew it and lived".


----------



## varsity07840 (Apr 28, 2014)

GrauGeist said:


> My great Uncle flew the P-36 and had nothing but admiration for the aircraft, even after being assigned the P-38 later on.
> 
> The problem was that the pilots that flew the P-36 had no combat experience when thrown up against a Japanese adversary, who in many cases, did have combat experience in their type.
> 
> ...



The pilots that got airborne at Pearl Harbor and lived to tell about it very quickly discovered the P-36s capabilities(or lack of) against the Zero. Just because several Japanese planes were downed does not mean that the P-36 was not obsolete. Obsolete
Japanese aircraft shot down P-51s. The comparison to the F4F is really not valid. While it's certainly true that the F4F, especially the F4F-4 struggled to combat with the Zero and depended more upon tactics than performance, it did so with substantial armor protection, self sealing tanks and 6 .50 cal guns, none of which were installed on the P-36A or C, but were considered a necessity in combat. The F4F's two stage two speed engine also set it apart from the P-36, giving better altitude performance where it counted, Japanese bombing altitude. The performance performance degradation from the added weight would have turned the P-36 into a flying truck that lost all it's nice handling qualities. The P-36A could barely clock 300MPH without that added equipment.
There's a difference between prefering on aircraft over another based on handling qualities and choosing on that you'd rather fly in combat. I'd guess your great uncle's preference for the P-36 was based on the former.

Duane


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 28, 2014)

Based on the fact that my Great Uncle flew a P-38 throughout the Pacific Theater, encountering Japanese and lived to tell about it, would certainly offer impact when he says that he appreciated the P-36.

As far as comparing the P-36 to the F4F, why not? They were both in service at the same time, they are both comparable in size and powerplant and they were both piloted by inexperienced pilots who were up against a battle-tested adversary.

Before everyone rushes to their charts and tables to point out minute differences between the two types, step back for a moment and look at the point being made. The PILOTS are what will make or break the success of the type. There were certainly shortcomings with both the P-36 and the F4F in terms of speed, turning, firepower and so on. In it's initial encounter against Japanese fighters, the F4F did not produce stellar results. It wasn't until they figured out how to engage the Japanese fighters on terms that would give the F4F survivability in a fight, that victories started to mount in favor of the F4F.

This is the point I am making. The P-36 was not a world beater, but if the U.S. Army was stuck with it until a replacement was provided, the pilots of the P-36 would have learned how to engage the Japanese fighters in a real-world learning curve just like the U.S. Navy and Marine pilots did with the F4F.

Remember, the training the U.S. pilots had up to 7 December 1941 was based on prewar data and tactics. This changed quickly over the next several months.


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 28, 2014)

Graugeist,

I entirely agree with you. I would also add the air defence operating environment as a crucial factor in the success or otherwise of a given airframe. A fighter which lacks adequate support from the early warning and C2 elements within the air defence system isn't likely to succeed, neither is a fighter that is so outnumbered that it simply gets swamped by the opposition. I'd also add logistics as vital to maintaining operational effectiveness. When taken at this larger systematic level, individual aircraft performance is far less significant.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 28, 2014)

The F4F have had more powerful armament (by a wide margin) and it featured increased (by far, again) protection, both for pilot and fuel tanks. It was also faster.
I do agree that a decent C2 network was crucial for making intercepts possible.


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 28, 2014)

Good point there, Buffnut, and a fact about the P-36 that may surprise the A6m advocates, the P-36A had a RoC of 3,400 feet per minute compared to the A6M2's RoC of 3,100 feet per minute. With advanced warning (which the P-36 did not have at Pearl) they could use height to their advantage (which became an important tool for combating the A6M and KI-43).

Just for the record, the early F4F had a RoC of 2,300 feet per minute, the later F4F was worse.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 28, 2014)

GG, what would be the sources for the RoC figures?


----------



## varsity07840 (Apr 28, 2014)

GrauGeist said:


> Based on the fact that my Great Uncle flew a P-38 throughout the Pacific Theater, encountering Japanese and lived to tell about it, would certainly offer impact when he says that he appreciated the P-36.
> 
> As far as comparing the P-36 to the F4F, why not? They were both in service at the same time, they are both comparable in size and powerplant and they were both piloted by inexperienced pilots who were up against a battle-tested adversary.
> 
> ...



Sorry, but I'm going to have to disagree with you. Neither a/c were world beaters but the F4F afforded a pilot armor protection and protected tanks, with heavy firepower, all intended to fight in a modern airwar. Compared to that, the P-36 was a sportsplane
with WWI armament. Sending pilots to war in such an a/c, regardless of their experience would be the same as Japanese pilots flying Ki-27s against modern a/c. I also think your evaluation of Army pilot experience at wars start compared to Navy/Marine pilots is incorrect. It's true that the Army, due to rapid expansion, had a large percentage of pilots right out of flight school in the Philippine and Hawaii, with little or no time in first line a/c. Combined with little or no knowledge of Japanese a/c they were as Bartsch termed it "doomed at the start". Not so with the Navy/Marines. Being a much smaller organization, their cadre consisted 
of quite a few long time professionals with many hours of experience. Their level of training even under pre war standards was better than the Army. As an example deflection shooting was taught to all Navy/Marine fighter pilots well before the war, but was 
ignored in the Army. They also took to heart what little intelligence was available about the Zero and men like Thatch were already experimenting with tactics to combat it. Finally, after initial encounters with the Zero at Coral Sea( previous fighter vs fighter was against the A5M)
the Navy pilots came away with the impression that the F4F-3 was pretty evenly matched with A6M2, each having it's own superior qualities. More importantly, they didn't think the Zero was the unbeatable enemy described in Army combat reports.Their 
opinion of the F4F-4 was not as positive.
It's all there in Lundstrom's "The First Team: Pacific Naval Air Combat From Pearl Harbor to Midway."

Duane

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 28, 2014)

tomo pauk said:


> GG, what would be the sources for the RoC figures?


F4F-3 armed with 4 x .50 caliber MGs, in service at the start of hostilities, saw combat at Wake, Coral Sea, etc.
It's RoC data is covered in "American Fighter" by Enzo Angellucci.

A6M2 armed with 2 x 7.7mm MG and 2 x 20mm cannon, in service at the start of hostilities and saw prior combat in China (Manchuria) and the performance reports examined by the U.S. military was dismissed as "unbelievable" and largely ignored.
It's RoC data is covered in the "Great Book of Fighters" by William Green and Gordon Swanborough.

P-36A only saw action at Pearl Harbor, as covered in several posts above. At that time, it was armed with 1 x .50 caliber MG and 1 x .30 caliber MG.
It's RoC data is outlined in "Curtiss Fighter Aircraft" by Francis Dean and Dan Hagerdorn




varsity07840 said:


> Sorry, but I'm going to have to disagree with you. Neither a/c were world beaters but the F4F afforded a pilot armor protection and protected tanks, with heavy firepower, all intended to fight in a modern airwar. Compared to that, the P-36 was a sportsplane with WWI armament.


