Curtiss-Wright CW-21B (1 Viewer)

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

Ivan1GFP

Tech Sergeant
1,847
797
Mar 19, 2008
Hi Folks,

Does anyone here have good schematics for a Curtiss Wright CW-21B Interceptor?

Thanks in advance.
- Ivan.
 
What a quick google came up with.
 

Attachments

  • CW21.jpg
    CW21.jpg
    16 KB · Views: 712
  • CW211.jpg
    CW211.jpg
    6.9 KB · Views: 631
Thanks for the links! I have always been curious about this little demon in a "What If.....?" train of thought. Though performance would have suffered, what if they had utilized some armour for the fuel tank and pilot to increase chance of survival with the enemy. It seemed to me to be similar to the Zero in that it had high maneuverability, good climb and turn fight capability..what if the flight tactics employed would have focused much more on attack like the IJN counterparts?
What if it was given more of a chance by the USAAF...was there a bias against radial engine interceptors at that time?

What if I actually did some more research on my own before I post more questions like this? :)
Later,
Derek
 
Thanks Guys,
Unfortunately most of the references are for the CW-21 and not for the CW-21B. The most obvious difference is that the CW-21B has an inward retracting landing gear which is flush with the underside. The CW-21 has wing pods for retractable gear similar to a P-40. There ARE a couple useful photographs though.

The CW-21 was a very lighweight fighter that could barely achieve 300 mph and only carried two rifle caliber machine guns. Its climb performance was pretty impressive but would have been degraded to near worthless with any useful military load.

- Ivan.
 
One source lists the airfoil as "CW-19 Special". The airfoil was first used on the Curtiss CW-19 (appropriately enough). It was subsequently used on the CW-21/22/23 series of airframes.

The CW-19 was a civil aviation airframe, so possibly an FAA record of some some type exists?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back