A Radial Engined Fighter for the Australians to build (and maybe the Chinese and Indians)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Weren't those sent to China because the Vanguard was deemed less than useful by the RAF? This is the same RAF that accepted the Buffalo; so the Vanguard (with the necessary weight of armament, ammunition, armour, fuel and radio) must have been notably worse.

If Australia gets a bespoke single-engined, radial-powered fighter with competitive performance, can Britain get it too?
 
Last edited:
Wild_Bill_Kelso said:
Does anyone have a summary of the operational history of the 80 P-43A-1s in China? Did these have armor and SS tanks?
Click to expand...

IMHO best work about Lancers in CBI is here - Republic P-43 Lancer fighter plane in Chinese service (Richard Dunn)

They did have armor, but no self sealing fuel tanks. Some sources specifically identify the P-43A-1 as having self-sealing fuel tanks, but I think that is not correct. Why?

1. - integral wing fuel tank is very difficult to make with self sealing protection.
2. - Lancers in CBI did have issues with leaking fuel tanks, very unlikely with self sealing fuel tank.
3. - RAAF did get Lancers version P-43A-1 and in National Archives of Australia is cypher message from SOUTHERN AREA to 1 PRU (unit with Lancers). That message is saying "THREE LANCERS E.T.D. LAVERTON 12/11 ( . ) AIRCRAFT EQUIPPED FAIRCHILD 12 INCH CAMERA AND BOMB RACKS ( . ) STRONGLY RECOMMEND AIRCRAFT NOT ( R ) NOT USED FOR LOW BOMBING ATTACKS AS AIRCRAFT ONLY EQUIPPED ONE FUEL TANK WHICH IS NOT ( R ) NOT SELF SEALING ( . ) ..." These Lancers with 1 PRU at that time were A56-3,-4 and -5, ex-USAAF 41-31495,-31497 and - 31494. In other words, 1 PRU have at that time 45th, 49th and 46th produced P-43A-1. So if these P-43A-1 did not have according RAAF self sealing fuel tanks, I am pretty sure that Lancers in CBI did not have them also.
 
The CW-21 might be a good airframe for Australia in terms of producibility. The only significant problems (I think) relative to this discussion are that it was designed around the R-1820 engine and had no SSFT. I have read that the CW-21B variant (for the Dutch) came with pilot armour vs RCMG fire from the rear.

The airframe was similar in construction to the Boomerang (I think).

Curtiss offered armament options were upto 2x .50 cal and 2x .30 cal in the nose, or 2x .50 cal in the nose and 2x .30 cal in the wings (I think).

The ROA with SSFT fitted would limit it to intercepter duties unless DTs were used.
 
ThomasP said:
The CW-21 might be a good airframe for Australia in terms of producibility.
Click to expand...
I would think the easiest to produce would be the Curtiss P-36. I'd like to see how that design would have developed further under CAC's lead into the 1940s. A bubble-canopied Hawk with a dual-stage supercharged R-1830 engine and streamlined undercarriage and low wing surfaces would have been something to see, perhaps appearing from some angles like the Caproni F.5.


 
Last edited:
Shortround6 said:
Simple, yank the radial and slap a V-12 on it.
History tells us the rest.
Click to expand...

Assuming that the Australians have access to V-12s.

IIRC, Australia got Packard Merlins for the Mustang program. Not sure how thrilled the USAAF or NAA would be at shipping 2 stage Merlins half way around the world for them to be installed on P-40s.

Is it likely that V-1710s would be shipped to Australia?

And Griffon or two were brought in for the CA-15 program.
 

Australians will be more than happy to install Merlin III, XII or 45 on their engine-less P36s.
 
I get tired of "what ifs" that act like the P-36 was a separate "design" than the P-40.
From the firewall back they were the same aircraft so it is pretty easy to figure out the "development" path.
Throw in the Export Hawk 75s and you can fill in some of the gaps between the US P-36 and the P-40.

We know what they did with armament, we know what they did with fuel tanks / drop tanks. We know what they did with protection.
What were they going to change?
Four 20mm guns in the wings?
180 gallons of fuel in the wings and 60 gallons in the fuselage?
A Laminar flow wing?
Sideways folding landing gear?

Somebody wants to wonder about a radial engined P-40 with four .50 cal guns in the wings and protected fuel tanks and armor and a 52 gal drop tank were can figure out pretty much what would have weighed looking at the P-40.
We can also figure out the wing loading compared to a P-36 and figure out where some of the old P-36's maneuverability would have gone.

We can also figure out what radial engines would have been available and without major changes in the R-1830 and R-1820 figure out that Wright wasn't going to change the Cyclone 9 anymore than they did from the last Hawk 75s made until about 1943 or so. We can also figure out what the changes in the R-1830s and see that there very few paths there.

We can also look at the P-43 and the Australian Boomerang CA-14 and see what you need to stick a turbo on a R-1830 engine in a single seat fighter and it isn't pretty.

And we can look at the radial engined P-40 that P & W was using for test bed for their two stage supercharged R-1830 engine (like what was used in the F4F).

You can not get the maneuverability of a 5800-6000lb P-36 if you stick 90lbs of armor/PB Glass, 240lbs of self sealing fuel tank material, more radios, and extra wing structure and extra armament over and above P-36C armament.