And yet, the A6M had little armor and no self-sealing tanks...explain that, then.
Also, double-check your data regarding the early Wildcat (as referred to in my posts), it was armed with only 4 .50 cal. MG...hardly heavy firepower...
Once they started up-gunning the Wildcat, it's performance took a hit until the FM series brought the four .50 set up back.



varsity07840 said:


> Sending pilots to war in such an a/c, regardless of their experience would be the same as Japanese pilots flying Ki-27s against modern a/c. I also think your evaluation of Army pilot experience at wars start compared to Navy/Marine pilots is incorrect. It's true that the Army, due to rapid expansion, had a large percentage of pilots right out of flight school in the Philippine and Hawaii, with little or no time in first line a/c. Combined with little or no knowledge of Japanese a/c they were as Bartsch termed it "doomed at the start". Not so with the Navy/Marines. Being a much smaller organization, their cadre consisted of quite a few long time professionals with many hours of experience. Their level of training even under pre war standards was better than the Army. As an example deflection shooting was taught to all Navy/Marine fighter pilots well before the war, but was ignored in the Army.


This may surprise you, but the Army and the Navy shared the same intelligence regarding foreign (both friendly and non-friendly) aircraft - types, performance, etc.
Another shocker here...the USAAC (later USAAF) had career personnel. Case in point, my Great Uncle who joined a few years before the start of the war...
As far as deflection shooting to increase the odds of Wildcat success against a Japanese fighter: This is along the lines I was mentioning above...learning to increase the chances of survivability against a superior opponent. I.E.: Learning Curve.



varsity07840 said:


> They also took to heart what little intelligence was available about the Zero and men like Thatch were already experimenting with tactics to combat it.


Not really...they ("they" being the brass) underestimated the A6M at first. Fortunately, there were a few in the ranks that paid attention to reports filtering back...Thatch was one of them.



varsity07840 said:


> Finally, after initial encounters with the Zero at Coral Sea( previous fighter vs fighter was against the A5M) the Navy pilots came away with the impression that the F4F-3 was pretty evenly matched with A6M2, each having it's own superior qualities. More importantly, they didn't think the Zero was the unbeatable enemy described in Army combat reports.Their opinion of the F4F-4 was not as positive.
> It's all there in Lundstrom's "The First Team: Pacific Naval Air Combat From Pearl Harbor to Midway."
> 
> Duane


First off, the A6M was first encountered at Wake Island, 8 December through 23 December. The F2A and F4F did NOT do well against the Japanese fighters (though they did a hell of a job attacking the Destroyers) and this, is where the learning curve began.
Doesn't matter how much training a pilot has before entering a combat zone, actual combat is the mother of all instructors.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 28, 2014)

Thanks for the sources listing. 
A comparison between RoC of the F4F in one side, and P-36 and Zero is a case of TANSTAAFL. You want big punch, lots of ammo, carrier capability, all-around protection? Okay, than forget P-36* and it's RoC - simple as that. The USN wanted those features, and they were well served by F4F.

*and Zero, for that matter (minus carrier capability); the Zero never received fully folding wings

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 28, 2014)

tomo pauk said:


> The USN wanted those features, and they were well served by F4F.


Agreed, the F4F did a remarkable job holding it's ground and buying time for the U.S. Navy to get better types into battle, considering what it was up against.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 28, 2014)

The thing with these _super_ P-36 threads ( and there have been a few) is everybody wants the maneuverability of the pre-war Hawk 75/P-36A but they want improved performance, better protection, better firepower. 

Which is basically what the P-40 tried to do. Let us not forget that the XP-40 was 10th production P-36. Most if not all changes were forward of the firewall (except for some early radiator placement under the belly) and changing to to two .50 cal MGs. 

The radial Hawks went around 4483-4713lbs empty (no guns,etc) depending on engine and 5692-5922lbs "normal" loaded with a 1209lb 'useful' load (pilot, 105 US gallons gas, oil, one .50/200 round, one .30/600 rounds, radio, oxygen flare pistol)

Early P-40 went 5367lbs empty and 6807lbs with a disposable load of 1440lbs, but the disposable load included TWO .50s/200rpg and TWO .30s/500rpg. and a bit more fuel. By the time you get to the P-40C the empty weight had gone up 400lbs (a lot of it the self sealing tanks and armor/BP glass. and useful load had gone to 1737lb ( more guns/ammo mainly). And that is _where_ the handling and climb rate went. An extra 1500lbs or more of gross weight. 

You want a "Zero Killer"????
Or even a Ki-43 Killer????
What are you willing to live without? 

The self sealing tanks? 
The BP windscreen?
The back armor?
Keep the ONE .50 and ONE .30 armament?


----------



## varsity07840 (Apr 28, 2014)

GrauGeist said:

And yet, the A6M had little armor and no self-sealing tanks...explain that, then.
Also, double-check your data regarding the early Wildcat (as referred to in my posts), it was armed with only 4 .50 cal. MG...hardly heavy firepower...
Once they started up-gunning the Wildcat, it's performance took a hit until the FM series brought the four .50 set up back.

The A6M had no armor. What's to explain? The Zero had better performance with less horsepower and better armament.
The Japanese theory was why have armor if you're the aggressorwith superior performance? (4) .50 cal guns, especially unencumbered by syncronization was considered pretty heavy at the time. The first FW190's had (4)7.9mm. (4) .50s was considered good enough in the pacific. Consider the F8F-1. 

GrauGeist said:

This may surprise you, but the Army and the Navy shared the same intelligence regarding foreign (both friendly and non-friendly) aircraft - types, performance, etc.
Another shocker here...the USAAC (later USAAF) had career personnel. Case in point, my Great Uncle who joined a few years before the start of the war...
As far as deflection shooting to increase the odds of Wildcat success against a Japanese fighter: This is along the lines I was mentioning above...learning to increase the chances of survivability against a superior opponent. I.E.: Learning Curve.

The difference between the Army and the Navy was what they did with the little intelligence they had. The fact that it was distributed down to squadron level in the Navy and that some senior pilots set about developing counter tactics may explain why Navy pilots
were somewhat better prepared. This was BEFORE the war. And, the art of deflection shooting was a Navy practice well before the F4F came along and it's combats with the Zero.

Finally, if you re-read my post you'll see that I wrote about the NAVY'S first encounter with the Zero was at Coral Sea and from that combat they formed an opinion. Wake was a MARINE show. Almost all of the F4Fs were destroyed on the ground the first day and combats for several days later were against unescorted bombers. By the time Zeros showed up there were only 2 F4Fs left and were quickly overwhelmed by superior numbers in what I believe was one fight. Under those circumstances, I doubt that it would have made any difference if the Japanese planes were A6Ms or A5Ms, or that the Marines had time to sit around and discuss the enemy's performance. THERE WERE NO F2As AT WAKE.

Duane


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 28, 2014)

varsity07840 said:


> Consider the F8F-1.




The F8F-1 used guns firing at 1100-1200rpm not guns firing at at 750-850 rpm.

It also used a different mix of ammo. By late 1944 the Army and Navy were using belts of ammo made up of mostly M8 API instead of belts of AP+ Incendiary + tracer. 

Granted four .50s are not as bad as some claim but do not use the F8F as an example.


----------



## Glider (Apr 28, 2014)

varsity07840 said:


> GrauGeist said:
> 
> And yet, the A6M had little armor and no self-sealing tanks...explain that, then.
> Also, double-check your data regarding the early Wildcat (as referred to in my posts), it was armed with only 4 .50 cal. MG...hardly heavy firepower...
> Once they started up-gunning the Wildcat, it's performance took a hit until the FM series brought the four .50 set up back.


