# P-36, P-35 or Wildcat



## d_bader (Sep 7, 2005)

Which of these U.S fighters used during the start of WW2 is the best?
Curtis P-36
Seversky P-35
Grumman Wildcat


----------



## d_bader (Sep 7, 2005)

I think that the P-36 is the best. The wilcat will probably win the poll but the P-36 shot down the first planes in the european and pacific theatres.


----------



## evangilder (Sep 7, 2005)

Can you please post your polls in the polls thread? Thanks

I went ahead and moved the last 2. This is the proper thread for polls.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 7, 2005)

P-36/ Hawk was one of the most under-rated fighter aircraft of WW2. The P-35 was too stable and slow as an effective fighter by the time WW2 started.....


----------



## d_bader (Sep 7, 2005)

evangilder what do you mean the poll thread and how do I do it? Thanks youve been real helpful so far and Im trying to get the hang of the site, being new.


----------



## d_bader (Sep 7, 2005)

which one of you 2 hasn't voted yet?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 7, 2005)

i'd say wildcat...........

and don't worry about me, i never vote in polls........


----------



## Gnomey (Sep 7, 2005)

I would say wildcat aswell.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Sep 7, 2005)

evangilder said:


> Can you please post your polls in the polls thread? Thanks
> 
> I went ahead and moved the last 2. This is the proper thread for polls.


I've moved two of them myself. Please post polls here from now on, bader.


----------



## evangilder (Sep 7, 2005)

Yes, the thread you were posting these in was labelled "Aviation". This is the proper thread place, labelled "Polls".


----------



## plan_D (Sep 7, 2005)

I voted the P-36 Hawk because as FBJ stated; it was under-rated and, in fact, an extremely effective fighter.


----------



## Wildcat (Sep 7, 2005)

Wildcat, held the fort in the Pacific until newer and more capable machines entered service.


----------



## Glider (Sep 7, 2005)

Whilst I agree that the P36 Hawk was underated, there is little doubt in my mind that the Wildcat was a better plane.


----------



## elmilitaro (Sep 7, 2005)

Even though the Wildcat was out-classed, out-gunned, and out-speeded by the Japanese Zero at the beginning of WW2. It still shot down many Japanese planes because of the determined and expierienced pilots that controlled them.


----------



## evangilder (Sep 7, 2005)

Wildcat for me.


----------



## plan_D (Sep 8, 2005)

The Wildcat only had a dive, durability and armament advantage over the P-36.


----------



## Glider (Sep 8, 2005)

With the speeds being almost the same that gives the P36 climb and turn. I will take the Dive, Armament and durability.


----------



## plan_D (Sep 8, 2005)

The Vichy French did prove that Wildcats could be brought down with the Hawk. So, I reckon it would be on pilot skill.


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Sep 11, 2005)

I dont know how the P-35 "peashooter" even could contend with the Hawk and wilcat. It may have been manouverable, but it was slow, and way too lightly armed. even the italian aircraft like the Cr.42 would dance circles around the P-35. The only place i could see the P-35 having any effect, insignificant as it would have been, would be a light attack/support aircraft, using its small bombload, and low speed for dive bombing/strafing attacks. However the US had better planes available already, so this was never realized...


----------



## evangilder (Sep 11, 2005)

The P-35 was not the peashooter. The peashooter was the P-26.

The Seversky P-35 was the fore-runner to the P-47. 76 P-35s were built for the US Army, with one more being used as the basis for the prototype P-41. Sweden ordered 60 of them in an improved version (P-35A). The Army took these before the Swedes could get them. The Japanese also ordered and received 20 two-seat versions of the P-35. I am pretty sure these were the only American production aircraft used by the Japanese in WWII.

The Boeing P-26 Peashooter was America's first all metal fighter. It's first flight was on March 20, 1932. The Army ordered 136 of the P-26. 11 were sold to China and 1 to Spain. In 1941, one squadron of American P-26s were given to the Philippines. At least one P-26 shot down at least one Zero! 

