P-36 as USN fighter?

[tomo pauk]

In order not to clog the current Zero vs. all thread, I'll post my stuff here WRT P-36 as an USN fighter.

The naval P-36 is pretty much a non-starter.

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

Take off run for a P-36C at 5800lbs was 600ft zero wind and using 30 degrees of flap.
Take off run for an F4F-3 at 7543lbs was 690ft zero wind.
Take off run for an F4F-3a at 7320lbs was 650ft zero wind.
Take off run for an F4F-4 at 7973lbs was 710ft zero wind.
Take off run for an P-40E at 8289lbs was 1070ft zero wind.

Now to get a P-36C to weigh 5800lbs you have to start leaving things out as the gross weight was 5838lbs and the max safe flying weight was 5840lbs, anything over that and the plane had restrictions.

From what I can gather, the max safe weight was limited to the quoted weight because of the rear fuel tank fuel weight moving the CoG too far aft. The P-40 (no letter; more or less a late P-36 with new powerplant) weighted 6782 lbs with 120 gal of fuel (180 was max fuel, all internal) - the both longer and heavier 'nose' compensated a lot to the weight of fuel. The P-40-no-letter needed 721 ft to take off, 1040 HP take off power, at 6655 lbs. link

This weight is with 105US gallons of fuel, a 66lb radio, one, 50 cal with 200 round and three .30 cal guns with 500rpg.
Filling the fuel tank behind the pilot added 348lbs, extra oil to last as long as the fuel was another 26lbs.
The F4F3s were carrying 42 gallons more fuel and enough oil. They also had armor, self-sealing tanks, 129lbs worth of radio/communications gear, survival gear, and so on.

P-36s also had trouble with wing skin buckling over the landing gear when landing on land. Slamming them onto carrier decks without beefing up the structure probably wasn't going to work well.
IF you can get the USN to forego armor and self sealing tanks and IF you can get them to agree to a lower fuel capacity and IF you can limit the guns to the P-36C armament or six .30 cal guns and no .50s and IF you can get by with less radio gear and no life raft and...............................

Installation of 80 lbs heavier and slightly longer engine should improve the CoG issues with rear tank full. We can push the take off weight of the P-36C by 1000 lbs (more fuel, heavier engine, protection, navalization) to 6800 lbs, the power-to-weight ratio at take off is better than the aforementioned P-40.

Then maybe you can get a Naval P-36 but it you do, what have you really got?

A better fighter than F2A; at least as good a fighter as F4F, a year earlier. Less strain on Grumman design office, so they can provide a next-gen naval fighter that is powered by a big radial eariler than F6F.

 

[Peter Gunn]

Hmm... Tomo you've really piqued my interest here, I'm not sanguine about "What ifs" but how do you (and you other knowledgeable gents) suppose this naval version of the P-36 might stack up against the early war Zeros of 1941-42?