Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
In this article, he details how the prototype was modified with all the NACA-recommended changes and, after being so updated ands streamlined, managed to achieve the 391 mph mark we all know and love to hate.
It's amazing how Larry Bell, in order to save his company, basically cheated with the silent acquiescence of the various authorities. Bell, like Curtis, managed to come up with airplanes that the US didn't want but was ready to pay for.
They weren't the problem.There was nothing wrong with Curtiss airplanes (P-36, P-40, C-46). They were well-designed under the specs given pre-war and were robust.
You left out the C-76 and the SO3CThey weren't the problem.
XP-46
XP-55 (IMO had potential)
XP-53
XP-60
XP-60E
XP-62
XF14C
XBT2C
XF15C
Lot's of prototypes and experimenting that went no where.
You left out the C-76 and the SO3C
The SB2C was built and used but nobody was really happy with it.
The C-46 did have some detail design issues such as fuel leaksThey weren't the problem.
XP-46
XP-55 (IMO had potential)
XP-53
XP-60
XP-60E
XP-62
XF14C
XBT2C
XF15C
Lot's of prototypes and experimenting that went no where.
Picky, picky, picky.The C-46 did have some detail design issues such as fuel leaks
They did - as did the B-24.The C-46 did have some detail design issues such as fuel leaks
I think the same could be said for the other local Buffalo fighter-builder, Bell.Personal opinion is it was the mediocre performance of the production aircraft that ended Curtiss.
People don't expect every prototype to a winner, although the list of Curtiss failures was pretty impressive in it's own way.
A winner every once in a while can gloss over some failed prototypes.
Unfortunately For Curtiss the SB2C and the Seamew were not winners, they were not even 2nd place, they were well back in the pack at best.
The Navy got rid of the SB2C in 1947 and the reserve got rid of them in 1950.
The Curtiss Seahawk came way too late (June 1945 combat debut) and was too small a production run to change very many minds.
The Curtiss products were arriving late. Were trouble prone when they did show up and often didn't perform quite as promised even after modification/s.
How much longer do you keep giving them money?
On the C-46 the fix wasn't that hard. Whose fault it was?
Installing vents in the wing root area usually cleared out the fumes and/or leaked fuel and I believe most or all the surplused aircraft in commercial service had the modification/s done?
I don't know if Curtiss didn't want to pay or the government didn't want to pay or somebody didn't want to delay deliveries or????????
The C-46 was good at carrying a full load, but it's cross over point from profit to loss with passengers may have been too high.I think the same could be said for the other local Buffalo fighter-builder, Bell.
All good points - IIRC the C-46 vent issue was addressed with post war airworthiness directives and modification kits. The C-46 was a gas hog but it was able to haul a lot.
I had an instructor when I was in A&P school who flew the hump in both C-46s and C-47s, he said the C-46 was a beast, I remember his words, "you needed some muscles." He loved the C-47.The C-46 was good at carrying a full load, but it's cross over point from profit to loss with passengers may have been too high.
Most of the C-46s went into air freight fairly quickly and the different weight/payload limit vs seats worked to it's advantage.
If you needed to move a lot of cargo you might need 2 (or more) C-47s for each C-46.
But is was easier for the small C-47 operators to fly less than full and stay in business.