Navalized P-36/-40 instead of the F2A/F4F/FM? (2 Viewers)

[Frog]

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?

Curtiss was too busy with the XSB2-C development.

 

[tomo pauk]

Curtiss was too busy with the XSB2-C development.

Note that I haven't suggested that Curtiss makes a bespoke naval fighter.

 

[Shortround6]

Note that I haven't suggested that Curtiss makes a bespoke naval fighter.

Well, if it isn't bespoke it is going to break more often than the F2A series of fighters on landing.
Or at least heavily modified.

Short take;
Take a land fighter with known problems with landing gear/wing structure, that takes off and lands at higher speeds than current Navy fighters while being hundreds of pounds lighter.
Install catapult points and an arrester hook, take it to sea for dozens of hard landings.

Yep, no possible future problems here.

 

[GrauGeist]

So our P-36N (copyright)

If the Navy adopted the P-36, it would have most likely been designated F3C, since Curtiss had already developed fighters for the USN, so "F" for fighter, "3" for the third type in that class accepted and "C" for Curtiss.

In regards to Curtiss being "busy" making another type - at the time, they had quite a few types in production with several others under development.
Navalizing the P-36, which was being produced for the USAAC and overseas customers, should not have been a problem.

 

[tomo pauk]

Navalizing the P-36, which was being produced for the USAAC and overseas customers, should not have been a problem.

+1 on that.

 

[Shortround6]

Navalizing the P-36, which was being produced for the USAAC and overseas customers, should not have been a problem.

Define problem. They could slap corrosion resistant coatings on it. They could mount the catapult points, they could hang an arrestor hook on it and beef up the structure.

Should they is the question.
What does it get the US Navy that the F4F won't do? Even an F4F with fixed wings, and a single stage, two speed engine.
P-36A is carrying 183lbs of guns/ammo. A P-36C is carrying 292lbs of guns/ammo.
An F4F with 4 .50 cal guns and even 250rpg instead of 430 is carrying 586lbs of guns/ammo.
and the F4F takes off shorter and lands a little slower.
Once you put in four .50s, protected tanks and even around 100lbs of armor the P-36/radial P-40 has what for performance and deck performance?
P-40 gained about 150lbs in the wing construction. P-40D/E gained another 100lbs.

This is the Grumman in 1937/early 1938

It was slower than a P-36, but by the time they got to the F4F-3 they had added about 1300lbs empty and just under 1500lbs loaded. And they intended to land on carriers from the start.
Sorry, I just don't see a P-36/Hawk that carried near the same armaments and fuel and was suited to the carrier environment being much lighter. Adding protection in 1940 is going to bring the Curtiss machine within a few hundred pounds of a P-40D. A two speed R-1830 is around 140lbs heavier than a V-1710-33 but you do get to ditch about 292lbs of liquid cooling system.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Back to the P-36, if the Royal Navy wanted it, what sort of wing fold would have been possible for using Ark Royal and Illustrious class sized lifts, the narrowest of which was 22ft across? The wing on the P-36 appears to be a single piece, unlike a Hurricane, for example where the undercarriage and main spar remain when the wings are removed.

 

[Shortround6]

Back to the P-36, if the Royal Navy wanted it, what sort of wing fold would have been possible for using Ark Royal and Illustrious class sized lifts, the narrowest of which was 22ft across? The wing on the P-36 appears to be a single piece, unlike a Hurricane, for example where the undercarriage and main spar remain when the wings are removed.

P-36, to be a bit technical is two piece, being joined on the center line. So yes it is going to act like a one piece from your perspective. The Hurricane acting like a 3 piece.
The Buffalo was a true one piece. ???

Maybe it was two piece and just assembled into the aircraft in a rather strange way.
The Problem for the RN wasn't the way they need to fold the wing.
The Problem was that they had shorter fight decks than American carriers and wanted low take-off and landing speeds.
And we still have not solved the weak landing gear wing joint problem that was writing off aircraft making normal landings let alone slamming them into carrier decks using arrested landings.

You need to fix two things before you even start to work on folding the wings.

 

[GrauGeist]

Curtiss addressed the P-36's landing gear with the P-40, but it was more robust and included some changes to the wing to correct wing surface buckling - which added more weight to the airframe.

So now, a Navalized P-36, with the added weight of improved landing gear and upgraded wing, would gain yet more weight with a wing-fold modification.

It might be possible to have the wingtips folding, like the A6M, so the entire wing wouldn't have to be redesigned.

 

[Shortround6]

Curtiss addressed the P-36's landing gear with the P-40, but it was more robust and included some changes to the wing to correct wing surface buckling - which added more weight to the airframe.

So now, a Navalized P-36, with the added weight of improved landing gear and upgraded wing, would gain yet more weight with a wing-fold modification.

It might be possible to have the wingtips folding, like the A6M, so the entire wing wouldn't have to be redesigned.

I have been estimating a carrier P-36 that carried four .50s and 250rpg and protection at around 400-500lbs or so less than a P-40D, anybody wants to estimate 1-200 lbs lower fine.
But you are not going to get an under 6000lb Naval P-36 unless you are willing to accept P-36A armament and no armor and unprotected tanks.

 

[ThomasP]

re folding wing P-36 fitting on armoured carrier lifts

The folded width of a navalized P-36 could be ~15 ft (~16 ft maximum) if they used a simple break-wing fold like the Corsair, with the break a couple feet outboard of the landing gear (center-to-center landing gear tread was 8' 1").