P-40 Warhawk/Kittyhawk

[tomo pauk]

The added weight is IN FRONT OF THE COG. Removing weight from BEHIND OF THE COG does make things worser! You need to elongate the hull and install dead weights (armour?) as far aft as possible to counter this. Or You move the wing forward.
Remember also that it´s engine dry weight, not netto weight increases. The support frames needs to be enforced to cope with the heavier loads and torque effects produced by the larger engine, too.

Sorry if I haven't make myself clear (English is not my 1st language). The point was to put more armor fuel tanks behind pilot, and remove the radio further back.

 

[davebender]

Like the Me-109 and Spitfire, the P-36 was a light weight fighter. There are limits as to how much armor and firepower you can add, unless you want to drastically reduce performance.

I think that a 375 mph P-36 armed with 4 x .50cal MGs would be good for Pacific service. It compares well with most Japanese fighter aircraft (both army and navy) and has adequate firepower for the job. Certainly better then both the naval F4F and army P-40.

 

[HellToupee]

There were p-36s with more powerful engines 1200hp brits received a few called em Mohawks

 

[tomo pauk]

Like the Me-109 and Spitfire, the P-36 was a light weight fighter. There are limits as to how much armor and firepower you can add, unless you want to drastically reduce performance.

I think that a 375 mph P-36 armed with 4 x .50cal MGs would be good for Pacific service. It compares well with most Japanese fighter aircraft (both army and navy) and has adequate firepower for the job. Certainly better then both the naval F4F and army P-40.

Both Spit and 109 ended up with 2000 HP on board, so, while adding MGs and armor, we also add the power.
I agree that a more moderate approach (1200HP and 4 HMGs) would serve it's purpose though.

Here is the uber P-36/40, the XP-60:
Curtiss P-60 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It's combat performance was under 1944 standards.

 

[Elvis]

I think a ground attack / second line fighter role would've probably been the best scenario for the P-36.
Minimal structure mods could've allowed it to carry a sizeable bomb/rocket load, and 4-50's would work well to back all those munitions up.
FWIW, I guess some P-36's actually made it into service, mostly with foreign nations.
In that case, I think the "best" engine it could've been outfitted with would've been a Wright Cyclone, as it seems a few copies were already being built in foreign countries, so there would've been an alternate supply of engines (besides us).

Interesting article on the P-60, Tomo. Thanks for posting the link.



Elvis

 

[Elvis]

later in the development, like after they moved the machine guns from the cowling to the wings, i read they added almost 200 pounds of armour to the airplane, around the cockpit area. what would this have been? like heavy steel plating or something else bullet/shrapnel resistant?

Thin armour plating, which is essentially very heavy, very dense steel.
I used up an entire brand new 12" "Cuts-All" wheel (mounted on a chop saw) on one, one time, and barely scratched the surface.


Elvis

 

[davebender]

Fact Sheets : Curtiss XP-42 : Curtiss XP-42
The P-42 is more what I have in mind. Improve the aerodynamics and engine HP without doubling the aircraft weight and tripling the aircraft cost. With a bit more effort the cooling problems could have been fixed in a manner similiar to the German Fw-190.

 

[Clay_Allison]

Was the PW radial suitable for a Fw190/Sea Fury style close cowl? That was found to be the most aerodynamic way to cowl a big radial, maybe a model project in there?

They tried that with a bunch of different designs and they couldn't make it work.

The cowling didn't significantly reduce drag and the engine had continuing cooling problems even though numerous cowlings were tested.

 

[Elvis]

FWIW, here's some basic data on the P-36...

Specifications: Curtiss P-36G Hawk / Mohawk
Dimensions:
Length: 28.51ft (8.69m)
Width: 37.01ft (11.28m)
Height: 9.25ft (2.82m)
Performance:
Max Speed: 322mph (518kmh; 280kts)
Max Range: 650miles (1,046km)
Rate-of-Climb: 2,500ft/min (762m/min)
Ceiling: 32,349ft (9,860m; 6.1miles)
Structure:
Accommodation: 1
Hardpoints: 1
Empty Weight: 4,676lbs (2,121kg)
MTOW: 5,880lbs (2,667kg)
Power:
Engine(s): 1 x Wright R-1820-G205A Cyclone piston radial engine generating 1,200hp.
Weapons:
4 x 7.62mm machine guns
2 x 12.7mm machine guns

I read that there was one or two test aircraft put together that was armed with one 23mm cannon on each wing (along with one .30 and one .50 MG mounted in the nose), so it may be that the military was considering a ground attack variation at one time.
Personally, I think two 50's in each wing may have proved more useful, if you consider the alternate "second line fighter" role it could've been pressed into, as well.