There was a lot more to the detriment of performance of the F4-F4 apart from the extra 2 x 0.5. The RN were more than happy with 4 x 0.5 and the P51 B/C did all right with 4 x 0.5.


> The A6M had no armor. What's to explain? The Zero had better performance with less horsepower and better armament.
> The Japanese theory was why have armor if you're the aggressorwith superior performance? (4) .50 cal guns, especially unencumbered by syncronization was considered pretty heavy at the time. The first FW190's had (4)7.9mm. (4) .50s was considered good enough in the pacific. Consider the F8F-1.


I admit that I thought the first production Fw 190 had 2 x 20mm and 4 x 7.62 quickly changed to 4 x 20mm and 2 x 7.62 but could be wrong.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## HBPencil (Apr 28, 2014)

tomo pauk said:


> Would you be so kind to describe in what condition were the Hurri II and Buffalo, like armament installed, fuel, ammo, protection?



Sorry for my slow reply.
I've dug up my copy of the book and here's what it said:

"Sunday, 1 February... the Hurricane was tested during the day by Sqn Ldr Frank Carey (CO of 135 Squadron) in a mock dogfight over Mingdalon with a 67 Squadron Buffalo flown by Sgt Gordon Williams. The Buffalo's performance at 20,000 feet and above was actually found to be superior, whilst at 16,000 feet the two aircraft seemed evenly matched. Below that level the Hurricane undoubtedly had the edge. The result thereby cast an interesting light on the oft-maligned Brewster fighter."

As you can see there's no reference to anything like fuel or ammo load so I guess we can't really ever know. However, given that the war was well under way I think it'd be fair to assume that the Buffalo, and probably the Hurri, were of standard spec (e.g had amour, guns installed etc.)
As for the pilots, Frank Carey was a veteran of the BoF and BoB with at least 18 victories; while at the same time Sgt Williams had, at most, a month of Ops under his belt.


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 28, 2014)

As far as the F2A being at Wake, that was a faux pas on my behalf, they almost were, with VMF-221 but TF-11 recalled before executing a relief effort for fear of being overwhelmed. VMF-221 ended up at Midway Island, delaying their enevitable showdown with the IJN by 7 months. Multitasking caused me to mix that in there by accident.

However, Wake's VMF-211 F4F-3s did engage Japanese A6M2 aircraft. One Capt. Elrod, of VMF-211 was awarded the MoH posthumously for his downing two A6Ms during the second Japanese invasion effort.

This was 6 months before the battle of Coral Sea.

The insistance that the U.S. Navy being ahead of the Army due to intel recieved is nonsense. The reports were coming from Chennault, who passed it along to Washington. From there, it was shared among the Army and the Navy.


----------



## RpR (Apr 28, 2014)

Shortround6 said:


> Most books say the P-36A had one .50 and one .30 and the P-36C had one .50 and _THREE_ .30 cal guns. ---- For this one I used the Wiki. I realize it is not the best source but that is what it said for guns .
> _P-36A (Model 75L)
> USAAC version, P-36A-3 mounted four .30 in (7.62 mm) machine guns in the wings in addition to fuselage armament_ -- Although on second look it contradicts itself so it is my fault for using something I usually do not.
> My book on the Hawk is fifty miles from where I am.
> ...


``


----------



## varsity07840 (Apr 28, 2014)

Shortround6 said:


> The F8F-1 used guns firing at 1100-1200rpm not guns firing at at 750-850 rpm.
> 
> It also used a different mix of ammo. By late 1944 the Army and Navy were using belts of ammo made up of mostly M8 API instead of belts of AP+ Incendiary + tracer.
> 
> Granted four .50s are not as bad as some claim but do not use the F8F as an example.



I'm not so sure about that. The prototype F8F flew in 1944 and the M3 wasn't standardized until April '45, after production had begun. Retro fit later? Possible, but I don't know of F4Us getting that treatment. 

Duane


----------



## RpR (Apr 28, 2014)

If one wants to see how a theoretical improved P-36 might have done over the ones used; compare a F4F-4 to a FM2.

One of the classic WWII aircraft magazines recently had such an article stating why it was perhaps the best Navy fighter vs. Japanese fighters of WWII.

If I get home, and remember, I will list which magazine it was.


----------



## varsity07840 (Apr 28, 2014)

GrauGeist said:


> As far as the F2A being at Wake, that was a faux pas on my behalf, they almost were, with VMF-221 but TF-11 recalled before executing a relief effort for fear of being overwhelmed. VMF-221 ended up at Midway Island, delaying their enevitable showdown with the IJN by 7 months. Multitasking caused me to mix that in there by accident.
> 
> However, Wake's VMF-211 F4F-3s did engage Japanese A6M2 aircraft. One Capt. Elrod, of VMF-211 was awarded the MoH posthumously for his downing two A6Ms during the second Japanese invasion effort.
> 
> ...



As I posted previously, Wake's MARINES did engage Zeros and were wiped out in the process. Whether anyone could actually confirm Elrod's victories is another subject. My point was that given that all VFM 211's pilots were dead or POWs, there's little reason to believe that their combats were a learning experience for future F4F piolts to benefit from. Who were the VFM211 survivors going to tell about the vaunted Zero? It was left up to NAVY pilots at Coral Sea to effectively evaluate the Zero vs F4F
situation.

Duane

Duane


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 28, 2014)

varsity07840 said:


> As I posted previously, Wake's MARINES did engage Zeros and were wiped out in the process. Whether anyone could actually confirm Elrod's victories is another subject. My point was that given that all VFM 211's pilots were dead or POWs, there's little reason to believe that their combats were a learning experience for future F4F piolts to benefit from. Who were the VFM211 survivors going to tell about the vaunted Zero? It was left up to NAVY pilots at Coral Sea to effectively evaluate the Zero vs F4F
> situation.
> 
> Duane
> ...


Fine, so the Marine Corp is now a seperate entity from the Navy...anything to split hairs and stand on the head of others.

So here ya' go: You're right...everything you say is awesome. Now go give yourself a gold star, you've earned it.

As far as my original statement goes, I'll stand by it. If the Army did not have a backup for the P-36 during the opening year of the war, the P-36 could have adapted to the challenge as the pilots learned how to beat the Japaneseo, just like the Navy (and yes, Marines) did with the Wildcat. The P-36 DID have shortcomings, yes, but so did it's adversaries. It didn't have armor and self sealing tanks, well, neither did the A6M...it did not take much to light the Zero up. Same goes for the G4M and other Japanese types.

And to the comment Bob made:


> Get the book on the Curtiss Aircraft Company. Why it went from being the company with largest military order to ceasing to exist. It will tell you all you need to know.


Curtiss is still in business...Curtiss-Wright corporation...they did like many other comanies did after the war, they merged.


----------



## gjs238 (Apr 28, 2014)

GrauGeist said:


> Curtiss is still in business...Curtiss-Wright corporation...they did like many other comanies did after the war, they merged.



From the inscrutible Wikipedia:
_Curtiss-Wright came into existence on July 5, 1929, the result of a merger of 12 companies associated with Curtiss Aeroplane and Motor Company of Buffalo, New York, and Wright Aeronautical of Dayton, Ohio,[2]_


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 28, 2014)

Curtiss-Wright Corporation - Home

Like I said, they merged as many companies have done over the years, but are still in business.

