swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 3,994
- Jun 25, 2013
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
OK. If you don't want me to do it, you best ask someone else.
I'm not going to argue that the P-36 was aerodynamically inferior to the P-40, just that the P-36 did not have as well-designed an engine installation as did many other radial-engined fighters, probably because it was one of the earlier ones, and did not get the kind of attention that was given to the F4F.
And there you have it. NOBODY had well designed radial installations in 1936-41 compared to what was being done in 1942-45. They were working on it, and working on it hard but it took time and a lot of failed experiments to get on the right path.
The timing for a good radial engine installation is "just" too late to have any real effect for a service aircraft in 1942 (FW 190 was the exception) To be in service in 1942 in numbers, it had to go into production in 1941 which means the design had to be finalized when in 1941?
It wasn't just a bit of clean-up in a wind tunnel that helped the F4F, it is the fact that the 2 stage engine used offered 1000hp at 19,000-20,000ft compared to the 600-630hp that the engine in the P-36 supplied.
A newer version of the two stage engine in the F4F did propel the P&W test Mule aircraft to over 380mph in the fall of 1942 but that is much too late to have any effect on the course of the war.
We are getting into what ifs like "what if" Curtiss could have used the P-51 wing and radiator in 1938 on the P-40?
The XP-42 is a P-36 airframe and went through something like 13-14 different cowls and engines with extended shafts and short shafts while they worked on reducing drag for air cooled engine WHILE still getting acceptable cooling. This all took time. Vultee tried the extended shaft engine and pointy nose on the first Vultee 48 (P-66) and had to give up on it.
Everybody KNEW there was a drag problem. A number of people were spending time and money on solving it. They did solve it, just not in time for 1942.
You'd be better off getting rid of the syncronized cowl weapons...too low of a rate of fire. Four .50 or six .30 wing-mounted MGs would be a better choice.What is the BEST performing/most powerfull P&W engine that could have historically been installed in the P36 in late 1941 or early 1942 in time for the P36 to see combat at say Midway and Guadalcanal? What is your best guess on the performance of the P36 with your historical engine of choice with 2 synchronized 50's for armament?
You'd be better off getting rid of the syncronized cowl weapons...too low of a rate of fire. Four .50 or six .30 wing-mounted MGs would be a better choice.
The main consideration for a higher rate of fire is to deliver more damge in a short amount of time. In a confrontation, it's good to be able to "pump some lead" into the adversary, but he usually had a buddy nearby so inflicting the maximum amount of damage in the shortest possible time was a key factor in survivability.
While the Dauntless was capable of putting up a fight against the Japanese (much to thier surprise), many did not survive.
The main consideration for a higher rate of fire is to deliver more damge in a short amount of time. In a confrontation, it's good to be able to "pump some lead" into the adversary, but he usually had a buddy nearby so inflicting the maximum amount of damage in the shortest possible time was a key factor in survivability.
While the Dauntless was capable of putting up a fight against the Japanese (much to thier surprise), many did not survive.
I think that the USN's next-generation of attack aircraft, like the AD Skyraider and the AM Mauler, eschewed the gunner because of the resulting loss of performance and because they concluded that attack aircraft were, in general, too vulnerable to enemy fighters to manage without escort.
I keep posting this picture.
View attachment 242960
That is a picture of the Hawk 75 with TWO stage supercharger that was at the Army 1939 fighter trial. Please notice the duct/fairing under the plane about under cockpit. That is the fairing/duct for the inter cooler.
There is no such thing as a free lunch, You want the power of the F4F up high you pay the cost in weight, bulk and drag, which hurts performance down low.
The compromise is the single stage, two speed engine as used in the F4F-3A.
part of the problem with making an "American" Zero is that the Americans would never have bought an aircraft with the low structural strength of the Zero or it's low diving speed limit. The heavier structure means more weight so unless you really cut armament or fuel you will wind up with a heavier airplane.
As far as armament goes the two cowl 50s with 200rpg weigh about the same as six wing mounted .30 cal guns with 333 rpg ( 75% of the armament of a Hurricane I) that are firing almost 120 rounds per second instead of 15-16 rounds per second of the two cowl mounted .50s. Against the Japanese in 1942 who were using few or poorly protected fuel tanks and little, if any armor what does the .50 cal do for you?
Your "despised RCM" seem to have worked moderately well for both the Germans and Japanese. The 109 E used two of them in cowl and it's 20mm guns ran out of ammo after about 8 seconds so the Germans did a fair amount of fighting with just the cowl guns. Same for the Zero, two rcmg in the cowl and two 20mm guns with just 55-60 rounds each in the wings. Quite a number victories after the cannon were empty. The Japanese army fighters in 1941/early 1942 used either two rcmgs or one rcmg and one 12.7.
The Italian 12.7mm guns used explosive bullets that the US guns did not have. They also may have had a better rate of fire when synchronized.
There is no reason I can think of that the Betty should be resistant to rcmg fire. One description has the ONLY armor on early versions as ONE piece about the size of a pancake protecting an ammo rack. The wing was practically one big fuel tank and NOT self sealing. Using a mixture of AP, tracer and incendiary ammunition multiple rcmgs should have little trouble setting it on fire.
Speed is rather dependent on the cowling, the difference in armament may be minor (more drag with 6 guns?) but the fasted figure I have seen for a "service" radial engine Hawk is under 330mph. Climb is more dependent on weight and that depends on protection and structure more than armament, unless you go nuts and try to fit 4 or more .50 cal guns.
To my knowledge, most of the opposition was IJA, but the IJN used China as a test bed for the A6M, and on occasion ran into the AVG. But at any rate, tactics against the Ki-43 are the same that work against the A6M.
AND the US Navy had established 100% air supremacy by the end of the war with swarms of Hellcats and Corsairs escorting strikes, so they may have thought they would never be in a situation where the bombers needed to defend themselves.