P-43 gets built around V-1710 instead of R-1830 - what would've it offered?

Discussion in 'Aviation' started by tomo pauk, Oct 29, 2013.

  1. tomo pauk

    tomo pauk Creator of Interesting Threads

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    7,989
    Likes Received:
    434
    Trophy Points:
    83
    The never-loved P-43 Lancer was one of the 1st workable combat airplanes that featured turbo supercharger, and one of rare single engined airplane types to do so. Despite some shortcomings and small number of produced aircraft, it served well, almost half a globe away from the factory. So, what kind of performance one could expect if Seversky/Republic designed the P-43 around the V-1710? The 'C' series of the V-1710 offered 1150 HP from SL to 25000 ft. Later engines got better, should improve overall performance in case more of such P-43s were built.
     
  2. wuzak

    wuzak Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2011
    Messages:
    4,179
    Likes Received:
    167
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Hobart Tasmania
    Do you mean as development of the P-35 or as a new aircraft?
     
  3. Shortround6

    Shortround6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2009
    Messages:
    9,761
    Likes Received:
    793
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    retired Firefighter
    Location:
    Central Florida Highlands
    You run smack into the timing problem. Most of the P-43 orders were to keep Republics work force together and expand it while waiting for the P-47 to be ready.

    The last P-35 was delivered in Aug 1938.
    Republic is fooling around with two earlier aircraft as racers.
    The last P-35 airframe is modified into the AP-2 (XP-41) with the P W R-1830-19 two stage supercharged engine and inward retractiing landing gear that fits flush instead of the rearward semi-retractable gear of the P-35. This plane is delivered in time for the 1939 Army fighter trials.
    Another airframe is completed as the AP-4 with a turbo-charged R-1830. It is this plane that will become the YP-43.
    "On March 12, 1939, thirteen service test models of the AP-4 were ordered by the Army under the designation YP-43".
    The Army had ordered 13 YP-37s with turbos back in Dec 1937 but the first one is not delivered until June of 1939.
    In the Spring of 1939 the Army figured that service turbo charged planes were about two years away which is why they ordered the P-40. The YP-37s proved them right.
    "However, the YP-37s continued to suffer with the same supercharger problems of the X-model and did not live up to their potential. All but one of the YP-37s were out of service or retired to mechanics' schools by early 1942. The highest-time aircraft had only 212 hours."
    The First YP-43 is not delivered until Sept 1940. In the mean time the Army had ordered 80 P-44s with turbo R-2180s in Sept of 1939, one year earlier. Even earlier (Aug 1939) Kartveli had proposed (in response to an army request) a small, light weight Allison powered fighter, the AP-10 which was ordered as the P-47.
    By Sept of 1940 the army had decided that both the P-44 and the P-47 (which had grown several times during the year) did not have enough potential for future use. This was helped by Kartveli, who, becoming dissatisfied himself with both the P-44 and XP-47 had roughed out the R-2800 powered P-47 design and shown it to the army.
    In Sept 1940 the Army cancels the P-44s and switches the Allison powered P-47 for the R-2800 powered P-47. Because the R-2800s won't be ready in time a stop gap order is placed for 54 P-43s. This quickly followed by an order for 80 P-43As. First P-43s (not YP-43s) are delivered in Sept 1941.
    IN June 1941 a further 125 P-43s are ordered as lend lease for the Chinese and again, to build up Republics work force and Factory as by this time over 1000 P-47s are on order. 773 R-2800 powered P-47s had been ordered back in Sept of 1940.

    Time spent futzing about with an Allison powered P-43 is only going to delay the P-47.
    Designing a new airplane using a turbo Allison instead of an R-1830 and 'calling' it a P-43 is only going to delay the P-47 even more.

    The P-43s that did go into service did NOT achieve an enviable reputation. Much like the Army thought, the turbo installation wasn't really ready for service use, troubles being experienced with the turbo controls, The self sealing tanks leaked with normal use let alone combat damage.

    "The USAAF always viewed the P-43 as only an interim type and considered it unfit for any combat role. None of the USAAF P-43s ever saw any action, being used strictly for advanced training in Stateside units."

