Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
By the late 30's, virtually every Army and Navy field were equipped with concrete facilities.Did any bomber doctrine on either side of the Atlantic take note of runways? AFAK the UK only had 3 concrete airfield runways when war was declared. You cannot consider using the P-51 or P-47 for repeated operations from grass fields in Autumn Winter and Spring in UK with their take off weights taken to the maximum.
The Dutch operated the CW 21B with Air Group IV, No. 2 Squadron at Andir airfield, Bandung, Java in February 1941.The reason it can be called a bargain basement fighter is that it was created without a government contract from anyone. Curtiss came up with it on their own, no outside help, in the hopes of selling it to the Chinese since the Curtiss rep in China believed he could sell them on the idea of an interceptor that could take out the Japanese bombers while defending against the fighters as well. Just as Curtiss was able to "stretch" the P 36 into the p 40, I think they might have been able to have come up with an improved design of the CW 21. The American Zero is a very apt description of it's performance. According to the reports of the AVG pilots who actually flew it it was much better that they expected or were used to. Unfortunately, the three CWs that were to go there were lost to contaminated fuel during the ferry flight and one of the three pilots died in the crash landings.
Thats great, so they can launch their operations from their home fields in USA? Building airfields in UK was a massive civil engineering project using up to 60,000 people, I can't see that this civil engineering was ever considered pre war. How many operatioanal squadrons of heavy bombers did the USA have on Sept 3rd 1939?By the late 30's, virtually every Army and Navy field were equipped with concrete facilities.
To be honest, I don't think that operating from grass or unimproved fields was something they took into consideration with designs beyond the mid-30's.
You do realize that the CW-21 was a stretched CW-19?
View attachment 625436
Sticking a 1000hp engine in a plane that first flew with under 200hp engines is a something of a stretch to begin with
The Dutch operated the CW 21B with Air Group IV, No. 2 Squadron at Andir airfield, Bandung, Java in February 1941.
"With its light construction, radial engine, low wing loading, limited pilot protection and lack of self-sealing fuel tanks, the CW-21B was the Allied fighter most similar to the opposing Japanese fighters. It had a rate of climb superior to the Nakajima Ki-43-I ("Oscar") and Mitsubishi A6M2 Zero. The CW-21B had similar firepower to the "Oscar", but worse than the cannon-armed Zero. The lightweight construction of the Curtiss-Wrights gave rise to structural problems, and several aircraft were grounded by cracks in the undercarriage, and were still awaiting repair when war with Japan began on December 7, 1941. According to one source only nine CW-21Bs were operational on that day."
Curtiss CW-21b
Nearly all of them were lost with the exception of one that was captured. IMO the CW-21/ CW-21B was a losing proposition although it was an attractive aircraft.
Jeeesss....................How about the year the 109 came out as a starting point, say 1935 to 1940.
Jeeesss....................
The 109 came out with the Jumo 210 with a FTH of around 12,000ft, it varied a bit from exact engine model to engine model, as did the engines power which was pretty much in the 700hp neighborhood. Hardly a high altitude plane using any startling technology. Once again light weight in the form of light armament (2-4 rifle caliber machine guns) low fuel capacity (240-270 liters) and no protection (armor, BP glass, protected fuel tanks) contributed to whatever altitude performance it did have.
The DB 601 engine didn't show up until 1938. And it didn't have a better engine performance than the long nose Allison in the P-40B&C. Small fighter with low weight armament and short range was not a recipe the US could use in the late 1930s give the size of the United States. One squadron took almost two weeks for fly from the east coast to the west coast and ALL of it's aircraft to the new base due to mechanical difficulties and weather.
That's a good question about the numbers of heavy bombers by '39, though it would be interesting to know.Thats great, so they can launch their operations from their home fields in USA? Building airfields in UK was a massive civil engineering project using up to 60,000 people, I can't see that this civil engineering was ever considered pre war. How many operatioanal squadrons of heavy bombers did the USA have on Sept 3rd 1939?
And it is a purely arbitrary measure. You only have to watch a few games of football in UK to realise not all land drains in the same way and at times any grass field can be flooded.The British during the 1930s (or late 30s) had a requirement that the tyres on the aircraft could NOT use more than 38lbs pressure. This was to avoid rutting the grass fields and applied to both fighters and bombers. The Whirlwind designers had to ask permission to use 42lbs pressure as the plane gained weight to avoid redesigning the landing gear/wheel well/nacelle.
Permission was granted.
Wing loading (Approx.) 25.8 lbs/ft Note: A6M Zero Wing loading (Approx.) 25.5 lbs/ft
The source I read agrees with the one you're referring to but also adds that a Japanese report said they had suffered greater damage and losses to the CWs than had been incurred against other types up to that time.CW-21 (First Type) Landing Gear Partially Retractable, Advertised Climb 5000 ft/min Measured Climb 4850 ft/min.