There were also quite a few aircraft makers that merged after WWII, as well. Grumman merged with Northrop, Consolodated merged with Vultee and then was bought by McDonnell Douglas, who are also the result of a merger. And the list goes on


----------



## GregP (Apr 28, 2014)

Reference post #54. The magazine was Flight Journal and the gentleman who wrote it was Barrett Tillmann. I sent a letter to the editor to say how wrong Mr. Tillmann was and go a nice reply back. Barrett often digs into the arcane in order to generate an interesting story ... it's how me makes money.

For the most part I like his stuff, but the FM-2 was just another Wildcat with slightly better performance. They don't figure the F4U-4 as a completely different aircraft, and it had a bigger power difference than the FM-2 did from the F4F. The same can be said of other fighters, too. The F8F-2 bearcat had more HP than the XF8F-1, and it is never figured differently from the rest of the Bearcats. Likewise the late P-47's had WAY more than an extra 150 HP over their earlier cousins, but nobody ever seems to want to make them into a new species.

I my book, all the Wildcats are grouped together. You can take a very selected group and figure all the statistics you want, but statistics are founded on the premise that all members of the group have an equal chance of being selected for the sample. If not, the statistics are no good.

A specially-selected 10% sample of a population is meaningless ... it was specially selected to start with. The Finns did well with the Buffalo, but take any 60%+ sample of Buffalos, including the Finns, and they show rather badly. The Finns operated less than 10% of Buffalos and are a textbook example of how not to choose a random sample.

Let's just say I think the article on the FM-2 was good for starting a fire, but not for much else. But Barrett DID get to sell another article. His bias shows pretty thinly through the text. Perhaps he is not into mathematics and doesn't know better, but if you want a good sample, make it a true random sample, not a specially-selected sample designed to support your claim. 

That's the way politicians do statistics, not people wanting to show something that is true.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 28, 2014)

varsity07840 said:


> I'm not so sure about that. The prototype F8F flew in 1944 and the M3 wasn't standardized until April '45, after production had begun. Retro fit later? Possible, but I don't know of F4Us getting that treatment.
> 
> Duane



They had been working on high cycle rate .50 cal guns (1200rpm goal) since the about time they boosted the the M2 up to 800rpm, Colt /Springfield worked on the T21 starting in 1940, High standard worked on the T22 series ( E1 through E6) starting in early 1942. Frigidaire worked on the T-25 series and submitted the first gun to Aberdeen in March of 1944. The E3 version was submitted for test in July of 1944 and it was this gun that standardized in April 1945. High Standard also was working on a "kit" that would allow conversions of existing M2s (the T-25/M3 series had to be built from new) that was the T-27 series in 1944/45, the T-26 series had been an unsuccessful project designed at Aberdeen. 
In 1943/44 they may not have known _when_ the 1200rpm .50 cal guns were coming but they knew they _were_ coming. The "improved" M2A1 gun (T-36 project) had been approved for 31,336 guns in 1944 but production was stopped after about 8,000 due to the rapid progress of the T-25E3


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 28, 2014)

"I am not the free Wiki, if you want me to do web searching for you I can send you my address and you can send me some money."

Good to know. I guess I have been foolish for contributing to this forum for 4-5 years. 

You want any sources from me can you send a check.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## varsity07840 (Apr 28, 2014)

As I'm sure this will bring relief to a number of readers , here are my final comments on "Axis adversary" killer threads.

Has anyone noticed that these threads are almost exclusively about woulda, coulda shoulda capabilities of some not so great American aircraft vs. the Japanese Zero? When's the last time you saw a thread titled "P-40, BF 109 Killer?" Why is that?
Could it be that since Dec. of 1941 we've been trying to justify(or cover up) how we got our butts kicked by a supposedly inferior nation with crappy airplanes when it was we that had inferior equipment?
It started several days after Clark Field got wiped out with PR stories that Messerschmits were encountered and that white blonde haired enemy pilots were seen bailing out of the numerous planes we shot down. Then of course it progressed to Colin Kelly sinking(and in some versions crashing into, take your pick) a battleship, further progressing to reports that Japanese
pilots flying missions to Java were wearing native clothes so they could blend in with the locals when they were shot down.
Spin it the way you want, but the bottom line is we were embarresed then and to some extent now that our pilots were expected to be victorious flying inferior planes that in some cases were out of production for several years. How do you improve a plane based on combat reports when it's not even being built anymore? If Japanese planes was better than the American plane, who cares why? They were and the pilots of the American plane were the first to admit it. How do we think word got back to Washington in 1942 that despite what MacArthur was saying, we were being shot to pieces? It doesen't really matter how incremently better they were, or how a certain American aircraft could have benefited from a bigger and better engine down the road. At the time, we were being beat up by planes from a country whose claim to fame for us was chop sticks. 
We owe a great deal to those pilots that had to fly under those conditions, but we can't change facts, or for that matter, history.

Duane


----------



## RpR (Apr 28, 2014)

GrauGeist said:


> And to the comment Bob made:
> 
> Curtiss is still in business...Curtiss-Wright corporation...they did like many other comanies did after the war, they merged.


You are correct, I should have said out of the airplane business.


----------



## pinsog (Apr 28, 2014)

varsity07840 said:


> As I'm sure this will bring relief to a number of readers , here are my final comments on "Axis adversary" killer threads.
> 
> Has anyone noticed that these threads are almost exclusively about woulda, coulda shoulda capabilities of some not so great American aircraft vs. the Japanese Zero? When's the last time you saw a thread titled "P-40, BF 109 Killer?" Why is that?
> Could it be that since Dec. of 1941 we've been trying to justify(or cover up) how we got our butts kicked by a supposedly inferior nation with crappy airplanes when it was we that had inferior equipment?
> ...



Duane, everybody here KNOWS the Zero was better than anything we fielded early in the war. Personally, I think the Zero was the best airplane in the world up until the introduction of the FW190, it certainly roughed up every allied aircraft put up against it early in the war including the Spitfire and we all know the Spitfire and ME109 were neck and neck. 

We know what really happened and why. The reason we do "What if?" and "Why?" is to discuss 'could things have been different'. What I have gleaned from everything I have read on this sight in the last 5 years or so is, given the historical timeline of when things were introduced, we did as well as we could do even knowing what happened.

By the way, "Was the P40 as good as the ME109" has been done on this sight about half a dozen times, so it isn't just the Japanese who get the "what if?" treatment.


----------



## RpR (Apr 29, 2014)

varsity07840 said:


> As I'm sure this will bring relief to a number of readers , here are my final comments on "Axis adversary" killer threads.
> 
> Could it be that since Dec. of 1941 we've been trying to justify(or cover up) how we got our butts kicked by a supposedly inferior nation with crappy airplanes when it was we that had inferior equipment?
> 
> ...



Part of the trouble people here say better as if an aircraft is better in every paradigm an aircraft has to deal with to perform, which did not exist to the end of the war.
There was no fighter aircraft in WWII was the best in every paradigm, including the P-51.

The Oscar could out handle the Zero but was lacking in more areas than the Zero.
Japanese planes were flying Molotov Cocktails an area all Allied planes were superior.
The Japanese had aircraft definitely better at bomber altitude than USAAF in China-Burma but at low altitudes U.S. fighters had more strong points against the Japanese than Japanese aircraft had against U.S. aircraft.
The British Hurricane was a better aircraft, in more ways, in China-Burma than the Spitfire.
The Curtiss CW-21 has been written about as one of the few Allied aircraft that could dogfight with a Zero without a disadvantage but poor firepower was a huge deficit.
Etc., etc., etc.