The P-35 had a top speed of 281 MPH, P-36 was 313 MPH and the F4F was 318 MPH. They all had a range of about 800 miles.


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Sep 11, 2005)

yeah, i know..im sorry about that, my un-enlightened freind i have over, doesnt know much and took it upon himself to post..at my expense, i apologize.


----------



## evangilder (Sep 11, 2005)

That being said though, the P-35 doesn't match up too well to the other 2. But I am looking only at soe minor stats. I don't know what it was like to fly, nor have I ever met anyone who flew one.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 11, 2005)

There was an export version of one flying around for a few years. I heard it was great to fly, real stable airplane. 

The P-35 was good for formation flying pictures, visiting 1930s airshows and WW2 movie posters......


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 12, 2005)

I went for the P-35, because the Re-2000 was based on it and that was a great plane.

See, I can weeble in Italian planes anywhere!


----------



## HealzDevo (Nov 6, 2005)

I think the Wildcat being used for the greatest part and being available in numbers.


----------



## Dragontech64 (May 18, 2007)

I have to go with the Wildcat as well, still being built and in service long after the Seversky and the Curtiss were memories.


----------



## Dragontech64 (May 18, 2007)

evangilder said:


> That being said though, the P-35 doesn't match up too well to the other 2. But I am looking only at soe minor stats. I don't know what it was like to fly, nor have I ever met anyone who flew one.



I have never met anyone who flew them either, however, Jackie Cochrane did well flying a modified, civilian version of the P-35 in air races before the war. I have heard that they were nimble, though with good stability and good pilot comfort. In wargames the P-35 beat the P-36 and I have heard more than once that the first enemy aircraft shot down by the Americans in WW2 was by a P-35, but then I have heard the same of the P-36 and SBD Dauntless, so there may be some bias on that bit of history. I would think though that the large, raised greenhouse canopy of the P-35 would give better visability than the P-36 had.


----------



## renrich (May 29, 2007)

If you compare the P36 with the F4F3 you will find that the Wildcat had even more of a performance edge. The 3 only had 4 guns but with a huge ammo load(for that day) did not have self sealing tanks(Idoubt if the P36 had them either) and no folding wings. It was much lighter than the F4F4 and was a pretty good hot rod. The Navy pilots hated to see it degraded by all the weight.


----------



## JF3D (Jun 11, 2007)

renrich said:


> If you compare the P36 with the F4F3 you will find that the Wildcat had even more of a performance edge. The 3 only had 4 guns but with a huge ammo load(for that day) did not have self sealing tanks(Idoubt if the P36 had them either) and no folding wings. It was much lighter than the F4F4 and was a pretty good hot rod. The Navy pilots hated to see it degraded by all the weight.




Navy pilots who flew both preferred the -3 over the -4 because it carried the same amount of ammo over 4 guns vice 6. They had more firing time and the -3 had a batter rate of climb over the -4. The quintesential wild cat was the FM-2 which went back to a 4 gun config and a bigger engine. Still had top hand crank the landing gear though.


----------



## otftch (Jun 11, 2007)

The Wildcat because Grumman made it.
Ed


----------



## R Leonard (Jun 11, 2007)

The F4F-3 came from the factory without either armor or self-sealing tanks. Both of these were available in retrofit kits and were installed in the line squadrons aircraft. I believe the Pacific Fleet squadrons got their kits pre-7 December 41. VF-42, the first Atlantic VF to go west was equipped after 7 Dec.

The -3 also was originally equipped with the telescopic sight which was also replaced, although most of that occurred in the late summer of 1941. 

Most assuredly, I'd vote F4F over the P-35 or P-36, but what would you expect. 

P-36s, actually the H75A export version, and F4F-4s did meet in combat over North Africa with the F4F coming out ahead.

