Navalized P-36/-40 instead of the F2A/F4F/FM?

[tomo pauk]

Basically - a scenario where USN adopts the navalized Curtiss fighters instead of the F2A/F4F/FM. The number of the respective A/C delivered is in the ballpark. The newly fanged naval fighters can receive suitable engine upgrades as they are available, ie. the 2-stage R-1830 on these fighters is also good to go (talk by late 1941). Same with later R-1820s (some time mid-1943?). Yes, V-1710 is still very much in play.
Folding wings also get introduced, perhaps by early 1942, ie. similar as with the F4F-4.
Protection for pilot and fuel, as well as drop tank installation are introduced by some time 1941, ie. more or less as it was the case historically.

Will the USN be better off, or worse off with the alternative fighters vs. the historical set-up?

 

[Shortround6]

Will the USN be better off, or worse off with the alternative fighters vs. the historical set-up?

Well, you may need longer carriers

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-36/P-36_Operation_and_Flight_Instruction.pdf

Take-off run 550ft for a 5650lb airplane.
Please note that AHT says 620ft for a 6906lbs Brewster F2A-3.
Note that the 5650lb P-36A has got.
one .50 cal gun with 200 rounds
one .30 cal gun with 500 rounds
105 US gallons of fuel.
no protection of any sort.
A rather suspect reputation for weakness in the wing/landing gear area (wing skins wrinkling, landing gear to wing structure failures) in land planes.
French were trying to buy 30 additional wing sets over the winter of 1939/40 to repair existing French Hawk 75s.

Please note the Allison powered planes got worse, a lot quicker.
P-40 (no letter) needed 721 ft at 6655lbs. or just about what an F4F-4 needed at 7973lbs.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I does look good aboard ship, even if just in a ferry role. But has the USN ever operated a liquid cooled ICE-powered carrier aircraft?

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qavJ5cCP5S4

 

[Shortround6]

Once you get it up, the pilots would very much like to get back down, on the carrier.........................................................alive.

 

[tomo pauk]

Well, you may need longer carriers

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-36/P-36_Operation_and_Flight_Instruction.pdf

Take-off run 550ft for a 5650lb airplane.
Please note that AHT says 620ft for a 6906lbs Brewster F2A-3.
Note that the 5650lb P-36A has got.
one .50 cal gun with 200 rounds
one .30 cal gun with 500 rounds
105 US gallons of fuel.
no protection of any sort.
A rather suspect reputation for weakness in the wing/landing gear area (wing skins wrinkling, landing gear to wing structure failures) in land planes.
French were trying to buy 30 additional wing sets over the winter of 1939/40 to repair existing French Hawk 75s.

Please note the Allison powered planes got worse, a lot quicker.
P-40 (no letter) needed 721 ft at 6655lbs. or just about what an F4F-4 needed at 7973lbs.

Okay.
Seems like the P-36 will need to be upgraded, before we are certain that a P-40 can do the job.

 

[Shortround6]

Okay.
Seems like the P-36 will need to be upgraded, before we are certain that a P-40 can do the job.

I may not have explained it well.
The P-36/P-40 wing does not provide enough lift (wing area/airfoil/flap design=coefficient of lift) to make a good carrier plane.
By the time you stuff in enough guns/ammo (even four .50s or even six-eight .30s) and fuel for carrier operations (another 35-50 US gallons?)
both the take off distance and landing speed go up. A lot of P-40s wound up with landing speeds in the low 80s.
And lets remember there are three speeds.
Stalling speed.
Landing speed.
Approach speed.
A P-40E had a higher landing speed than an F4U.

Whatever gains you can get in speed and roll with the P-36/P-40 you pay for in increased deck requirement's and other things.
The US Navy did an evaluation of a P-40F starting June 6th 1942 at Anacostia Naval Air Station against an F4F-4 and while the P-40F was better at somethings it was worse in others.

One reason the F4F and F6F had those high cockpits was to give a better pilot view for landing (and defection shooting). edit: deflection
The evaluation even covered things like cockpit ventilation, heating and noise (P-40F was better in all 3) but the P-40 cockpit was more cramped.

You could fix the things that were wrong with the P-36/P-40 for carrier use, but it probably won't be a P-36/P-40 any more (new wing and landing gear ?)

