Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I think that if the engineers at Curtiss were maybe a little more daring and had a little more faith in the improvement of radial engines, the P-36 could have become yet another of the great airplanes of WWII.The Hawk 75 accounted for more Luftwaffe losses during the Battle of France than any other type, so it wasn't a slouch.
Considering that the Bf109, Hurricane and P-36 were all developed at the same time, there is no reason to dismiss the P-36 as a contender through 1940.
Of course Curtiss was in business to stay in business and had to come up with designs that the military would want, hence the P-40. I'm thinking that it might have been possible to keep the P-36 on the back burner long enough for the arrival of the R-1820 you've mentioned or something similar. Again, I do not know how the contractors and the military buyers dealt with each other before the war. It may be that Curtiss, to work in that direction, might have needed some form of authorization that the military was unwilling to give.It did.
It became the P-40.
Development of the R-1830 and R-1820 sort of stalled in 1940-41, Yes P & W did get the two stage R-1830 into production but 1040-1100hp at 19,000ft was setting the world on fire in mid 1941 and later. They still had not figured out how to get good exhaust thrust from a radial. At least not without getting Carbon Monoxide into the cockpit.
The 1300-1350hp take off R-1820 doesn't show up for a while and it is a completely different engine than the 1200hp R-1820. Uses the same bore and stroke.
The bigger engines (R-2600 and R-2800) were truly big and probably too big for the airframe.
Propeller technology also rears it's ugly head. For some reason P & W and Hamilton went with very large 3 blade props, The B-26 did use four blade (first US aircraft to do so?) but they were 12 ft 2 in? Yes things got better but when it did was too late.
How much more did the two stage weigh and how much longer was it?
Of course Curtiss was in business to stay in business and had to come up with designs that the military would want, hence the P-40. I'm thinking that it might have been possible to keep the P-36 on the back burner long enough for the arrival of the R-1820 you've mentioned or something similar. Again, I do not know how the contractors and the military buyers dealt with each other before the war. It may be that Curtiss, to work in that direction, might have needed some form of authorization that the military was unwilling to give.
increasing the power to weight ratio through the design of a lighter airframe.
Sorry; I was just making a general observation. Your information is right and when it comes to the P-40, I was wondering if there might have been any structural improvements that could have led to a better power to weight ratio.Unfortunately that option tends to go out the window when military requirements change.
P-40 fuel system before protection, P-36 is going to be fairly close. 171lbs
P-40B fuel system with early protection. 253.4lbs
P-40C fuel system with later protection. 420lbs. The fuel systems for later P-40s that had three tanks was roughly 420-437lbs but that may be the weight of individual aircraft.
Want to cut 250lbs out of the wing structure to make up for it?
Increased weight of armament affected airframe weight. Increased gross weigh called for beefed up/heavier landing gear. And so on.
the "Airframe" of the 5th P-40 built may have gone about 2950lbs for the wing, tail, fuselage, landing gear and engine section (Engine mounts and cowl), out of an empty weight of 5367lbs. P-40 had two .50 cal guns and two .30 cal guns and went 5625lbs basic (no pilot, fuel, ammo, usable oil)
Where are the cuts to make a lighter airframe going to come from?
The Hawk 75 was lighter. But then the Hawk 75 used a lighter less powerful engine and was configured to have a single .50 cal and a single .30 cal machine guns. Gross weight was calculated at 105 US gallons. The wing was about 150lbs lighter than the P-40 wing and the landing gear was about 80lbs lighter for example.
However the advertising brochure provided here.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-36/Curtiss_Hawk_75-A_Detail_Specifications.pdf
Where the P & W powered version weighs about 300lbs more than the Wright Cyclone powered version also states that the P & W was version to stressed to 11.5 "G"S while the Cyclone powered version was stressed to 12 "G"s . It also states that the P & W version can be provided Stressed to 12 "G"s (standard load factor) at additional cost and weight.
There is no such thing as a free lunch.
Yes, if you leave out some of the payload/useful load (fuel, weapons, protection) you can build a lighter airframe. Do you really have a better airplane?
Air Vice Marshal Conway Pulford raises his hand, yes please! I'll take one thousand P40s please.The first thought that came into my head was 'why would anyone want an extra 10,000 P40's'
Even faster on the P-36. Tell CC&F in Canada, CAC in Australia and/or HAL in India to begin license producing the P-36 in 1938. With engine supplies nearby, CC&F can likely churn out Hawks faster than Hurricanes. CC&F was already buying Curtiss-Wright engines and P&W Canada was a well established service and sales office.The obvious way to get 10,000 more P36/P-40 built is for the British to refuse NAA's offer to design and build a new fighter design in lieu of building P-40s under licence.
CC&F in Canada in 1938 was an assembly shop. They were supplied complete fuselages, complete wings and tail sections, landing gear assemblies and engines/props.Tell CC&F in Canada, CAC in Australia and/or HAL in India to begin license producing the P-36 in 1938.
RAF Malaya had a total of sixty operational Buffaloes, with another forty or so spare aircraft. Add two hundred P-36 or P-66 and we've more than doubled the RAF fighter force.Kinda curious about the effect a few hundred two stage P-36s, P-66s and/or Boomerangs would have had in the Pacific in 1941-2
Well, it's better than an extra 10,000 P-39's.The first thought that came into my head was 'why would anyone want an extra 10,000 P40's'
Well, it's better than an extra 10,000 P-39's.
I know I know...
View attachment 628903
I'll be in the penalty box for the next two minutes...
If you knew anything about the level of quality control that existed in India at the time you would think twice about that thoughtIndia built a handful of P-36's under license before the decision was made to concentrate on repair/overhaul of other aircraft. If they had gone into full scale production, they could have been producing thousands of P-36's by 1944. They also could have taken over Curtiss-Wright technical support with an Indian phone call center.