- Thread starter
-
- #161
Snautzer01
Honourably banned
- 42,495
- Mar 26, 2007
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
It's a thinly vailed ad for the export model of the P-36. USAAC P-36s did not have armor, 4 wing guns, the ability to carry under wing cannons , or bomb racks.It is interesting to me to see that the US was thinking in terms of fighter bombers well before the war.. Of course the Curtiss F11 ultimately yielded the BF2C, a fighter turned into a dive bomber, and it was a US fighter carrying bombs that led to Udet's fascination with the Stuka concept.
The XP-42, shown above, sure was a nice looking airplane. I like the R-2600 idea, but with a two-stage/two-speed super charger and 4-6 .50's.You know, I think maybe that a Hawk 75 with, say, an R-2600 up front probably would have made a better fighter bomber than anything else the RAF had in the ETO, or on the south side of a P-47. Too bad P-40 production was not switched to that in late 1943.
View attachment 726198
View attachment 726200
XP-42 Wiki Page said:When the XP-42 first flew in March 1939, it proved to be faster than the P-36. However, the P-40 was faster still and the new nose cowling caused engine cooling problems that proved to be unresolvable, despite at least 12 sets of modifications.
You'd have never stuffed all that in a P-40N-type airframe. The XP-42 used an R-1830, so no wonder it was slower than a P-40. I don't think you could have gotten anything bigger than an R-2600 in there without major revisions. I guess a R-2000 could have been fitted to a P-40 without much trouble but that would have not been much if any of an increase in HP. Curtiss tried making a bigger more powerful P-40, the XP-60 and ended up with pretty much a P-47.I like the R-2600 idea, but with a two-stage/two-speed super charger