Opportunities Missed

Jugman said:

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.

Click to expand...

I can agree

Jugman said:

My source for P-35A data and AP-2 is Bodie's Book. I thought he listed altitude for the P-35A but I can't find it. It's possable that it was achieved on 1000hp/2800rpm at ~12,000ft Double checking the AP-2 figures are: 307mhp at 10,00ft 900hp @ 2500rmp and 34.6"Hg.

Click to expand...

I still think the P-35 figures are optimistic

Jugman said:

My P-36A and P-36C data comes straight from TO 01-25BC-1 dated 05/25/1940. I chose 10,000 because the was a benchmark used and the only altitude I have comparable data.

Click to expand...

I used the same TO but dated February 1940

Jugman said:

Based off of engine data from the AEHS's reference page.
From Model Designations of U.S.A.F. Aircraft Engines
R-1830-45
Military power 1050 at 9,000ft or 1000hp at 11,500ft
Rated power 900hp at 12,000ft

Click to expand...

I haven't had a chance to look this up but this is based on installation on what aircraft?

S Shortround6 - comments?

FLYBOYJ said:

I can agree

I still think the P-35 figures are optimistic

I used the same TO but dated February 1940

I haven't had a chance to look this up but this is based on installation on what aircraft?

S Shortround6 - comments?

Click to expand...

I'm using my phone right now so this is going to be quick and dirty.

Check the revision date on the specific page it's exactly the same.
Those are just the nominal values from the engine index. Typical US practice didn't account for ram or power loss for a specific installation.
If the 290mph at 12,000ft is for 900hp then 306 at 10,000ft on 1050 is in agreement with this.

Jugman said:

I'm using my phone right now so this is going to be quick and dirty.

Check the revision date on the specific page it's exactly the same.
Those are just the nominal values from the engine index. Typical US practice didn't account for ram or power loss for a specific installation.

Click to expand...

Well that's not going to show an accurate indication of how the aircraft actually performs, that's why I prefer to use (when available) the actual flight test report for the actual airframe

Jugman said:

If the 290mph at 12,000ft is for 900hp then 306 at 10,000ft on 1050 is in agreement with this.

Click to expand...

At the end of the day all you're really doing is comparing top speed of both aircraft at a given altitude at specified power settings with the higher RPM going to the P-35. I think we both know that some of this data is suspect (especially for the P-35). This is not a good comparison of these aircraft for their overall performance. IMO the P-35 was clearly inferior to the P-36. As I mentioned earlier, other aspects need to be considered. It seems the P-36 had a higher power to weight ratio, a lower wing loading and outclimbed the P-35 by almost 1400' per minute. The P-36 also had a slightly higher service ceiling. Just as a disclaimer, this info is from Wiki and other internet sources.

Joe, just as an aside, my Uncle Jimmy stated on many occasions that he would have gladly gone to battle against the Japanese in his P-36 and thought the Air Corps was insane for taking it out of service.
He said it was the best handling aircract he ever had the pleasure of flying while in the service.

This is coming from a pilot who also flew the P-39, P-40, P-38 and other types.

In the end, we can toss out charts, numbers and stats, but no one thinks to ask the guys who flew them.