The Flying Tigers embarrassed the Japanese because they were pilots who due to Chennault had an idea of what they had to deal with.
Had all U.S. pilots at the start of the war had the information the Tigers did, whilst also being as prepared for combat as Chennault's people were, things would have been different but they did not; they had the worthless information the military gave them.

As shown by the P-40s in China and the F2A in Finland, which plane is supposedly the best means nothing when pilots are prepared to fly what they have in a mode the plane they are flying works best at.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## beitou (Apr 29, 2014)

How much did the Japanese know of the Wildcat's performance before they encountered them in combat, as Wildcats and P36s had been around for a few years before 41/42 had any information percolated back to the Japanese that eneabled them to develop tactics to defeat them?

Had any French Hawks fought the Japanese when the Japanese took over French IndoChina or did the Japanese caputure any their that they were able to use to evaluate their performance?


----------



## Lefa (Apr 29, 2014)

Kyösti Karhila said in an interview, when he was a green pilot and fly P36, he had to turn battle whit I-16 fighter. After couple full turn, he realized that the I-16 is getting his tail, and broke away from the fight by diving.
I think this shows that I-16 was able to turn in the P-36 fighter. I understand I-16 and Zero were equal to turn, but the Zero was faster and climbed better.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Denniss (Apr 29, 2014)

From what I've read some time ago, the F4F-4 was not well liked by (good?) pilots because of the weight gain by additional guns while having less ammo for each gun (AFAIR 150 rounds less per gun than in 4-gun F4F-3).
Fesh pilots may have been more confortable with 6 guns with a larger spread of bullets but it was quite easy to run out of ammo.
Navy and marine pilots had to learn the pros and cons of their own and primary enemy aircraft to develop proper tactics to beat them, this took some time.


----------



## RpR (Apr 29, 2014)

beitou said:


> How much did the Japanese know of the Wildcat's performance before they encountered them in combat, as Wildcats and P36s had been around for a few years before 41/42 had any information percolated back to the Japanese that eneabled them to develop tactics to defeat them?
> 
> Had any French Hawks fought the Japanese when the Japanese took over French Indo-China or did the Japanese capture any their that they were able to use to evaluate their performance?


Even with its faults, read the Ragged, Rugged Warriors as it includes rarely mentioned action in China pre-Flying Tigers.
The Japanese knew how the Hawk with fixed gear handled, as they flew against it as it was part of the International Squadron and probably made assumptions about it as they switched from their fixed gear aircraft to the Ki-43 which like the Hawk was based off of a fixed gear predecessor.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 29, 2014)

BobR said:


> There was no fighter aircraft in WWII was the best in every paradigm, including the P-51.



That sums it up right there!


----------



## Shortround6 (May 2, 2014)

gjs238 said:


> Inspired by the thread _The P-39 a Zero Killer???_, I'm wondering if the P-36/Hawk 75, with a 2-stage supercharged engine like the F4F, would have performed better for the Army and Marine units in the PTO - Midway and Guadalcanal periods?
> 
> In the P-39 thread it was discussed how poorly the P-400's and P-39's performed at altitude and how valuable the 2-stage F4F's were.
> Even the P-40 entered the discussion.
> ...



Returning to the original question it depends on a number of things.

1. Which Zero do you want to kill?
A. The A6M2 with the Sakae 12 that had 940hp for take-off and 950hp at 13,780ft.
B. The A6M3 with the Sakae 21 that had 1130hp for take-off, 1100hp at 9,350ft and _980hp at 19,685ft._

2. Which route to better performance you take.
A. Fit later model P&W R-1830 with 2 speed supercharger.
B. Fit the P&W R-1830 with _2 stage_ supercharger
C. Fit the Wright Cyclone R-1820.
D. shoot the works and try to jam a Wright R-2600 in the plane.

3. P-36A C had no armor and no self sealing tanks as they left the factory
A. Leave them that way in pursuit of better performance and handling.
B. Fit some sort of protection so pilots can survive at a greater rate and gain experience. 

4. Actually killing the the "Zero"= firepower, how much is enough? P-36As had one .50 and one .30 cal. P-36Cs had one.50 and three .30 cal. Foreign Hawk 75s often had six RCMGs.
A. are these combinations enough
B. do you fit one or more .50s in each wing?

For information on the P-36 and Hawk 5 it does not get much better than this form Mike Williams site. 
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-36/Curtiss_Hawk_75-A_Detail_Specifications.pdf
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-36/P-36_Operation_and_Flight_Instruction.pdf

some considerations.
_1._ The A6M3 was first tested in the summer of 1941 and was being issued to units in spring/summer of 1942. 

2. The original P&W R-1830-17 was good for 1200hp at sea level, 1150hp at 5,000ft, 975 at 10,000ft and 810hp at 15,000ft. all at 2700rpm. We can see that there is altitude problem but since this is a 1938/39 engine it is somewhat expected. 
A, No later (unless real late) R-1830 does any better with a single speed supercharger, so on to the two speed. The engine used in the F4F-3A and Martlet II III was good for 1200hp at sea level, 1200hp at 4900ft and 1000hp at 14,500ft.
A roughly 25% increase in power at 15,000ft is certainly nothing to sneeze at and might even work against the A6M2. There is very little weight increase or installation problem. Against the A6M3 you are down almost 5,200ft in FTH. 
B, The basis of this thread, fit the Wildcat two stage engine, 1200hp at sea level, 1100hp to about 12,500ft and (maybe?) 1040hp at 19,500ft (?)(graph is hard to read) I would note that the last calls for 2700rpm and most ALL references call 
for a max of 2550 rpm in high gear. We can actually beat the Zero here. But we have installation problems and weight. We have picked up 65lbs and some length over the two speed engine ( two speed picked up about 90lbs over the singe speed) but that _does not include_ the inter-coolers and ducting. 





There is a lot less volume in the fuselage right behind the engine in a P-36 than an F4F. It was done (intercoolers installed) and done twice.




The "pod" behind the left wheel and under the cockpit is the intercooler on the Hawk 75R flown in the 1939 fighter trials with a two stage supercharger.




This is the Fall of 1942 test configuration for a P&W test mule Hawk 81 with a two stage engine and intercooler. Please note all new fuselage from cockpit forward (including non-standard windscreen?) please note scoops needed for inter-cooler compared to "normal" P-36. 

C. The Wright Cyclone might work. Installation already worked out and it is a lighter engine. Main option is fitting a G-205A engine. Some of the export Hawks got this engine and it offers 1000hp at 14,200-15,000ft depending on source (or RAM?) Trouble is it has more drag and this is as good as it gets until the "H" series engine comes out and it won't show up in large numbers until the spring/summer of 1943. (engine used in FM-2 Wildcat), too late for "Zero Killer" in 1942 and early 1943. 