 

[yulzari]

I may not have explained it well.
The P-36/P-40 wing does not provide enough lift (wing area/airfoil/flap design=coefficient of lift) to make a good carrier plane.
By the time you stuff in enough guns/ammo (even four .50s or even six-eight .30s) and fuel for carrier operations (another 35-50 US gallons?)
both the take off distance and landing speed go up. A lot of P-40s wound up with landing speeds in the low 80s.
And lets remember there are three speeds.
Stalling speed.
Landing speed.
Approach speed.
A P-40E had a higher landing speed than an F4U.

Whatever gains you can get in speed and roll with the P-36/P-40 you pay for in increased deck requirement's and other things.
The US Navy did an evaluation of a P-40F starting June 6th 1942 at Anacostia Naval Air Station against an F4F-4 and while the P-40F was better at somethings it was worse in others.

One reason the F4F and F6F had those high cockpits was to give a better pilot view for landing (and defection shooting).
The evaluation even covered things like cockpit ventilation, heating and noise (P-40F was better in all 3) but the P-40 cockpit was more cramped.

You could fix the things that were wrong with the P-36/P-40 for carrier use, but it probably won't be a P-36/P-40 any more (new wing and landing gear ?)

Defection shooting. A valuable tool to curtail defectors from decamping to the enemy.

 

[MIflyer]

But has the USN ever operated a liquid cooled ICE-powered carrier aircraft

The V-1710 originally was developed for the USN. I suspect that it was intended for airships, where the speed might be too low for air-cooled engines but I don't know.

Note that at one time the USAAC and USN operated essentially the same aircraft, the P-6E and the F11C, one with liquid cooling and one with air cooling.

 

[Howard Gibson]

Basically - a scenario where USN adopts the navalized Curtiss fighters instead of the F2A/F4F/FM. The number of the respective A/C delivered is in the ballpark. The newly fanged naval fighters can receive suitable engine upgrades as they are available, ie. the 2-stage R-1830 on these fighters is also good to go (talk by late 1941). Same with later R-1820s (some time mid-1943?). Yes, V-1710 is still very much in play.
Folding wings also get introduced, perhaps by early 1942, ie. similar as with the F4F-4.
Protection for pilot and fuel, as well as drop tank installation are introduced by some time 1941, ie. more or less as it was the case historically.

Will the USN be better off, or worse off with the alternative fighters vs. the historical set-up?

Does the P-36 offer better performance after being equipped with hooks, folding wings and catapult hooks? I am looking at Profile Publications here, and it appears that the carrier capable F4F-3 had the same top speed and rate of climb.

How would a non-carrier version of the F4F have performed for the USAAF?

 

[Howard Gibson]

I does look good aboard ship, even if just in a ferry role. But has the USN ever operated a liquid cooled ICE-powered carrier aircraft?

They tested the Bell XFL Airabonita.

 

[GrauGeist]

The P-36 would perhaps be a better candidate for the time period.

Keep in mind that folding wings didn't appear until the TBD was accepted.

The F2A, early F4F and SBD did not have folding wings.

 

[EwenS]

The P-36 would perhaps be a better candidate for the time period.

Keep in mind that folding wings didn't appear until the TBD was accepted.

The F2A, early F4F and SBD did not have folding wings.

Not true, even in the USN. A number of its USN biplane torpedo bomber predecessors dating back to 1922 and culminating in the the Martin T4M, had folding wings.

The Curtiss-Martin Feud—And Aircraft

Post-World War I development of the CS/SC scout-bomber-torpedo plane series deepened the rift between two aircraft manufacturers.

www.usni.org

Martin T4M

The TBD Devastator was however the first naval aircraft to be given hydraulically folding wings.

 

[tomo pauk]

Does the P-36 offer better performance after being equipped with hooks, folding wings and catapult hooks? I am looking at Profile Publications here, and it appears that the carrier capable F4F-3 had the same top speed and rate of climb.

F4F-3 was also without the folding wings. So was the F2A.
(please see here for the very good resource about the ww2 aircraft performance)
In order to match the speed of a latest P-36, the F4F-3 was outfitted with a much better engine. If a Wildcat is with a not so good engine, like the 1-stage supercharged R-1830s, or the R-1820s from late 1930s (= the engines used on the latest P-36s/Mohawks) speed was around 315 mph. See here and here.

