Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
...Another aspect of
the attack that proved inadequate was fighter escort. To Fletcher the folding wing F4F-4s
represented no improvement over the fixed-wing F4F-3s, except more F4F-4s could be
carried. He echoed the call of Halsey and others of the urgent necessity'' for detachable fuel
tanks to increase their effective attack radius beyond 175 miles. Spruance and Browning
rated the Grumman Wildcat "greatly inferior'' in comparison with the nimble Japanese
Zero. On 20 June Nimitz relayed their fears to King, noting the "extreme and apparently
increased superiority performance of 0 fighters'' was mitigated only by the vulnerability
of Japanese planes and the superior tactics of the U.S. Navy fighter pilots. "Overall results
have been bad and will be serious and potentially decisive with improvement that must
be expected in enemy tactics.'' Remarkably he called for army Curtiss P-4OF Warhawk
fighters to replace navy F4F Wildcats and Brewster F2A Buffaloes in all marine fighting
squadrons defending forward bases and even asked that the P-4OF "or comparable type"
be tested for carrier suitability; In the meantime the F4F-4s must be lightened, and their
ammunition supply increased even should that require reverting to four guns in place ofsix.
The swift introduction ofthe Vought F4U-1 Corsair fighter was an"absolute priority.'' Thus
after Midway the top fleet commanders experienced a serious crisis of confidence over the
effectiveness of the basic U.S. carrier fighter, a worry that would soon influence Fletcher's
most controversial command decision...
Lundstrom, Black Shoe carrier Admiral, p.200
The P-40F would be one of the worst in that case ... one of the heaviest P-40 models around. P-36 derivatives seem much more compelling on the whole.Trouble is the call was for P-40Fs. The Vast majority of those went to North Africa.
Another problem is simply getting them off the flight deck in any condition to go into combat. We can worry about landing later.
USN tests were consistently substantially lower than Grumman test figures for take-off. I believe different standards were used (no mention of clearing obstacles in the Navy tests, so possibly more a concern of 'distance to get off the deck' given the obstacle issue is more relevant for land-based operations).A F4F-3 with 4 guns, 1800 rounds of ammo (?) and a pair of drop tanks was supposed to need 736ft of take-off run with no head wind and 330ft of take-off run with a 25 knot head wind.
A P-40F at 8500lbs (no drop tank, front wing tank empty= 110 gallons of fuel and 1410rounds of ammo) was supposed to need 1550ft of take-off run with no head wind and 550ft of take-off run with a 35 knot head wind.
P-36 with the Wildcat/Martlet's engines (including the single-stage ones) should have performed better than the similarly powered Wildcat/Martlet, though without the P-40D's wing, you'd be limited to the P-40B's armament at most (not sure if dropping to .30s in the cowl would be better or not given the weight and RoF trade-offs -American .30s do pack more of a punch than .303s so 6x .30s wouldn't be too far off from 8x .303s in firepower, and ammo capacity would likely be higher than what the Spit/Hurricane carried). The USN was pushing hard for cannons, though and the P-40D's wing (with provisions for hispanos -unused in USAAF and RAF service) might be a compelling consideration. (M1 Hispano reliability would pretty well nix practical chances of service, though)Another problem for the P-40 is it can't idle very long without an overheat condition, so if it were to be used in carrier ops, the waiting aircraft at the end of the launch sequence would be starting to get critical temps unless they could move the que fast enough.
The prospect of a navalized P-36C is actually kind of a neat idea, to be honest.
Several export Hawk 75 models had 4-gun wings similar to the P-40B and C, so it shouldn't have been a problem. (puting .50s in the wings would wait until the redesign used with the P-40D) Different combinations of .50 and .30 caliber guns were used in the nose. (or 7.5 mm or .303 )The 23mm Madson cannon was fitted to the P-36A, but caused a performance penalty.
However, that right there, proved it could be done. As far as additional armament, the P-36C did have additional .30 MG in each wing, but required an external ammo tray.
Indeed, and again, those .30-06 rounds pack a bit more punch than the RAF's .303s so those 6 to the British fighter's 8 isn't too bad even with 2 synchronized. Going with .50s in the nose is still more firepower but down to only about 500-550 RPM and a couple hundred pounds added weight depending on ammunition loads used.While people tend to turn up their nose at the .30 MG, against Japanese fighters of the day, it was suitable enough to cause severe damage.
The external boxes on the P-36C were indeed ammunition stores for the additional MG. The spent casings fell away via a discharge chute as is the case with most fighter aircraft.Several export Hawk 75 models had 4-gun wings similar to the P-40B and C, so it shouldn't have been a problem. (puting .50s in the wings would wait until the redesign used with the P-40D) Different combinations of .50 and .30 caliber guns were used in the nose. (or 7.5 mm or .303 )
I'm not sure those were external ammunition boxes on the P-36C, but possibly spent cartridge case retainer boxes rather than using open-ended case ejection chutes. (concerns over cost/shortages of brass? I'd think this would make more sense for training units than operational ones)
Indeed, and again, those .30-06 rounds pack a bit more punch than the RAF's .303s so those 6 to the British fighter's 8 isn't too bad even with 2 synchronized. Going with .50s in the nose is still more firepower but down to only about 500-550 RPM and a couple hundred pounds added weight depending on ammunition loads used.
Bombers would be where the lighter armaments would hit more trouble anyway, that went for British fighters too.
I was expecting modifications similar to what the P-40B and C received, hopefully saving a modest amount of weight due to the differing engine and possibly due to swapping the nose mounted .50s for .30s. (the P-40D had weight gains due to expanded fuel tankage, heavier engine, larger radiator and oil coolers, and the redesigned wing -I assume some structural strengthening as well- so I'm not sure how applying just the new wing to the radial engined counterpart would compare) The single stage R-1830 would also be lighter than the 2-stage one, but obviously poorer performing above ~14,000 ft. (the 2-stage would be the one to go with)The early P-36s had trouble landing on concrete and grass. The landing loads (impacts) causing wrinkling and buckling of the wings in the area of the landing gear attachment points which called for heavier skinning and braces.
Everybody wants the light weight of the early P-36 but then wants to add guns, armor, self sealing tanks, more radios, beefed up structure (which is supposed to magically add no weight) heavier engines (with bigger props?),etc.
The French Hawk 75s were, again, already mounting 2 guns in each wing similar to the P-40B and C and the naval fighter we're considering would be in the same timeframe as the Tomahawk anyway, so the same armament options would apply: up to 2 .30 caliber machine guns in each wing and 2 .30 or .50 caliber guns in the upper nose. With the weight and poor synchronized RoF of the .50s, .30s in the nose seem fairly attractive (I believe they could still manage around 1000 RPM when synchronized, double what the .50s managed, at least with long ammo belts adding a bit of drag -best case might be closer 550 maybe 600 RPM).But I would say that the choice would either be 6x.30 MG or 4x.50 MG as a max armament option. Anything beyond that is working against the P-36's attributes and you may as well look to another current aircraft or build a new from scratch.
The P-36 wasn't a "navalized P-40 type"...the P-40 is actually a water-cooled version of the P-36.I understand the USN wanting a "P40F or comparable type" since at that point they wanted an aircraft with superior climb, and speed performance over the rather anemic F4F-4, but using a navalized radial engined P40 variant just gets them back into the same boat they were trying to get out of.