Since I detest typing the same stuff twice, quoting in full my post of 07-20-2005, 11:32 PM,
#29 of http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/av...e-mk-iib-vs-grumman-f4f-4-wildcat-1550-2.html



> I’ve revisited the Operation Torch results. There were a total of 26 victories claimed by USN pilots, 25 by F4F pilots and 1 from an SBD pilot.
> 
> Looking at just the 25 F4F claims, two of these (a D.520 and either a Martin 167 or LeO.45) were reported in the USS Sangamon (CVE-26) report, but did not specifically identify pilots involved. By the time of the action reported, these victories would have stemmed from Mission A-02, which involved one 6-plane division and one 4-plane division, all catapulted off between 0610 and 0720 in conjunction with Missions A-01 (8 TBFs in two 4-plane divisions) and A-03 (8 SBDs in two 4-plane divisions). The only F4F pilot I show as identified was Lieut. Fitzhugh Lee Palmer, Jr., the F4F mission leader, who submitted a claim for a Martin 167 in action over the Port Lyautey airdrome at approximately 0800. As noted, the other victories claimed, which reportedly occurred in the same action as Palmer’s, were not credited to any other particular pilot. The information on the activities of VGF-26 typically does not mention actual pilots, in fact, Palmer is the only F4F driver mentioned by name; in the listings I have only 9 pilots are actually named out of 92 sorties. Anyway, we have Palmer with a M.167 and then the two mystery pilots with the D.520 and the M.167/LeO.45. And just to keep things confusing, VGF-26 had one other unidentified Vichy VF and two other unidentified 2E Vichy VB were reported as probables. Again the VGF-26 pilots are not identified.
> 
> ...



A few of the Japanese planes shot down at Pearl Harbor were shot down by P-36 drivers. One was creditred to an SBD rear gunner. There wer no F4Fs in action at Pearl Harbor. I believe there was 1 victory credited to a P-35 in the Philippines as well as 2 credits awarded to PAF P-26's.

Rich


----------



## renrich (Jun 11, 2007)

Thank you Rich for the info. I may be mistaken but I think I read the first LW a/c shot down by a US plane was a FW Condor shot down by a Wildcat.


----------



## drgondog (Jun 11, 2007)

The P-36 was a relatively good airplane and probably equivalent to the F4F-3 so it might boil down to personal preference.

The F4F had a better WWII but in part to the P-40 being a superior a/c for the US~Army than the P-36, and was buying the P-40 to replace P-36 when the Navy had no immediate replacement for the F4F (although one of the Greats was on the drawing board - F4U).

The Poll might be better served as P-40, which replaced the P-36 pre war and was first line fighter for USAAF, versus the F4F (any version)

Otherwise the F4F


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 11, 2007)

Wildcat without a question...


----------



## R Leonard (Jun 11, 2007)

renrich said:


> Thank you Rich for the info. I may be mistaken but I think I read the first LW a/c shot down by a US plane was a FW Condor shot down by a Wildcat.



The Royal Navy was to employ the F4F in combat long before the US Navy. FAA Martlets (export F4F's, model G-36A's, originally earmarked for France but transferred to the Royal Navy after the collapse of France) were active almost a year be fore Pearl Harbor. First air-to-air victory was on 25 December 1940; flying out of Hatson, Lieut. Carter and Sub-Lieut. Parke from 804 Squadron (Lieut. Comdr. BHM Kendall, RN, commanding) intercepted a Ju-88 over Scapa Flow and shot it down near Loch Skail.


----------



## flojo (Jun 12, 2007)

Regarding the F4Fs during operation Torch - I wonder if these planes were equipped with water injection. If so it would not be totally fair to compare them with late 1941 Wildcats. 
I also remember that there were some british tests which found that the P36 had far better high speed handling than the Spitfire Mk1. So for 1940 - 42 It seems that the P36 was not such a bad plane.


----------



## R Leonard (Jun 12, 2007)

> Regarding the F4Fs during operation Torch - I wonder if these planes were equipped with water injection. If so it would not be totally fair to compare them with late 1941 Wildcats.



F4F-4s, the fighter flown by the USN in Operation Torch, did not have water injection, no F4F-4 ever did . . . first front line Navy fighters with water injection were the F6F and the F4U. 