CW-21b (2nd Type) Armor behind pilot, Armored Glass, Fully Retractable Landing Gear, Perspex Canopy (Replacing lighter type original canopy.
Measured Climb 4500 ft/min, Wing loading (Approx.) 25.8 lbs/ft Note: A6M Zero Wing loading (Approx.) 25.5 lbs/ftView attachment 625443
View attachment 625439
Fully loaded. Original design armament was four thirty cal. with two in nose and one in each wing, during production changed to one thirty and one fifty in nose while retaining wing guns. Model B switched to two .50 cal. in nose. (I believe they retained the wing guns.) I rounded off the Wing area/ Weight figures. The source I used gave 4500 gross weight for the CW-21 and 6164 for the A6M2. I forgot to add that when the CW was designed and built it was supposed to be going up against the Nakajima Ki-27 and the Mitsubishi A5M. Correction: Original proposal was for four thirty cal. guns in nose changed to two in nose and one in each wing changed to two guns in nose (1X.30-1X.50) to final configuration of two .50 cal. in nose.Great,
CW-21 wing area 172 sq ft (Approx.) times 25.8 equals 4437 lbs
Zero (A6M2) wing area 241 sq ft (Approx.) times 25.5 equals 6145lbs.
What did the CW-21 leave out? guns, ammo, fuel, ???????
What technology?All of that technology was being developed within that time period, yes?
As I remember, most of the B-17s were being sent to the Pacific at that time. The thinking seems to have been send the bulk of the Navy to the Atlantic, Keep a smaller naval force in the Pacific and support it with more air power.That's a good question about the numbers of heavy bombers by '39, though it would be interesting to know.
The US's ideology about heavy bombers, was primarily to fly out to sea and intercept an approaching enemy.
Until things going going in earnest in Europe (and the Pacific), I suspect they hadn't thought about using airfields on any territory other than their own installations.
If you look at USAAC installation photos prior to 1940, you'll see fairly well developed facilities, even in places like Hawaii and the Philippines.
Fully loaded. Original design armament was four thirty cal. with two in nose and one in each wing, during production changed to one thirty and one fifty in nose while retaining wing guns. Model B switched to two .50 cal. in nose. (I believe they retained the wing guns.) I rounded off the Wing area/ Weight figures. The source I used gave 4500 gross weight for the CW-21 and 6164 for the A6M2.
This is first I have ever heard about wing guns in the Curtiss CW fighters. It may be possible.
I do happen to have a copy of " Curtiss Fighter Aircraft" by Francis H. Dean & Dan Hagedorn open as I type this. No mention of wing guns in section of the CW-21 fighter from page 242 to page 247.
There is picture of a four gun synchronization pattern from a Model 21-B on page 247 that shows the pattern for four.303 guns.
There are a lot of drawings/descriptions of four gun Model 21s in older books/articles but all four guns are in the fuselage. Two guns in the upper cowl and two guns in the lower cowl sides firing through spaces between the engine cylinders.
A cut away can be found here Curtiss-Wright CW-21B
There was quite a bit of misinformation floating around in old books/articles. Like up to four .50 cal guns. Of course you can find old books/articles with 400mph P-40s too
There are also some older cutaway views of the proposed armament. I came across one that showed one .30 in each wing along with the nose guns. It was common in those days to change armament and equipment as they went ahead with trying to build The aircraft. Here is a more recent cutaway view. This is the one with 4X.30 guns (Original proposal)This is first I have ever heard about wing guns in the Curtiss CW fighters. It may be possible.
I do happen to have a copy of " Curtiss Fighter Aircraft" by Francis H. Dean & Dan Hagedorn open as I type this. No mention of wing guns in section of the CW-21 fighter from page 242 to page 247.
There is picture of a four gun synchronization pattern from a Model 21-B on page 247 that shows the pattern for four.303 guns.
There are a lot of drawings/descriptions of four gun Model 21s in older books/articles but all four guns are in the fuselage. Two guns in the upper cowl and two guns in the lower cowl sides firing through spaces between the engine cylinders.
A cut away can be found here Curtiss-Wright CW-21B
There was quite a bit of misinformation floating around in old books/articles. Like up to four .50 cal guns. Of course you can find old books/articles with 400mph P-40s too
What if the USAAF had realized that they should take advantage of then existing technology and build fighters capable of high altitude performance?
For starters keeping the high altitude capability of the P39 instead of telling Bell to lose the supercharger and how about trying out the independently built Curtiss CW-21 as the interceptor it was originally designed to be and ironing out the stall characteristics of the Curtiss P36 (maybe getting rid of the P40s tumble).
The P-39 lacked both the supercharger for high altitude performance and the fuel capacity that would have been required to realize that performance because the USAAF decided they didn't want it. My question is that since the technology existed to correct those shortfalls then; what if the USAAF had decided they could use it before they found out they needed it?