Elvis

 

[JoeB]

FWIW, here's some basic data on the P-36...


I read that there was one or two test aircraft put together that was armed with one 23mm cannon on each wing (along with one .30 and one .50 MG mounted in the nose), so it may be that the military was considering a ground attack variation at one time.

Thailand's Hawk 75N export versions had the 23mm cannon; also fixed undercarriage so somewhat slower. They saw air combat action against French Ms406's in the Thai-French war of 1940-41.

Joe

 

[davebender]

Curtiss Hawk 75A-3 (P36G)
According to the above flight simulator site, which may or may not be accurate, the P-36 was very maneuverable at both slow and high speed. However it was slow and had a poor rate of climb.

The P-40 had a decent top speed. However it still had a poor rate of climb and was less maneuverable then the P-36. The self sealing fuel tanks are nice. But this is offset by the liquid cooled engine being inheritly more vulnerable.

At $23,000 each the P-36 cost 38% the price of a P-40 and 17% the price of a P-38. With a production cost that low it could become the ultimate Lend-Lease fighter aircraft. Produce 1,000 per month and give them to everyone in the Pacific except Japan. It is one of the few aircraft that can dog fight with the Japanese A6M, Ki-27 and Ki-43.

 

[MikeGazdik]

Curtiss Hawk 75A-3 (P36G)

At $23,000 each the P-36 cost 38% the price of a P-40 and 17% the price of a P-38. With a production cost that low it could become the ultimate Lend-Lease fighter aircraft. Produce 1,000 per month and give them to everyone in the Pacific except Japan. It is one of the few aircraft that can dog fight with the Japanese A6M, Ki-27 and Ki-43.

But who will make them? Curtiss was maxxed out, which is why North American was approached to build them.

 

[davebender]

Build a new state of the art factory. Just like we did for the production of so many other aircraft models.

 

[Elvis]

But who will make them? Curtiss was maxxed out, which is why North American was approached to build them.

...on top of that, the Brewster F2A-1 was a more maneuverable airplane, had a better climb rate and was better armed.....plus I think the U.S. government was more willing to "lease" those, than the P-36's, if for no other reason than Brewster was kind of a pain in the government's rear end.
The relationship with Curtiss was older and much better.

Also, here's something that might warm davebender's heart just a little.
A summary of how the P-36 fared in service to Finland...

Finland

After the fall of France, Germany agreed to sell captured Curtiss Hawk fighters to Finland in October 1940. In total, 44 captured aircraft of five subtypes were sold to Finland with three deliveries from 23 June 1941 to 5 January 1944. Not all were from the French stocks, but some were initially sold to Norway and captured in their wooden crates when the Germans conquered the country. The aircraft were given serial codes CU-551 to CU-585.

In Finnish service, the Hawk was well-liked, affectionately called Sussu ("Sweetheart"). The Finnish Air Force enjoyed success with the type, credited with 190 1/3 kills by 58 pilots, between 16 July 1941 and 27 July 1944, for the loss of 15 of their own. Finnish ace Kyösti Karhila scored 13 1/4 of his 32 victories in the Hawk, while the top Hawk ace K. Tervo scored 15 3/4 victories. The Hawks were flown by Lentolaivue 32 throughout their wartime operational service.

The Finnish Hawks were initially armed with either four or six 7.5 mm machine guns. While sufficient during the early phase of Continuation War, the increasing speeds and armor of Soviet aircraft soon showed this armament was not powerful enough. From 1942 the State Aircraft Factory replaced the fuselage machine guns with either one or two 12.7 mm Colt machine guns and installed two or four 7.7 mm Browning machine guns to each wing. The 12.7 mm Berezin UB or LKk/42 heavy machine guns were also used. The installation of heavier armament did not cause changes to the very good flying characteristics of the fighter but the armament was much more powerful against Soviet planes. The Finnish Hawks were also equipped with Revi 3D or C/12D gunsight.