More later.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RpR (May 2, 2014)

Well now, that is interesting
Thank you for taking the time.
Bob


----------



## Shortround6 (May 2, 2014)

Returning to the original question it depends on a number of things II.

engines contin:

D. Trying to use the R-2600 calls for an extensive re-work. Engine is about 500 lbs heavier than the R-1830 or about 100 lbs heavier than the Merlin and cooling system in a P-40Fand 300lbs heavier than the engine and cooling system in a P-40C.
It needs a bigger prop and a host of other changes. Maybe it can be done but the cost in weight means that the turning radius and good handling the P-36 was known for is now as bad or worse than the P-40. You do have a _LOT_ power down low though. You also have a lot of drag. Even the 1700 hp take-off versions of the R-2600 are down to about 1100 hp at 20,000 ft so the power advantage, while still there, is much less marked at the altitudes people are looking at. You have about 12% more power but used a much heavier engine to get it than Zero. 

3. Protection. The early P-40s used 91lbs of armor and BP which is not a lot. P-39s used around 240-26 0lbs and F4F-3 used 155 lbs. The P-36 used 3 fuel tanks with 2 holding the "normal" load of 105 gallons and the 3rd tank holing the "overload fuel". We don't have a weight for the tanks but an early P-40 with _plain_ tanks has a wight of 171 lbs for the fuel system. This goes to 253 lbs for a P-40B (160 gals)and 420 lbs for a P-40C (135 gal) with better tanks and all three protected. Later P-40s got a bit more fuel (148-157 gals) for only a little more weight. The stripper models got 120 gals in two tanks for a weight of 322 lbs. 
So pick a fuel capacity and desired protection level. The R-2600 is going to need a _LOT_ of fuel. We can cheat and use the 105-120 gal 2 tank option and use a belly tank though. 

4. Firepower. One .30 cal gun in each wing can be 111 lbs for guns and ammo. Double that for 2 guns in each wing but if you ditch the fuselage .50 and swap it for a .30 you can save 63lbs. Stick a single .50 in each wing with just 200 rounds per gun and you have 277lbs or 55lbs more than the four .30s set up. Changing to either the two stage R-1830 or R-2600 engines may require giving up the fuselage guns. 

Adding much weight (more than a few hundred pounds) *will* require beefing up the structure in order to maintain the "G" limits. The original 12 "G" limit was without the rear tank filled (105 gallons only). Add a lot of weight and the landing gear may have to increased in strength. I would note that the power-plant section of an F4F-4 is _about_ 30-60lbs heavier than the power-plant section of a P-40C including the P-40C cooling system. The engine in the P-40C was good for about 840hp at 20,000ft. 

Since a P-36 and a P-40 are pretty much identical from the firewall back any changes in maneuverability, handling or flying qualities are pretty much due to weight changes and/or a shift in the center of gravity due to the weight change.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (May 2, 2014)

SR, what is the difference between the 2 stage R-1830s specified in 2A and 2B?


----------



## Shortround6 (May 2, 2014)

2A is a _2 speed_ supercharger, not two _stage. _

The US P-36A C used single speed superchargers. I don't think _any_ Hawk production fighter got a two speed P&W engine.


----------



## wuzak (May 2, 2014)

Shortround6 said:


> 2A is a _2 speed_ supercharger, not two _stage. _
> 
> The US P-36A C used single speed superchargers. I don't think _any_ Hawk production fighter got a two speed P&W engine.



Ok, understood. 

I guess I should read more carefully!


----------



## gjs238 (May 5, 2014)

SR6: Thanks for all the time effort for the excellent posts!

Perhaps an overly simplistic idea, but it is too bad that the P-36 (as a R-1830 powered plane) did not seem to have the potential and longevity of the F4F, another R-1830 powered plane.


----------



## nuuumannn (May 5, 2014)

> Perhaps an overly simplistic idea, but it is too bad that the P-36 (as a R-1830 powered plane) did not seem to have the potential and longevity of the F4F, another R-1830 powered plane.



It did; it led directly to the P-40. That was the next step in its evolution. Just as we like to talk about putting bigger more powerful engines in existing airframes, that's exactly what Curtiss did with the Hawk 75.


----------



## GrauGeist (May 5, 2014)

Technically, the transition of the P-36 to the P-40 is a real-life "what if" that actually happened.


----------



## gjs238 (May 5, 2014)

Correct, but the genesis of this thread was how valuable the high altitude performance of the F4F was early in the war.
The thought was to use the same 2-stage R-1830 from the F4F in the P-36.
Not quite so easy.


----------



## nuuumannn (May 5, 2014)

> Correct, but the genesis of this thread was how valuable the high altitude performance of the F4F was early in the war.



Actually, it's called "P-36 a Zero Killer??? (P-36/Hawk 75)" The P-40 was the logical step for the P-36, regardless of the F4F's performance. I honestly don't believe that adding the other radial would have offered the design anything that the Allison V-1710 or in fact the Merlin could have given in the P-40.


----------



## gjs238 (May 6, 2014)

Just clarifying my intent of starting the thread...
The title of the thread was a play on another active thread at the time, _The P-39 a Zero Killer???_, and not meant to be taken literally.
That thread spoke of the value of the altitude performance of the 2-stage R-1830 powered F4F.
I was curious to learn if such a powered P-36 could have been of benefit.
I understand the P-36/P-40 evolution, but that did not address the issue of altitude performance.

SR6 did an excellent job addressing this query.


----------



## Marcel (May 6, 2014)

buffnut453 said:


> P-36s did ok for the Brits operating over Burma from bases in India. The Dutch also used some in the East Indies in early '42 but I don't have specifics on how well they fared compared to the Brewsters and CW-21Bs that the ML-KNIL also operated.


the hawk did just as bad as the others. However one should note that this had nothing to do with aircraft performance and cannot be used to measure as such. Most of the debacle was caused by a total lack of early warning systems, this combined with a lack of aircraft and the vastness of the area that had to be protected contributed to the failure of defence.


----------



## Shortround6 (May 6, 2014)

gjs238 said:


> Just clarifying my intent of starting the thread...
> The title of the thread was a play on another active thread at the time, _The P-39 a Zero Killer???_, and not meant to be taken literally.
> That thread spoke of the value of the altitude performance of the 2-stage R-1830 powered F4F.
> I was curious to learn if such a powered P-36 could have been of benefit.
> ...



Thank you.

A big problem was the drag of the radial engine. One book claims that the P-36 had 22% more drag than the XP-40 in it's best configuration. That explains the 'early' P-40s speed advantage although later ones added lots of weight and drag. The P&W test mule may have been the second fastest type P-40 flown after the P-40Qs. It is estimated that it had only 8% more drag than the XP-40 and because it's engine offered much more power above 20,000ft it was faster. It may also have used exhaust thrust much better, I am not sure if these drag figures take exhaust thrust into account. However it may have had NO protective equipment and NO armament. Later radial installations might have done even better but come way to late in timing.


----------



## nuuumannn (May 6, 2014)

> I understand the P-36/P-40 evolution, but that did not address the issue of altitude performance.



I guess this depends entirely on your expectations of what is considered to be better altitude performance of the time. Would fitting a 2-stage R-1830 meet those expectations and like I said, would the Allison or even the Merlin be able to do the same? Emulating, or attempting to emulate the F4F's performance is perhaps not the best option, all things considered. What would that have given the P-36? It certainly would not have offered it better performance than the likes of the Zero. Fitting the Allison to the P-36 offers/offered more flexibility in terms of a viable future for the airframe, regardless of the immediate benefits of the 1830, otherwise, Curtiss would have done it.