The F4F-4 was, in fact, heavier than the F4F-3, was less maneuverable, carried 6, vice 4, guns but less ammunition, better factory installed armor and fuel system protection, and, since there was no increase in engine power to offset weight increases, was marginally slower in speed and climbing.

So, truth be known, especially amongst all the F4F-3 and F4F-4 drivers I've ever known (that is, those who flew both in combat) the -3 was a better performer. I guess that's the opposite of what you wanted to hear . . . 

Oh, well.

Rich


----------



## flojo (Jun 12, 2007)

R Leonard said:


> F4F-4s, the fighter flown by the USN in Operation Torch, did not have water injection, no F4F-4 ever did . . . first front line Navy fighters with water injection were the F6F and the F4U.



Could be that I mixed it up with tests about water injection I've seen for the FM-2:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/fm-2-16169.pdf

So in operation Torch it were F4-F4 6 gun models and not the newer FM-2s ?
And just for my knowledge - was water injection only tested with FM-2s or also put inoperational service?


----------



## R Leonard (Jun 12, 2007)

> Could be that I mixed it up with tests about water injection I've seen for the FM-2:
> http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...fm-2-16169.pdf
> So in operation Torch it were F4-F4 6 gun models and not the newer FM-2s ? And just for my knowledge - was water injection only tested with FM-2s or also put inoperational service?



No, all the Wildcats in Operation Torch were F4F-4s. 

F4F-3s, -4s, and FM-1s used a two stage/two speed supercharger. F4F-3As used single stage/two speed supercharger. Early FM-2s used a single stage/two speed supercharger and later versions had water injection:

F4F-3 
Early - Pratt Whitney R-1830-76 Twin Wasp (two stage/two speed supercharger); 1200 hp; four .50 cal.
Later - Pratt Whitney R-1830-86 Twin Wasp (two stage/two speed supercharger);1200 hp; four .50 cal.

F4F-3A 
Pratt Whitney R-1830-90 (single stage/two speed supercharger); 1200 hp; four .50 cal.

F4F-4 
Pratt Whitney R-1830-86 Twin Wasp (two stage/two speed supercharger); 1200 hp; six .50 cal.

FM-1 
Pratt Whitney R-1830-86 (two stage/two speed supercharger); 1200 hp; four .50 cal.

FM-2 
Early - Wright R-1820-56 (single stage supercharger); 1350 hp; four .50 cal.
Later - Wright R-1820-56WA (single stage supercharger and water injection); 1350 hp; four .50 cal.

First FM-1 flew on 31 August 1942. FM-1s operated during the invasion of Tarawa, 20 November 1943 in VC-39 off USS Liscombe Bay and in VC-41 off USS Corregidor. VC-39s fighter section was a mixed group, with both F4F-4s (5) and FM-1s (11). VC-41s fighter section was all FM-1s (12).

The XF4F-8 (prototype for the FM-2) first flew on 8 November 1942. The first combat for the FM-2 was in the invasion of Kwajalein, beginning 29 January 1944. VC-7 off USS Manila Bay operated 16 FM-2s; whilst VC-66 (USS Nassau) fighter section consisted of 14 FM-1; VC-63 (USS Natoma Bay, 12 FM-1; VC-33 (USS Coral Sea), 9 F4F-4 and 5 FM-1; and VC-41 (USS Corregidor), 3 F4F-4 and 6 FM-1. 

VC-7 received its first FM-2s in November 1943 while at Ream Field; the aircraft locator report for 9 November 43 notes the squadron with 2 FM-2 and 12 FM-1 and is the only Pacific squadron noted as possessing FM–2s at that time. In the same report, on the other side of the continent, USS Bogue’s VC-19, at Pungo NAAF, shows 9 FM-1 and 1 FM-2. The 2 November 43 report, and the first time the FM-2 shows up in any squadron inventory, has USS Croatan’s VC-6, just down the road from Pungo at Fentress NAAF, with 9 FM-1 and 1 FM-2.

FM-2s were credited with 428/37/33.5 for 13 losses starting with it's operational debut in January 44.