Surviving Finnish aircraft remained in service with the FAF aviation units HLeLv 13, HLeLv 11 and LeSK until 1948.

So it seems the P-36 was used successfully by, at least some of, the foreign nations it flew under.
That being stated, though, the Finns were known to prefer the Brewsters over the Mohawks.



Elvis

 

[Elvis]

Thailand's Hawk 75N export versions had the 23mm cannon; also fixed undercarriage so somewhat slower. They saw air combat action against French Ms406's in the Thai-French war of 1940-41.

Joe

Hey, thanks Joe!
Cool pic of the bird, too.


Elvis

 

[Elvis]

Build a new state of the art factory. Just like we did for the production of so many other aircraft models.

Dave,

Other than North American (P-51) and Boeing (B-17), who else did that?...and for what aircraft?
Sounds like a lot, but I'm only aware of those two.



Elvis

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The Hawk 75A IMO was one of the most under-rated fighters of WW2. Although it was said to be "slow," compare it to early Bf 109s, Hurricanes and Spitfires. From wiki, take it for what it's worth.

On 8 September 1939, aircraft from Groupe de Chasse II/4 were credited with shooting down two Luftwaffe Messerschmitt Bf 109Es, the first Allied air victory of World War II on the Western front. During 1939–1940, French pilots claimed 230 confirmed and 80 probable victories in H75s against only 29 aircraft lost in aerial combat. Of the 11 French aces of the early part of the war, seven flew H75s. The leading ace of the time was Lt. Edmond Marin la Meslée with 15 confirmed and five probable victories in the type. H75-equipped squadrons were evacuated to French North Africa before the Armistice to avoid capture by the Germans. While under the Vichy government, these units clashed with British aircraft over Mers el-Kébir and Dakar. During Operation Torch in North Africa, French H75s fought against U.S. Navy F4F Wildcats, losing 15 aircraft to seven shot down American planes. From late 1942 on, the Allies started re-equipping French units formerly under Vichy and the H75s were replaced by P-40s and P-39s.

In Finnish service, the Hawk was well-liked, affectionately called Sussu ("Sweetheart"). The Finnish Air Force enjoyed success with the type, credited with 190 1/3 kills by 58 pilots, between 16 July 1941 and 27 July 1944, for the loss of 15 of their own.[2] Finnish ace Kyösti Karhila scored 13 1/4 of his 32 victories in the Hawk, while the top Hawk ace K. Tervo scored 15 3/4 victories. The Hawks were flown by Lentolaivue 32 throughout their wartime operational service.

 

[MikeGazdik]

I think the P-36 and P-40 are both quickly and wrongly forgotten when speaking of fighters.

Both of these aircraft performed quite well, considering in almost all cases they were out-numbered, flown by less experienced pilots , and were flown when either poor tactics were used, or good tactics were only being discovered.

The scars and failures learned with (but not neccessarily the fault of )both of these planes, contributed to even better designs and tactics. That coupled with the reversal of pilot expererience and numbers, made the Allies later aircraft appear much better then they were.

If we gauged the Me 109 the same way, it would be considered an utter and complete failure. It lost the war, it couldn't stop the bombers, the alllied fighters shot it down in droves. But we know that is not true. It was a brilliant fighter with some deficiencies, I think, the same as the Curtiss Warhawk.

 

[HoHun]

Hi Dave,

>Curtiss Hawk 75A-3 (P36G)

>According to the above flight simulator site, which may or may not be accurate, the P-36 was very maneuverable at both slow and high speed. However it was slow and had a poor rate of climb.

Hm ... this site says "The Bf109E4 is faster than you by about 20kph", but I don't think the Hawk was so fast (or the Me 109E-4 so slow) that this could be realistic.

Here is an analysis of the Hawk I prepared a while back ...

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

[Clay_Allison]

Vultee could have made cheap P-36s under license for lend lease, Brewster could make Buffaloes for lend lease. One used the P&W Twin Wasp, the other used the Wright Cyclone 9, so there was a niche for both.