    A total of eight P-43s modified for use as photo recon planes were give to the Australians in 1942 (six in Aug and two in Nov) the surviving six were given back in 1943.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. CobberKane

    CobberKane Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2012
    Messages:
    706
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Its an interesting question. I think Shortround has covered why it never happened, but in the world of 'what if's I guess the closest comparison is the evolution of the P-40 from the P-36. Much as I love the P-40, it greatest feature was timing - it was there and ready to go when hostilities kicked off, but it was always behind the eight ball in comparison to the leading fighters of its time. Would an Allison powered dericative of the P-43 have been better or worse than the P-40? How did the base models, the P-43 and P-36 stack up against each other? Were there any other (relatively) modern prewar American fighters that might have benifitted from the Allison engine?
     
  5. Shortround6

    Shortround6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2009
    Messages:
    9,761
    Likes Received:
    793
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    retired Firefighter
    Location:
    Central Florida Highlands
    Again you have a timing problem. The P-35 was the competitor of the P-36. Granted the P-35 used a pretty crappy landing gear set up. The YP-43s are ordered just about one month before Curtiss gets the contract for 534 P-40s.
    Now the Allison installation is going to heavier than the P&W one (engine is lighter but needs radiator/coolant) but more streamline. Unfortunately the P-35/P-43 series are pretty chunky planes.

    P35-6.jpg

    300px-Seversky_XP-41_061019-F-1234P-031.jpg

    dunnmaint.jpg

    The P-36 was positively skinny in comparison.

    Curtiss-P-36-Hawk-002.preview.jpg

    The more modifications to the basic design the longer it will take to get into service.

    Considering the troubles with the early P-38s you aren't going to get a reliable fighter any sooner.
     
  6. V-1710

    V-1710 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2005
    Messages:
    180
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Strangely enough, the aircraft that would have become the XP-47 was conceptually a P-35 derivative powered by an Allison V-1710. The Republic AP-10 proposal was an Alexander Kartvelli design that came about due to Air Corps thinking at the time that in-line liquid cooled engines (read Allison) were required for high speed pursuit performance. Seeing Curtiss' success with turning the P-36 into the P-40, it isn't too hard to see why Republic at least considered doing the same thing to the P-35. There were many reasons the AP-10 didn't become the P-47, not the least of which was Kartvelli's preference for air cooled radial engines.
     
  7. wuzak

    wuzak Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2011
    Messages:
    4,179
    Likes Received:
    167
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Hobart Tasmania
    I don't think that the xp-47 had much in common with the P-35.

    http://www.wunderwaffe.narod.ru/Magazine/AirWar/46/Pictures/12.jpg
     
  8. Shortround6

    Shortround6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2009
    Messages:
    9,761
    Likes Received:
    793
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    retired Firefighter
    Location:
    Central Florida Highlands
    You are right, about the only thing it had in common with the P-35 was that it was built in the same factory using the same measuring system. :)
     
  9. tomo pauk

    tomo pauk Creator of Interesting Threads

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    7,989
    Likes Received:
    434
    Trophy Points:
    83
    The reason I'm 'favorizing' the Seversky's airplane is that they seemed to get the best layout for the turbo installation - engine, then pilot (and possibly the fuel), then turbo. That way turbine does not get 'burnt' by high temperature peaks from exhaust gases.
    So, again - in case they have produced such an airplane (turboed V-1710 on ~220 sq ft wing aircraft), what kind of performance one might expect from it, with different V-1710s on board?
     
  10. V-1710

    V-1710 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2005
    Messages:
    180
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    18
    #10 V-1710, Oct 31, 2013
    Last edited: Oct 31, 2013
    Like I said, conceptually. I saw some drawings of the AP-10 and they appeared to show P-35 horizontal stabilizers, but yes it would have been a substantially different aircraft. All that was ever built was a partial wooden mockup (shown in the linked picture). The early P-40 was far closer to the P-36 than the AP-10 would have been to the P-35. As Shortround6 pointed out, you have to consider the timing issue, and it appears the AP-10 was proposed to the Air Corps in August 1939.