Not sure at which FM-2 bu no the switch to water injection was made . . . might take a little research to figure that out. However, looking at the report you provided, I see that the bu no of the airplane tested was 16169 which falls in the 15952 to 16791 bu no block of FM-2s, which, oddly enough is the first block of bu nos for that type . . . all 840 of them . . . right at the 218th in line. Of course, there were some 4,559 FM-2s produced after bu no 16169. I’ll look around and see what I can find.


Rich


----------



## renrich (Jun 12, 2007)

Interesting F4F fact the F4F7 of which 21 were built, was a long range photo recon a/c. It carried 685 gallons of fuel, 555 gallons in a wet wing.


----------



## timshatz (Jun 12, 2007)

Read the specs. It is interesting that the P36 is about 2,000lbs lighter than the F4F and they both have the same engine. Probably different horse power ratings (but I think they both were 1200 horse engines).


P36 link:
P36 Hawk Info

F4F link:
F4F Wildcat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Somehow, these numbers don't look kosher. Anybody have another set of data that might be more accurate. Can't see 2000lbs and 150horsepower putting out the same performance. Especially with the same engine. 

Something screwy. 

But, on another note, the dimensions look honest and they say the birds were essentially the same size.


----------



## R Leonard (Jun 12, 2007)

P-36 used the R-1830-13 which was rated at 1050 hp.

F4F used the R-1830-86, rated at 1200 hp.

Not near my radial engine book right now, I'll take a look tonight.

In the meantime take a look at 
Fact Sheets : Curtiss P-36 Hawk : Curtiss P-36 Hawk
and
Fact Sheets : Pratt Whitney R-1830 : Pratt Whitney R-1830


Rich


----------



## timshatz (Jun 12, 2007)

Cool. Thanks.

I was under the impression that the later P36s were 1200HP engined.


----------



## Heinz (Jun 13, 2007)

Wildcat for me, mainly because I love the way the wheels retract into the fuselague


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 13, 2007)

Wildcat for me gentlemen.


----------



## AceofAces1941 (Oct 14, 2009)

carpenoctem1689 said:


> I dont know how the P-35 "peashooter" even could contend with the Hawk and wilcat. It may have been manouverable, but it was slow, and way too lightly armed. even the italian aircraft like the Cr.42 would dance circles around the P-35. The only place i could see the P-35 having any effect, insignificant as it would have been, would be a light attack/support aircraft, using its small bombload, and low speed for dive bombing/strafing attacks. However the US had better planes available already, so this was never realized...


The Peashooter is the Boeing P-26 NOT the Seversky P-36 which has the name HAWK!!!


----------



## AceofAces1941 (Oct 14, 2009)

]Most people these days don't know JACK about airplanes!!! Go read about each one and their designations!!![/B]


----------



## R Leonard (Oct 15, 2009)

So, are you our new resident authority? If you read the thread all the way through you could have saved yourself your two posts, the "Peashooter" misnomer had already been clarified.

Maybe reading threads through might be a little better advice, eh?


----------



## Messy1 (Oct 15, 2009)

I don't see how it could be any other plane than the Wildcat. Shot down more planes than both of the other planes on this poll combined. Maybe a better poll would have been substituting the P-40 for the P-35?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 15, 2009)

AceofAces1941 said:


> ]Most people these days don't know JACK about airplanes!!! Go read about each one and their designations!!![/B]



1. He made a simple mistake. 

2. He was corrected *back in 2005!!!!!*

3. All you have done is make an ass out of yourself. Well done...

3. What makes you the great authority to come in here with 2 posts and get an attitude (in a thread that in 4 years old...). If you had actually read through the 4 year old thread, you might have seen this and not made an ass out of yourself.

4. Just by the odd chance that you actually return, you have received your one warning. Usually I believe in the 3 strikes your out rule, but you only get one...

Of course I doubt you will come back...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 15, 2009)

AceofAces1941 said:


> ]Most people these days don't know JACK about airplanes!!! Go read about each one and their designations!!![/B]



And your moniker sucks!