----------



## Shortround6 (May 6, 2014)

A lot of things meshed together to cause certain aircraft to play the roles they did. For the US Army a key moment was the Jan 1939 fighter trials (delayed from 1938 ). The XP-38 was not available and neither was the XP-39. Curtiss had several prototypes and Seversky had at least two. The Army was testing the XP-37 with turbo and one of the Seversky fighters had a turbo. One of the Curtiss aircraft had a two stage superchargered R-1830 as did the other Seversky. The P-40 won not only on performance but _because it was the *lowest risk*._ Army wanted a lot of new planes and it wanted them in a *hurry.* The Turbo was figured to be at least 2 years away from service use and the P&W two stage engines hadn't really shown their potential. Troubles were unrecorded (or at least unpublished in popular press) but even later versions of the engine in the early F4Fs were not trouble free. 
Since the P-40 was a P-36 with a new engine the existing production equipment and work force could be used for even faster delivery. Once production got rolling the P-40 became, while not the only game in town, the primary game in town. 778 were built in 1940 (starting in May) compared to 1 P-38, 13 P-39s, 106 F4Fs, 1 F4U. 1941 sees 2248 P-40s built and while production increases for other types the total for all the others put together is 71% of the number of P-40s. 1942 sees P-40 production overtaken by all types of fighters but only about 90 more P-38s, P-39s and P-47s were built than P-40s. Any P-36 built (regardless of engine) is a P-40 NOT built because the major factory expansions are only starting to take effect in 1942. Curtiss was expanding it's Buffalo factory as much as possible as it was. A new P-36/P-40 factory? 

Allison tried to put an engine into production using 9.60 supercharger gears in 1941 but the gears failed (needed to be wider to handle the load) so that avenue to better altitude performance was delayed. The Merlin XX (Packard V-1650-1) was tested in the summer of of 1941 and in production in Jan of 1942 and would have helped considerably in the South Pacific, except they all went to North Africa so the P-40 would have some hope against the 109s.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (May 6, 2014)

Curtiss was also working on improving the P-36, by various projects such as the XP-37 and the XP-42.

The XP-37 (built from existing P-36 airframes) had an Allison V-1710-11 but still was armed lightly, with a single .50 MG and a single .30 MG. with the cockpit moved rearward on the fuselage. It was never able to reach it's projected top speed of 340 mph (547ph).

The XP-42 (also built from an existing P-36 airframe) was powered by a P&W R-1830-31 radial. While it was faster than the P-36, it suffered from several problems like overheating and excessive vibration. Since the XP-40 was demonstrating much better results, the XP-42 development was terminated. An interesting side note, is that the XP-42 was used as a hack until 1947, when it was scrapped. Not a bad lifespan for a one-off prototype.


----------



## RpR (May 6, 2014)

The book _P-40 in Action_, 1976 edition, says of the Curtiss-Wright Company, had they spent their time and money building a fully developed, quality, improved P-40 rather than wasting time and money with the P-46 (which the book says pilots said was miserably cramped, hot and less maneuverable than the P-40) P-60, P-62, P-71, XF14C and others while shoving as many aircraft as cheaply as possible out the door, the Curtiss Aircraft division probably would not have stopped making aircraft shortly after WWII ended.


----------



## Shortround6 (May 6, 2014)

A lot of authors like the P-40 but let's face it, it was a re-engined P-36, not a wonder plane. *IF* they spent their time and money building a fully developed, quality, improved P-40 it would no longer be a P-40. How much a plane can you change and *still* call it the same name/designation? Hurricane changed from a fabric covered wing to a metal covered one but kept the _same_ shape/planform and same airfoil so lift/drag and flying characteristics were unchanged. For the P-40 to be _improved_ it needed a new airfoil, new flaps, new landing gear and a new wing structure. Still the same airplane though, right? 

Making an _improved_ P-40 instead of trying for a _next_ generation fighter was a *sure* way to go out of business. Think about it. You can only sell the same old airplane/car for so long by changing the grille/tail lights and chrome while keeping the same chassis and driveline. Trying to play catch-up with new technologies if you skip a generation or two doesn't work very well.


----------



## Glider (May 6, 2014)

Shortround6 said:


> A lot of authors like the P-40 but let's face it, it was a re-engined P-36, not a wonder plane. *IF* they spent their time and money building a fully developed, quality, improved P-40 it would no longer be a P-40. How much a plane can you change and *still* call it the same name/designation? Hurricane changed from a fabric covered wing to a metal covered one but kept the _same_ shape/planform and same airfoil so lift/drag and flying characteristics were unchanged. For the P-40 to be _improved_ it needed a new airfoil, new flaps, new landing gear and a new wing structure. Still the same airplane though, right?



I have to agree with these statements. In the UK we had a couple of these developments. The Manchester was modified to have four engines and became the Lancaster despite the fuselage being effectively the same. The Lancaster was stretched and became the Lincoln, the Wellington stretched became the Warwick. On fighters the Tempest was basically a Typhoon with a new wing and the Spiteful a Spit with a new wing. A P40 with the changes being discussed would be nothing like a P40.


----------



## RpR (May 6, 2014)

Shortround6 said:


> A lot of authors like the P-40 but let's face it, it was a re-engined P-36, not a wonder plane. *IF* they spent their time and money building a fully developed, quality, improved P-40 it would no longer be a P-40. How much a plane can you change and *still* call it the same name/designation? Hurricane changed from a fabric covered wing to a metal covered one but kept the _same_ shape/planform and same airfoil so lift/drag and flying characteristics were unchanged. For the P-40 to be _improved_ it needed a new airfoil, new flaps, new landing gear and a new wing structure. Still the same airplane though, right?
> 
> Making an _improved_ P-40 instead of trying for a _next_ generation fighter was a *sure* way to go out of business. Think about it. You can only sell the same old airplane/car for so long by changing the grille/tail lights and chrome while keeping the same chassis and driveline. Trying to play catch-up with new technologies if you skip a generation or two doesn't work very well.


The P-46 with the _ (and this is from AAFO site dedicated to air racing by racers)_ much over-rated laminar flow wing _(at that site they say if it loses it polish it loses its effectiveness, they also said while in combat you simply cannot keep its polish up)_ plus the P-60 which was an improved fighter developed off of the P-53 which was developed directly off of the P-40, were both flying already in 1941, while the bastard child Qs, despite a lack of backing of the people running Curtiss who were busy with the dead end P-46-53-60, still managed to be built and flying by November 1943.

Had Curtiss done what Berlin wanted instead of wasting time with dead-end failures, an improved P-40 could have been in production by 1943, at the very latest.

Addendum:
Both the P-53 and early versions of the P-60 had the less than aerodynamic style P-40 landing gear, as that was changed in later models, changing it on the P-40 would not have been hard.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 6, 2014)

Folks, understand a few things here...

It may have seemed like Curtiss was trying to "polish a turd" with all of these dead-end designs but in the end they were being funded by the AAF to continue development, in some cases cost-plus. As long as the DoD continued to pay, the work continued. Look at all the experimental fighter programs Curtiss worked on during WW2, do you think they were all completely funded by Curtiss?

The people who contined to fund these programs were just as guilty for these wasted projects as Curtiss!