    Also, the AP-10 was to have used a single stage blower V-1710, similar to the P-40.
     
  11. Shortround6

    Shortround6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2009
    Messages:
    9,761
    Likes Received:
    793
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    retired Firefighter
    Location:
    Central Florida Highlands

    It is almost impossible to say because we don't know if it's really a P-43 wing or a wing with about the P-43s area. What is it using for a fuselage? the P-35/43 porker or something slimmer?

    All we have to work from right now is a 220sq ft wing and a turboed V-1710 so the answer could be all over the map.
     
  12. GregP

    GregP Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2003
    Messages:
    5,905
    Likes Received:
    853
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Electrical Engineer, Aircraft Restoration
    Location:
    Rancho Cucamonga, California, U.S.A.
    Hi Wuzak,

    You don't think the XP-47 had much in common with the P-35?

    As you well know, the Planes of Fame has a Republic AT-12 (a 2-seat P-35) as well as a P-47G. When you park them side by side, they have a strong family resemblence. I'll get pics today and post tonight. The reason the P-47 has the big belly is the turbocharger.

    It is located behind the cockpit and you have to get the frresh air and exhaust to the turbo, the compressed air to the intercooler, and the cooleed compresed air back to the carburetor. The bottom 1/3 of the fuselage is all air and exhaust ducting to the turbo. If not for the turbo, the two planes look almosy identical except for being scaled up and the changed landing fear function.

    For practical purposes, I like the P-35 gear. If you DO land gear up, there isn't much damage.

    Anyway, I like the V-1710 and the P-43 together, but am not sure the performance would have been all that different from the radial version unless Allison was allowed to use a turbocharger. The top speed might have been slightly higer and the climb would probably7 be slightly less.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. wuzak

    wuzak Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2011
    Messages:
    4,179
    Likes Received:
    167
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Hobart Tasmania
    Greg, the XP-47B and all production P-47s were different to the Allison powered XP-47, which was not completed and never flew.

    The R-2800 P-47s show a distinct family resemblance to the P-35 and P-43.
     
  14. GregP

    GregP Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2003
    Messages:
    5,905
    Likes Received:
    853
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Electrical Engineer, Aircraft Restoration
    Location:
    Rancho Cucamonga, California, U.S.A.
    Hi Wayne,

    Forgot my camera, so itll have to be later.

    actually, I've never seen a real, genuine drawing of the proposed Allison-powered XP-47A, so I can't discuss the point. I have seen one titled "probably the XP-47A" and it looked the part, but had no reference to Seversky or Republic on it and had nothing but a 3-view that wasn't all that self consistent anyway.

    If that WAS the XP-47A, it didn't look much like the P-35 except in a very general way.
     
  15. Shortround6

    Shortround6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2009
    Messages:
    9,761
    Likes Received:
    793
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    retired Firefighter
    Location:
    Central Florida Highlands
    There are photos or the XP-47S mock -up but seeing as how the specs for the plane changed several times (different sized wing) before they trashed it and started over it's a little hard to say which picture belongs to which version. aside form the tail fin/rudder and general tailplane/elevator it doesn't look much like a P-35.
     
  16. tomo pauk

    tomo pauk Creator of Interesting Threads

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    7,989
    Likes Received:
    434
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Good points.
    We might start with P-43's wing and most of the fuselage, and see how far it can get us with V-1710 in front, turbo at the back?
     
  17. Shortround6

    Shortround6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2009
    Messages:
    9,761
    Likes Received:
    793
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    retired Firefighter
    Location:
    Central Florida Highlands
    If you are going to use a V-1710 then you might as well design a whole new fuselage. Otherwise you are sticking a pointy nose on a very fat, short fuselage. Unless you 'fix' the wing tanks the plane would NOT be acceptable for combat use by the US Forces.

    And even if you get the engine in the airframe, fix the tanks, figure out what you are going to use for armament (two slow firing .50s in the fuselage and one .50 in each wing?) you are 'stuck' with same "problem" turbo controls that EVERY turbo-charged US Aircraft had in the early years.
     
Loading...

Share This Page