Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I imagine a supercharger optimized for 18k' might have helped some but from charts it looks like the Allison -39 single-stage SC the P&W -86 first stage kicks in about 12-15 k' while the second stage of the P&W kicks in about 20k" I haven't found any P&W charts for a single stage supercharger so not sure where the G205 or similar engine (for example P&W 1830-90) kicks in.
In a Navy proposal Curtiss estimated a top speed of 351 MPH for a navalized Hawk equipped with the -76 engine. [/I]"
Seems like the P-36 high altitude performance might have benefited from replacing the P&W 1830 SG205 with the F4F-4's two-stage supercharged, P&W 1830-76 or -86? Is there a reason why this couldn't have been done to give the USAAF a better high altitude capability than wither the P-40 or P-39 could manage? Was the production being monopolized by F4F-3 4 production?
Pinsog, why don't you add the Republic P-43 to that list ??
Kris
I think I did a thread on the P43 one time. I think it would have been useful also. Maybe at Midway, Guadalcanal or Austrailia. The P47 proved if something was fast up high and could dive well, then it could be succesful using zoom and boom tactics. I would have preferred the P43 over the P40 against the Japanese.
I wonder which would be the best: P-43 or P-66 ? Kris
I'd expect the P-43A would have the performance edge. At the very least, it had growth potential. The P-66 also had the mixed armament of 2 x .50"'s and 4 x .30"s while the P-43 had the 4 x .50"'s which I tend to think was a better overall suite.
Oops, late entry, evidently at least some of the production P-43A did possess the prototype's turbocharger but the aircraft lacked armor and SSTs. Apparenly according to wiki there were other problems as well as vulnerability.
An interesting old thread with some little relevance.
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/en...percharging-high-altitude-fighters-24494.html
G4M naval bombers were a superior weapon during 1941 and early 1942 but Japan didn't have many. In fact they didn't even have enough for IJN 11th Air Fleet so part of the force was equipped with older Nell bombers.
Ki-27 fighter and Ki-30 light bomber were most numerous IJA aircraft employed in Philippines and many other places. P-36 with properly trained pilot can handle that threat.
I disagree.
FEAF was devastated 8 Dec 1941 (Philippine time) by Gen. Brereton's incompetence. Incoming IJN air raid was tracked on radar yet he was unable to coordinate aerial interception. By noon he gave up and ordered his pilots to land en masse so they could eat lunch. To make matters worse the aircraft weren't properly dispersed after landing. While his pilots were eating lunch IJN 11th Air Fleet arrived and cleaned house.
Back to my original question: Should we have built and used the P66, CW21 or P43? At least they could get high enough to engage the enemy.
Getting high enough is debatable.
Next question is are you talking about "as they existed" or "as hypothetical modified"?
According to Joe Baugher's web site performance for eh the Vultee 48C was: "The maximum speed was 340 mph at 15,100 feet. Initial climb rate was 2520 feet per minute, and an altitude of 19,680 feet could be attained in 9.2 minutes. Service ceiling was 28,200 feet,..."
Once again, service ceiling is the altitude at which the plane can still climb at 100 ft per minute. the operational ceiling is several thousand feet lower, perhaps 6-8,000ft lower
See performance for a P-40B; http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/P-40B_41-5205_PHQ-M-19-1227-A.pdf
Please note that it can out climb the Vultee 48C/P-66 by a fair margin, Please also note that at max continuous power (not Military) it took 8 min to climb from 25,000ft to 30,000ft and another 12 minutes to climb 2400ft to it's SERVICE CEILING
Please note that these tests were done at the manufacturer's plant in Buffalo, New York in the spring time. Performance in tropical conditions would be less.
If the service ceiling of the P-66 is 4,000 ft lower than a P-40B one can only wonder what it's operational ceiling was like.
There seems to be quite a bit of debate about the actual performance of the CW-21 and even some as to it's armament. The 4,500fpm climb is rather doubtful and with the radio listed as "optional" instead of "standard" actual performance in combat equipped condition even without armor and self sealing tanks is subject to question.
Please note that the engine was good for several hundred LESS horsepower than the engine in the early P-40s at 12-13,000ft. Armament could be one .50 and one .30, one .50 and three .30s, two .50s and two .30s. with penalties in performance for the heavier armament.
Another question is timing, Both the P-66 and CW-21 had been out of production for months before Pearl Harbor. When do you order them to get them to the Philippines in time for Dec 1941?
There are more P-43s available but here you may run into the reverse problem, Last P-43s come of the production line in March of 1942 On Long Island New York. You would have had to ship aircraft to the Philippines in Sept/Oct of 1941 at the latest to have them ready in the beginning of Dec. The AVGs P-40s were shipped in June/July of 1941 and did not go into action until AFTER Pearl Harbor.
Just from what limited info I have found, the CW21 seemd so close to the Zero in every way, I assumed the performance was nearly the same, with the advantage that the CW21 engine had more potential for growth than the Zero did.
If available, with perfect 20/20 hindsight of course, I think I would have had a mix of P43 and P40's.
What would you choose with 20/20 hindsight that was historically available?
If attackers are coming higher then your service ceiling your engine needs a better supercharger. It doesn't matter if that engine powers a P-40 or CW21, without a proper supercharger you will be at an altitude disadvantage.
Give the P-40 a better supercharger and forget about the P66 and CW21.