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## bobbysocks (May 6, 2014)

absolutely....and military was the customer. they would ask or rather set out a set of specs and the ac maunfacturer would start to mod the plane to perform to those specs if possible.....and sometimes it worked out better on paper than in real life. the manufacturer didnt discontinue a model and force the military to consider their new and improved plane....the military was the one to phase out ac. if the company could still sell that model to another customer ( another country then production continued ).


----------



## gjs238 (May 6, 2014)

BobR said:


> Had Curtiss done what Berlin wanted instead of wasting time with dead-end failures, an improved P-40 could have been in production by 1943, at the very latest.



Maybe we all would have been better off if Curtiss had license-built P-51's.


----------



## gjs238 (May 6, 2014)

nuuumannn said:


> I guess this depends entirely on your expectations of what is considered to be better altitude performance of the time. Would fitting a 2-stage R-1830 meet those expectations and like I said, would the Allison or even the Merlin be able to do the same? Emulating, or attempting to emulate the F4F's performance is perhaps not the best option, all things considered. What would that have given the P-36? It certainly would not have offered it better performance than the likes of the Zero. Fitting the Allison to the P-36 offers/offered more flexibility in terms of a viable future for the airframe, regardless of the immediate benefits of the 1830, otherwise, Curtiss would have done it.



The scope of the query was limited...
During Guadalcanal, and other early Asian conflicts, the superior altitude performance of the F4F compared to the P-39, P-400 and P-40 often comes up.
The query was putting the F4F engine in the P-36 (both R-1830's, but one 1-stage the other 2-stage.)

Maybe overly simplistic, but one might assume that the P-36, not being a heavy/tougher naval fighter like the F4F, might perform at least as well as the F4F if not better, which might have been appreciated at that specific moment in time. Again, specifically, the altitude performance.

Alas, not only was it tried earlier, but the P-36, as SR6 explained, is not terribly conducive to this setup.

That's all.
The intention was not to question the P-36 evolution into the P-40 with the V-1710.


----------



## GrauGeist (May 6, 2014)

gjs238 said:


> Maybe we all would have been better off if Curtiss had license-built P-51's.


Fair enough, let's suppose Curtiss gave up on the P-36.

Where would we have been without the P-40, then? The P-40 bought U.S. forces time to get more advanced aircraft into theater. It provided filler to theaters that were in dire need of aircraft, both in the Pacific and the Med. The P-40 allowed American pilots to challenge seasoned Japanese pilots and survive to fight another day. It may not have been a world-beater, but it was able to go into a fight and survive.

Everyone gets starry-eyed at the big flashy fighters that have top billing, but it was the less than perfect ones that carried a serious part of the load at a time when they were needed.

The P-36 was a good aircraft, designed and built when air warfare was still evolving. If WWII happened in 1935, the P-36 would have been a serious contender.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gjs238 (May 6, 2014)

gjs238 said:


> Maybe we all would have been better off if Curtiss had license-built P-51's.



No, I did not mean NEVER building P-40's.


----------



## snowmobileman (May 6, 2014)

gjs238 said:


> Maybe we all would have been better off if Curtiss had license-built P-51's.



But then we would have a P-51 with build quality like the Curtiss-built P-47G....

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (May 6, 2014)

The Army had a dept that evaluated designs _before_ they ordered prototypes, as did the Navy. In some cases a requirement was put out and a number of _paper_ proposals came back from the manufacturers. The people in the dept would evaluate the proposals and issue contracts for the more likely ones ( in some cases one manufacturer would submit 2-4 different proposals to the same requirement). In some cases the contracts were for a more detailed engineering study, in some cases they included a mock-up, in some cases they went straight to a prototype. Occasionally they skipped the prototype and went straight to production. Once the government had paid for an engineer study they were free to distribute that engineering study to other manufacturers. 
I cannot think of _any_ instance where a manufacturer built a plane during WW II on speculation. There may have been one but since the materials were controlled and the engines and instruments and other equipment were government furnished equipment the chances of completing a private venture aircraft was about zero. 

The Army evaluating department/committee was the driving force in ordering the P-46, P-53, P-55, and the P-60 series from Curtiss. In part because they believed the P-36/40 airframe had limited development potential. It is true that the laminar flow wing didn't work anywhere near as well as it was hoped but it did work a little bit (normal airfoils lost smooth airflow in the first 15-20% of the cord. If the laminar flow wing could delay that to even 30% of the cord it was an advantage even if nowhere near what the laboratory claimed). Split flaps were also being seen as pretty basic and not in line with more modern (read just 2-3 years newer) developments. The Laminar flow airfoils also offered more volume in the wing. They kept a a certain depth over a larger percentage of the wing area than the older more tapered airfoils. 
Laminar flow didn't work as claimed but that does *not* mean a 1935 wing was as good as a 1940 wing on average.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 6, 2014)

IMO, there was one Curtiss fighter that "should have" been further developed for a number of reasons, all the other pseudo P-40 based designs should have been thrown down the $hitter...


----------



## nuuumannn (May 6, 2014)

> During Guadalcanal, and other early Asian conflicts, the superior altitude performance of the F4F compared to the P-39, P-400 and P-40 often comes up.
> The query was putting the F4F engine in the P-36 (both R-1830's, but one 1-stage the other 2-stage.)



Yep, gjs, I understand where you are coming from, but even with hindsight, aiming for the 1830 wasn't the most productive move Curtiss could have undertaken. I doubt the 1830 engined P-36 would have made any difference to its future/fate as a fighter and Curtiss would have still been throwing engines at it and coming up with an alternative. This is the point I'm trying to make. By the time the USA entered the war in 1941, the P-36 was something of an also ran and the F4F was barely holding its own. Grumman's solution was to redesign the airframe and put an even more powerful engine in the front.


----------



## GrauGeist (May 6, 2014)

nuuumannn said:


> Yep, gjs, I understand where you are coming from, but even with hindsight, aiming for the 1830 wasn't the most productive move Curtiss could have undertaken. I doubt the 1830 engined P-36 would have made any difference to its future/fate as a fighter and Curtiss would have still been throwing engines at it and coming up with an alternative. This is the point I'm trying to make. By the time the USA entered the war in 1941, the P-36 was something of an also ran and the F4F was barely holding its own. Grumman's solution was to redesign the airframe and put an even more powerful engine in the front.


Agreed...

Once the P-40 was in full swing, the P-36 should have been shelved after the last ordered airframe rolled off the assembly line and then turn to developing new aircraft. Most new machines carry lessons learned from previous aircraft and Curtiss had even sent "observers" to Spain during the civil war to see the latest developments of combat aircraft in action.

The XP-46 was a result of that observation, it was relatively fast, was designed to have up to 8 .50 caliber MGs, redesigned main gear, leading edge slats and a stronger Allison V-1710-39. Size-wize, the XP-46 was smaller than the P-40.

As it turned out, the Army changed several requirements and then requested that Curtiss put the XP-46's engine into the P-40 as an upgrade. It held potential but the Army turned it's attention to other projects and then the U.S. got drawn into WWII and the rest was history.


----------



## gjs238 (May 6, 2014)

snowmobileman said:


> But then we would have a P-51 with build quality like the Curtiss-built P-47G....



Actually, joking aside, two points...
If CW built P-47's under license, who is to say they could not have been building (and transitioning over to) P-51's instead?
Also, perhaps the P-51, being more similar to the P-40, would have been a craft they would have been more comfortable building?
Then again, CW issues are a thread unto itself.


----------