Please retreat to the cockpit of your living room, strap into your recliner and refrain from making any more radio calls!


----------



## Messy1 (Oct 15, 2009)

Target acquired!


----------



## Civettone (Oct 15, 2009)

Didnt the P-35 have an outstanding maximum range ?

Kris


----------



## Messy1 (Oct 15, 2009)

Wiki lists the P-35's range at 950 miles.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 15, 2009)

From what I understand the P-35 was suppoed to be a very stable and easy aircraft to fly to the point that it was "too stable" (if you could believe that) and this was actually considered a negative by some of its pilots and other who evaluated it.


----------



## AceofAces1941 (Oct 15, 2009)

Who cares? Most people need to get their aircraft right!! Sheesh! People take offense at ANYTHING these days !


----------



## AceofAces1941 (Oct 15, 2009)

The problem is the Higher ups of the government wouldn't put the later versions of the famous Gruman Cat series into service. I'm talking about the F7F the F8F Bearcat. With the experience of the American pilots; they could have EASILY shot down the early Commy jets!! BUT NO our so-called "experts" said!!!


----------



## AceofAces1941 (Oct 15, 2009)

R Leonard said:


> So, are you our new resident authority? If you read the thread all the way through you could have saved yourself your two posts, the "Peashooter" misnomer had already been clarified.
> 
> Maybe reading threads through might be a little better advice, eh?


Geeze!! CHILL OUT ALREADY!!! Good grief, people on here are so unforiving over a SIMPLE MISTAKE!!!!


----------



## AceofAces1941 (Oct 15, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> 1. He made a simple mistake.
> 
> 2. He was corrected *back in 2005!!!!!*
> 
> ...


Get over yourself!!!


----------



## vikingBerserker (Oct 15, 2009)

I believe they (F8F F7F) both were put into service.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 15, 2009)

AceofAces1941 said:


> Who cares? Most people need to get their aircraft right!! Sheesh! People take offense at ANYTHING these days !


Yep - and I take offense at dumbasses like yourself coming on our forum brand new and showing your stupidity in your first 2 or 3 posts. Go sit in a corner for 6 months until you figure out how to pull your head out of your ass and then you could come back and try again.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Oct 15, 2009)

...and the stupid shall be punished.

Nice shotin' FB.


----------



## wheelsup_cavu (Oct 15, 2009)

vikingBerserker said:


> ...and the stupid shall be punished.
> 
> Nice shotin' FB.


That made me laugh out loud VB.
Glad I wasn't trying to drink something.


Wheels


----------



## R Leonard (Oct 16, 2009)

Well, that didn't take long, did it.


----------



## Messy1 (Oct 16, 2009)

R Leonard said:


> Well, that didn't take long, did it.



Nope, a 6 post wonder, done and gone! I am in a way thankful for guys like him, they give proof that although I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer, I am far from the dullest!

You also get the same results going to the state fair!


----------



## Pong (Oct 16, 2009)

Anyway, back to the thread.

Would chose the Wildcat, though slower than the Zero or other Japanese fighters, since it had quite a punch and was pretty tough.


----------



## renrich (Oct 16, 2009)

Congrats to you moderators for maintaining some decorum and respect for others on this forum . I belong to another forum which is supposed to be about the sports progams at the university I am an alumnus of. Many of the posts wander from the subject, are ill informed and downright insulting and infantile. Makes me almost ashamed to be associated with other graduates from that institution. Keep up the good work, all of you.


----------



## Njaco (Oct 16, 2009)

Messy1 said:


> Nope, a 6 post wonder, done and gone! I am in a way thankful for guys like him, they give proof that although I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer, I am far from the dullest!
> 
> *You also get the same results going to the state fair*!



Bryon, you kill me!!!  

Not knowing very much about these planes except, I believe the P-35 was the forerunner to the P-47, I would go with the Wildcat based solely on the fact that it saw more combat service tan the others. But I'm not that knowledgable about any of these.


----------

