Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I don't think so. Most likely it is a misprint and the MAX EMERGENCY rating should be 1450hp 12,000ft.
Unless you believe a supercharger in high gear that should take double the power to drive takes NO more power than low gear, unlike every other 2 speed engine in the world. Or that you can make 1700hp in high gear at 12,000ft using almost 10% less fuel than the same engine could make at 4,500ft in low gear.
See: http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/TBF/TBFEDOLC.pdf
26% more power than the Allison but unless you use the cowling techniques of the FW-190 you may have 30% more drag and you certainly have more weight.
I don't have the original source but there is a comment in the combined volume of "The development of aircraft engines" by Robert Schlaifer and "Development of Aviation Fuels" by S.D. Heron that the XP-40 had 22% less drag than an R-1830 engined Curtiss Hawk in 1939, not 30% so you have my apologizes for the mistake.This difference was computed from flight tests of the time. (pages 683-684). This is drag of the aircraft not just engine caused drag. This can be seen by comparing the performance of the P-36/Hawks to the XP-40 and early P-40s.
After much work P&W managed to get the difference down to 8% greater drag by some time in 1942. Of course by that time the installation of the V-12 engines was a bit better too.
Of course the R-2600 has 16 sq ft of frontal area compared to the R-1830s 12.6 so we can safely assume that the R-2600 will have bit worse streamlining even if it is not the 27% increase the difference in frontal area suggests.
Perhaps a better "drag model" is the Hawk A-4 with a Cyclone engine. 1000hp at 14,200-15,000ft. speed 323 at 15,100ft at 5750lbs. The P-40E is supposed to go 362mph at the same altitude using 1080hp (or less, 1030?) at 8400lbs?
The R-2600 will have just over 1300hp at 15,000ft. So that "extra" 300hp needs to haul an extra 2,650lbs 39mph faster than the Cyclone in the A-4 Hawk managed to equal the P-40E.
The R-2600 will have a higher cooling drag than either the R-1820 or the V-1710.
The R-2600 weighs about 1980lbs dry and without a number of accessories, like exhaust system, starter and the larger propeller needed to effectively us it's "extra" power. It does weigh 370lbs more than the Allison and the radiators/cooling liquid. ALL forward of the CG.
Lets assume that your deletion of guns cancels ALL the extra weight of the bigger engine and you can rearrange everything else to balance. You wind up with a plane with 1/3 less firepower with marginally (if any) improved speed at altitude.
Allowing the V-1710 to use WER of 1470hp at sea level goes a long way into cutting into (or eliminating) whatever supposed advantage the R-2600 has down low.
You know why as good as I doU.S. Fighter Aircraft Empty Weight.
Data from the below web site.
Welcome To the Warbirds Resource Group - Naval Aviation Resource Center
6,200 lbs. P40. V12 engine.
7,125 lbs. P51. V12 engine.
8,982 lbs. F4U. R2800 radial engine.
9,042 lbs. F6F. R2800 radial engine.
9,950 lbs. P47. R2800 radial engine.
Why were U.S. radial engine fighter aircraft so large and heavy compared to U.S. V12 powered fighter aircraft?
To toss in in some stuff:
If we develop P-36 (one with 9 cyl) into a plane with R-2600 (having 4 HMGs 'stead of 4-6 LMGs), the new P-XY would've been hardly 2500 lbs heavier. I can agree with 1000-1500lbs more, but not with 2500.
added: So far we've talked about effects of 'bomber' engine strapped into a fighter hull as-is. Wright was delivering its Cyclon 9s (R-1820) with FTH at 14-17kft for hight blower, in 1939-40. The R-2600 with similar supercharger gearing was very much feasible in 1940/41, making a better 'fighter' engine.
Why were U.S. radial engine fighter aircraft so large and heavy compared to U.S. V12 powered fighter aircraft?
Yes the R-2600 has more power, it also has more drag.