Somebody wants a Radial engine P-36/Hawk 75 with 360mph performance from a two stage R-1830 engine and four .50 guns and all the protection/equipment of a 1943 fighter you have to wait until 1943, not 1941, and the result is going to be closer to 8,000lb not 6,000lbs.

The wonder is that anybody thinks the development path of the P-36 would be any different.
 


Great picture.
Now what we have here is an early version of the two stage supercharged R-1830 engine, although it is sometimes mis-identified as having a turbocharger.
Note the almost normal exhaust outlet at the bottom of the cowl.
The big lump between the landing gear is the auxiliary supercharger that P & W changed on later versions of the engine. But that location is where the patent drawings have it with a 90 degree drive coming down from the rear of the engine to drive the aux supercharger and not running the impellers in parallel like the production engines.
Note also the duct under the cockpit. That is where the intercooler went.
the engine in this plane was around 1630lbs depending on the reduction ratio for the propeller or over 200lbs heavier than the engine use the P-36 and that does not include the intercooler.
This plane was flown at the Jan 1939 fighter trials where the XP-40 (using the same airframe) was selected by the AAF for production.
The engine is this plane was around 70-80lbs heavier than the engine used in the F4F.

Now you could have used the same engine the F4F used for the Australian scheme but you still have to find a place for the inter cooler and duct work.
and you have to realize that with the two stage engine the airplane will be slower than the regular P-36 at altitudes under 14,000ft or so.
 
Admiral Beez said:
I would think the easiest to produce would be the Curtiss P-36.
Click to expand...
The only way to determine that is to see how both aircraft were built, side-by-side. Since the P-36 was designed to meet an AAC requirement (and the CW-21 was a private venture mainly designed for an overseas market) it would seem the P-36 would be more complicated and robust.
 
I figured since the P-36 was already being (or about to be - what year is this happening?) assembled from kits in the Empire there will already been experience with the aircraft. Send Hindustan Aircraft staff to collaborate with CAC.
 
Admiral Beez said:
I figured since the P-36 was already being (or about to be - what year is this happening?) assembled from kits in the Empire there will already been experience with the aircraft. Send Hindustan Aircraft staff to collaborate with CAC.
Click to expand...
Well if you're talking about construction from the factory or assembly from a kit, it's apples and oranges and even then the CW-21B looks a lot less complicated than a P-36. If we can relay on the accuracy of the many cutaway drawing of both aircraft, the CW-21 looks like a toy compared to the P-36.



 
Admiral Beez said:
I figured since the P-36 was already being (or about to be - what year is this happening?) assembled from kits in the Empire there will already been experience with the aircraft. Send Hindustan Aircraft staff to collaborate with CAC.
Click to expand...
Here is the story of the Hindustan aircraft.

The Americans owned and operated in China an aircraft assembly plant starting in Oct 1934. Please note the word "assembly".
This came to be known as the Central Aircraft Manufacturing Corporation (CAMCO). The plant was eventually going to be turned over to China.
Along with Curtiss aircraft, other aircraft acquired from other US manufacturers were to be assembled in this plant.
Curtiss had made a successful demonstration/sales pitch for the retractable landing gear H75-Q Hawk and Curtiss in early 1940 built an H75A-5 aircraft (MSN 13655) to be used as an assembly pattern for 54 CAMCO built aircraft in Loiwing, China from Curtiss supplied parts, including R-1820 engines.
However in Oct 1940 the Japanese bombed the CAMCO factory and the remaining plant equipment and aircraft parts were moved to Hengyang, then back to Loiwing and then into India were William D. Pawley, the American owner of CAMCO, helped form up Hindustan Aircraft Ltd. (HAL) and the contract, In April of 1941 was for 48 H75A-5 aircraft to be "built" from Curtiss supplied parts. The first aircraft was ready in the summer of 1942 and up to 5 were finally completed although there is some controversy over this.

IN the middle of things, the H75A-5 was intended to be used for ground attack and to be armed with two .50 cal guns and two Madsen 23mm cannon under the wings but the German invasion of Denmark in April 1940 meant the cannon were unavailable.

I am not sure where the idea that Hindustan Aircraft had any staff to send to Australia or anywhere else comes from. They received train cars full of parts and equipment (and perhaps few evacuated personnel?) and it took them around a year to assemble the 1st aircraft from this collection of parts.

The only experience in India with the Hawk 75 was some odd leftovers that were sent there and wound up equipping No 5 and No 155 squadrons and the No 151 OTU.
 


Well Curtiss was flying both the H75Q demonstrator and the CW-21 demonstrator in front of Chinese officials in several different Chinese cities in Feb and March of 1939.
They should have had some idea of what they were buying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Tandems (and push pulls, maybe?)
Replies
6
Views
751
AMCKen
A
A
Could a single engined, single seat fighter be made for the Lycomings xr-7755?
Replies
8
Views
675
GrauGeist
W
What if the Me109Z instead of Bf110?
Replies
11
Views
971
Admiral Beez
A
"Super" A-36 for CAS/ground attack and tactical recon.
Replies
14
Views
1K
Shortround6
S
M
If German have access to high ocatane fuel, how does that impact the performance of their fighters?
2
Replies
38
Views
2K
Engineman
E
Menu
Log in
Register