A navalized P-36 outfitted with the 2-stage engine should be faster than the F4F-3 (even if not making 380 mph as in case with the test mule that combined P-40 fuselage and the 2-stage R-1830). A navalized P-40 should also be faster, and with ability to overboost the engine (so the torpedo bombers can be caught even if the radar operator misjudges the altitude of the said bombers).

How would a non-carrier version of the F4F have performed for the USAAF?

Probably not better than the P-40B, especially under 15000 ft.

 

[Shortround6]

Does the P-36 offer better performance after being equipped with hooks, folding wings and catapult hooks?

If it won't take-off and land from a carrier what is the point?

Doesn't matter if it is 20-30mph faster than the F4F with same engine.
If you have to catapult nearly ever one instead of just flying them off the deck your launch rate (response or form up) is going to be slower.
If your landing speed is 10mph higher the accident rate goes up, A plane landing at 82mph has 26% more force per pound than a plane landing at 73mph.
P-36s (US version) had trouble landing on normal runways. Repeat of the whole F2A saga?
And again, the US P-36 did NOT carry either the armament or fuel of the even the F2A or F4F-3 aircraft.

Engine swaps are not quite as easy as they appear.
Radial engine P-40 prototype went about 7,000lbs in flying condition. Well over 1000lbs heavier than a P-36 (heavier structure in addition to engine) BUT
had NO protection and NO guns. Heading to close to P-40E & K weight for a service equipped version, it might still have been fast.
Deck handling qualities?????????????????????

 

[tomo pauk]

If it won't take-off and land from a carrier what is the point?

Was the F4U able to take off from the carriers, needing 710 ft (lightest configuration; almost 1400 ft with drop tanks and no bombs) to take off with zero wind over the wings?

 

[swampyankee]

I does look good aboard ship, even if just in a ferry role. But has the USN ever operated a liquid cooled ICE-powered carrier aircraft?

View attachment 763721


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qavJ5cCP5S4

Earlier, in the biplane era, they did, e.g., the Boeing FB. They even operated a carrier-capable twin, the Douglas T2D.

 

[Admiral Beez]

They tested the Bell XFL Airabonita.

Too bad they didn't keep the tricycle gear, it would have been among the very first carrier aircraft thus equipped.

 

[GrauGeist]

Not true, even in the USN. A number of its USN biplane torpedo bomber predecessors dating back to 1922 and culminating in the the Martin T4M, had folding wings.

Ahh yes, you're right!

For some reason, I was stuck on the monoplanes.

 

[Shortround6]

Was the F4U able to take off from the carriers, needing 710 ft (lightest configuration; almost 1400 ft with drop tanks and no bombs) to take off with zero wind over the wings?

Probably not without a catapult.
However with wind things get a lot better, but we may be comparing different standards. What the USN was willing to accept in 1938/39 and what they were willing to accept in 1943/43 may be different things.

With a 25kt wind (Not 25mph) the F4U needed
10,000lbs..........................200ft
11,500lbs..........................300ft
12,700lbs..........................400ft
13,750lbs..........................500ft
14,250lbs..........................600ft

These are with 30 degrees of flap. These are from a chart in the manual and the weights are not broken down as to what the loads are comprised of.

 

[tomo pauk]

With a 25kt wind (Not 25mph) the F4U needed
10,000lbs..........................200ft
11,500lbs..........................300ft
12,700lbs..........................400ft
13,750lbs..........................500ft
14,250lbs..........................600ft

These are with 30 degrees of flap. These are from a chart in the manual and the weights are not broken down as to what the loads are comprised of.

The -1's lightest take off weight with full ammo and internal fuel, but clean, as noted in the SAC sheet, was 12039 lbs. Basically, a 25 kt headwind cut the TO distance by ~50%.

However with wind things get a lot better, but we may be comparing different standards. What the USN was willing to accept in 1938/39 and what they were willing to accept in 1943/43 may be different things.

USN in 1938/39 was still very much aware of the fact that a moving CV helps with taking off (and landing), and that was double so if/when the CV was sailing against a wind. So our P-36N (copyright) that will require perhaps 700 ft when taking off from ground will require close to 350 ft when taking off from a carrier in actual service.