The Basket
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Always glad to be of help...by the way, the Pope is Roman Catholic...Glad you told me the Spitfire flew in 1936. Next you will tell me the Pope is Catholic.
Not the Zero. By 1942 Zero was a poor performer.
No point copying that.
The P-36 was certainly good for its day. But Spitfire was better.
Maybe a better rationale is that America should build a fighter that can match the Spitfire since it was plenty good.
What would have kept the P36 from becoming the US version of the Zero or KI43?
Apples and oranges.
P-36 is an Army land based fighter aircraft. Historically replaced by P-40.
F4F is a CV based fighter aircraft. Historically replaced by F6F.
.....USMC land based F4Fs muddy the distinction a bit. However if given a choice (and similar engines) the Jar Heads might prefer P-36 over F4F when operating from Guadalcanal.
I guess no one told the Japanese the Zero was a poor performer. There was a squadron of Spitfire veterans from the BOB that were sent to Austraila and got their butt's handed to them by Zero's. The Spitfires that tangled with Zero's in 1942 didn't fair to well.
The 1200hp of the R-1830-17 as installed on the P-36C were pretty much end of the line for the engine. Instead of raw power (as in higher octane fuel, more boost), it would have needed a better supercharger to have this power available at higher altitude. This doesn't come for free, as pointed out elsewhere in the topic by shortround6 - it adds weight and costs space.The P-36 could certainly have had significant performance improvements, simply due to increased engine power. I suspect, too, that it could do with a bit of aerodynamic clean-up, especially with regards to its engine installation. It is, of course, more difficult to design a good air-cooled engine installation than that of a water-cooled in-line, but it's certainly possible to design a clean engine with a radial. Compare the zero-lift drag coefficient of the F4U and that of the Bf109. The latter was reportedly about 0.029, or about 30% greater than the Corsair's.
That's not an aircraft problem, but a tactics problem. The AVG fought with their P-40's against A6M since early on, used proper tactics and was highly successful under bad operating conditions.I guess no one told the Japanese the Zero was a poor performer. There was a squadron of Spitfire veterans from the BOB that were sent to Austraila and got their butt's handed to them by Zero's. The Spitfires that tangled with Zero's in 1942 didn't fair to well.
The P-36 could certainly have had significant performance improvements, simply due to increased engine power. I suspect, too, that it could do with a bit of aerodynamic clean-up, especially with regards to its engine installation. It is, of course, more difficult to design a good air-cooled engine installation than that of a water-cooled in-line, but it's certainly possible to design a clean engine with a radial. Compare the zero-lift drag coefficient of the F4U and that of the Bf109. The latter was reportedly about 0.029, or about 30% greater than the Corsair's.
I guess no one told the Japanese the Zero was a poor performer. There was a squadron of Spitfire veterans from the BOB that were sent to Austraila and got their butt's handed to them by Zero's. The Spitfires that tangled with Zero's in 1942 didn't fair to well.
The 1200hp of the R-1830-17 as installed on the P-36C were pretty much end of the line for the engine. Instead of raw power (as in higher octane fuel, more boost), it would have needed a better supercharger to have this power available at higher altitude. This doesn't come for free, as pointed out elsewhere in the topic by shortround6 - it adds weight and costs space.
The F4U has a lower drag coefficient also because it has a larger reference area. The wing is nearly twice as big, so a 30% higher drag coefficient means 30% less total drag for the 109. You can't just take some coefficient, it means nothing.
That's not an aircraft problem, but a tactics problem. The AVG fought with their P-40's against A6M since early on, used proper tactics and was highly successful under bad operating conditions.
The 1200hp of the R-1830-17 as installed on the P-36C were pretty much end of the line for the engine. Instead of raw power (as in higher octane fuel, more boost), it would have needed a better supercharger to have this power available at higher altitude. This doesn't come for free, as pointed out elsewhere in the topic by shortround6 - it adds weight and costs space.
The F4U has a lower drag coefficient also because it has a larger reference area. The wing is nearly twice as big, so a 30% higher drag coefficient means 30% less total drag for the 109. You can't just take some coefficient, it means nothing.
That's not an aircraft problem, but a tactics problem. The AVG fought with their P-40's against A6M since early on, used proper tactics and was highly successful under bad operating conditions.
OK. If you don't want me to do it, you best ask someone else.Please don't try to tell me how aerodynamic coefficients work.