Conslaw
Senior Airman
I indeed misspoke. I meant to say February 1943.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I indeed misspoke. I meant to say February 1943.That would be 1943 for these fighters deployed overseas.
The 1850 HP R-2800s were made probably concurrently with 1700 HP R-2600s, ie. early 1941. The R-2800 would've been a fine improvement for a fighter that is designed around a R-2600.
Ha-41 was much lighter than the R-2600 - 600 lbs difference. It was also less bulky at 50 in diameter vs. 55 in. Additional 10% of diameter nets a 21% increase of frontal area.
BMW 801 early on was a troublesome machine, so the R-2600 gets a nod here; R-2600 was also lighter. Where the 801 was better was it's smaller diameter (50.8 in), layout of exhaust stacks for better thrust, and the armored oil system (less susceptible to the return fire, less drag than a 'classic' oil radiator - Americans started armoring the oil coolers with F7F, F8F and AU-1). 801 was a bit more powerful than the R-2600 at higher altitudes, especially the 801D. The 1600 HP R-2600s were hopeless above ~13000 ft. Both engines were gas guzzlers.
R-2600 version that powered the XF6F was a 2-stage supercharged engine, difference in timing vs. a 2-stage S/Ced R-2800 (on XF4U-1 from 1940) is about 20 months? But yes, a land-based fighter of a smaller size and weight than it was the F6F with a 2-stage R-2600 would've been quite useful.
Approximate weights for single stage two speed modelsThe problem with the R-2600 lies more with weight than size.
The R-1820 weighed less than 1,200 pounds with a width of about 54 inches. The R-2600's width was only 55 inches and just over a foot longer, but weighed 800 pounds more.
It's possible that an R-2600 could have been shoe-horned into a P-36, which would be a close match to the Fw190, but the 2600's weight would still be an issue (even the V-1710 weighed 600 pounds less).
The P-35 was nearly identical to the P-36 in size and empty weight, both being fitted with the R-1830 series engine.I think the idea has some merit but the Seversky P-35 airframe was better suited to large radials and actually had marginally better aerodynamics.
At 10,000ft on1050hp at 2700rpmThe P-35 was nearly identical to the P-36 in size and empty weight, both being fitted with the R-1830 series engine.
The only difference is the P-36 could fly higher and faster, and most important, had superior handling.
Hate to rain on your parade but this is not a good comparison. First, where do you get these numbers from? Wikipedia? Flight Manuals? Company brochures? Why only pick 10,000'? How about sea level performance and compare both at their service ceilings? Wing loadings? Rate of climb?At 10,000ft on1050hp at 2700rpm
P-35A 306mph
P-36A 313mph
P-36C 311mph
At 10,000ft on 900hp at 2500
AP-2 307mph
At 10,000ft on 920hp at 2500
P-36A 300mph
P-36C 298mph
The P-35A and P-36C had the same armament in the same configuration. but the P-35A had that awful semi-retractable landing gear and was barely slower. The AP-2 had flush retracting gear and a lowered canopy and it lacked armament. It's unlikely that the addition of a pair of machine guns and a more suitable canopy would not retain some speed advantage over the P-36.
The P-35's only major handling problem I am aware of was its strong tendency to ground loop. This was do in part to its amphibious floatplane origins (wing set up for a shallow landing angle) and its short fuselage gave it a fairly high AOA on a three point landing. The turbulence and excessive drag with the landing gear down didn't help the situation.
Some of them may be from hereHate to rain on your parade but this is not a good comparison. First, where do you get these numbers from? Wikipedia? Flight Manuals? Company brochures? Why only pick 10,000'? How about sea level performance and compare both at their service ceilings? Wing loadings? Rate of climb?
Yep - that was postedSome of them may be from here
During this period Seversky was a mess. Despite showing some promising designs for the period, de Serversky made some very poor business decisions and it would not surprise me that some of the numbers advertised for the P-35 and subsequent civilian models were padded.No idea where the Seversky figures are from.
YepI would note that even the manual figures don't quite line up. The engine in the P-36A made peak power (1050hp) at 2550 rpm at 6,500ft. Getting 1050hp out of it at 10,000ft at 2700rpm may call for a good amount of RAM ? Some of the pre war engines didn't have military power. Using the take-off power settings for max speed was done but sometimes the manual figures don't show that. Engine was rated at 1200hp for take off at 2700rpm.
And again, previously postedI would note that wwiiaircraftperformance has four tests of a P-36A doing propeller tests (different blade designs) and at 10,000ft using 2550rpm it was good anywhere from 995hp to 1045hp although the speed only varied by 3mph. (low 290s)
slow fingers.And again, previously posted
And going back to post 65, all P-36 numbers were shown at 2500, P-35 numbers numbers at 2700 RPM, IMO not a valid comparisonOn the P & W engines 2500rpm is an odd number. They were usually rated at 2550rpm for max continuous except for the older ones.
Trying to track down the R-1830s used in the Seversky aircraft is a bit tricky. P & W was offering several different supercharger drive ratios and one of the Seversky prototypes had an early P & W two stage (not 2 speed but two stage) supercharger, this was a different aircraft than the prototype with the Turbo.
This is not helped by the USAF engine records not matching up to the P & W records. The USAF engine records do have a number of typo's.
If the AP-2 was using a 2 stage supercharger then things get a bit strange.
And now that you mention it, me neither.The P-35A, as delivered to the Air Corps, was fitted with the R-1830-45 and the P-43A was fitted with the R-1830-49.
The AP-2 had the R-1830-9 engine and a flush landing gear configuration.
And to be honest, I don't think I've ever seen performance figures for the P-35A at sea level.
I have found plenty of errors in Baugher's work . Don't get me wrong I think his site is a damn fine site but he is not anything close to an original researcher. His work relies solely on second/third hand sources and god only knows where the data actually comes from. After all most books up through 90s were written for the casual reader and not the technical minded.Hate to rain on your parade but this is not a good comparison. First, where do you get these numbers from? Wikipedia? Flight Manuals? Company brochures? Why only pick 10,000'? How about sea level performance and compare both at their service ceilings? Wing loadings? Rate of climb?
Now in your defense I know there isn't a lot of detailed flight test data for these aircraft, especially the P-35. Here's the AAC flight test report for the P-36 made October 1940:
Here's some good info from Joe Baugher's site. I always found his data quite reliable.