Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Lack of altitude performance for both, insufficient speed and lack of protection for the P-36 / H75. Lack of climb / insufficient power for weight for the P-40
The single biggest issue was performance at altitude above 12-16,000 ft (depending on variants). With the Merlin P-40s extending that up to about 20,000, which was better but still insufficient for NW Europe, especially for heavy bomber escort. Turned out to be useful in most of the other theaters though where the emphasis was more on tactical air war.
Of all the combatants in WW2 only the Japanese could claim to be on par initially with the USA, Germany didnt even get a carrier or any planes for it, same for Italy. The job of the Hurricane and Spitfire was clear to intercept. The job of the Me 109 and Fw 190 was also clear, they were not so well suited to the roles they were later asked to do. Here's a daft line in argument, if the UK surrendered US airplanes are much better suited to a war in Europe, N Africa.And yet, carrier aircraft were still quite tricky to do well, I think. They knew what the environment was (somewhat) but it was a very challenging environment to design for!
Sure, but effectively the engines were part of the design. The P-40 remained mostly with the Allison V-1710 until the end of the war, and this was not made into a two-stage supercharged version until the ill-fated (though somewhat promising) P-40Q which never saw service.
Dear lord, not Taurus. Hercules would've been ... interesting.I wonder if a British engine like a Taurus or something may have helped? Could you fit a Hercules in a P-36?
Could they have built a P-40Q in say, 1943 if they hadn't wasted all that time with P-46 and P-60?
For P-46, V-1710 was the engine. For the P-60 - indeed, they went bonkers thereIt seems like Curtiss was experimenting with a lot of other engine options for P-46 / 60 right? Maybe if they had asked Allison a bit earlier...
I don't know enough about the P-40Q dialogue with MC. The two speed/auxilliay 2nd stage engine was not near ready in 1942- long after the P-46 was dead. NAA rejected the engine(s) out of hand because a major redesign to get the CG envelope meant moving the wing.Could they have built a P-40Q in say, 1943 if they hadn't wasted all that time with P-46 and P-60?
Lack of altitude performance for both, insufficient speed and lack of protection for the P-36 / H75. Lack of climb / insufficient power for weight for the P-40
This is years later, RR was head an shoulders above the rest of the world. We also need to use power at altitude, The Merlin III was good for 1030hp at 16,250ft in 1938, nobody else came close until 1940 using production engines. Other people got to the 12,000ft mark in 1940, with the exception of the Two stage engine in the Wildcat but they only made 98 of the engines during 1940 (and only 6 before Aug) so actual planes flying with them?The single biggest issue was performance at altitude above 12-16,000 ft (depending on variants). With the Merlin P-40s extending that up to about 20,000, which was better but still insufficient for NW Europe, especially for heavy bomber escort. Turned out to be useful in most of the other theaters though where the emphasis was more on tactical air war.
The problem was that the P-40 was showing it's age, at 400mph it was hitting a drag wall. It needed hundreds of horsepower more than a P-51 to go the same speed.Sure, but effectively the engines were part of the design. The P-40 remained mostly with the Allison V-1710 until the end of the war, and this was not made into a two-stage supercharged version until the ill-fated (though somewhat promising) P-40Q which never saw service.
P-36 may have gotten a new lease on life for secondary Theaters with the R-1820-65 of the FM-2, but as Shortround6 noted those arrived a bit too late and the FM-2 was probably good enough or better in that niche anyway, being carrier capable.
Taurus was the kiss of death ( or more accurately being attacked with a blunt spoon)I wonder if a British engine like a Taurus or something may have helped? Could you fit a Hercules in a P-36?
The Problem was the engine. If you don't have a better engine then building P-46 airframes gets you nothing.Could they have built a P-40Q in say, 1943 if they hadn't wasted all that time with P-46 and P-60?
The P-46 got the same engine as the P-40D/E. Trouble there is that the P-46 was actually a smaller plane 208 sq ft of wing.It seems like Curtiss was experimenting with a lot of other engine options for P-46 / 60 right? Maybe if they had asked Allison a bit earlier...
The P-40Q needed 75in of MAP and 3200rpm to get the Performance numbers listed. While the guns were not fitted (they did have dummy barrels) they were carrying ballast,From what I read at Old Machine Press, the XP-40Q did 4300 fpm climb and 422mph, but both were on WEP and it's not known at what weight or load condition. The P-51B with half fuel was over 25 mph faster and not far behind in terms of climb rate on 61" supercharger boost. The P-51D probably would've had roughly similar performance under identical conditions (slightly lower rate of climb due to slightly heavier weight).
Basically, the XP-40Q was made obsolescent by the Merlin Mustangs before it even flew.
I don't know enough about the P-40Q dialogue with MC. The two speed/auxilliay 2nd stage engine was not near ready in 1942- long after the P-46 was dead. NAA rejected the engine(s) out of hand because a major redesign to get the CG envelope meant moving the wing.
The P-40Q was the first installation (IIRC) of the V-1710-121. The earlier version -47 and -93 had significant gestation problems even after the first flight in May 1943 of the XP-63.
So the following issues had to be dealt with to shorten the release cycle of the P-40Q
1. Design for much larger aftercooler requirements - note that first prootype was inadequate with imbedded cooling intakes in the wing.
2. Select wing to change from NACA 2415?
3. Change wing location to accomodate cg change., basically changing both Powerplant section fwd of aft frame andfirewall, as well as longeron/wing attach mods to use P-40K basic airframe. Turned out no major change was required but I have yet to find out how they accomodated bigger engine (longer) with engine cg forward compared to V-1710-73 without having to move wing forward? Ballast?
4. Make changes to aft deck to accommodate sliding canopy - significant redesign of upper aft fuselage frame
If Ok, proceed.
By contrast the NA-91 (P-51-1NA) required upscaling Cooling system, installing the Packard 1650-3, and redesigning cowl to accomodate updraft carb for the XP-78/51B. Additionally NAA had fallback capability (somewhat impractical) of installing the R-R Merlin 61.
Back to question 1. When did Curtiss begin Preliminary design to accommodate the Allison they chose? and 2.) when was the new engine forseeable as a reliable alternative to the conventional single speed/stage V-1710? It took Packard close to a year from beginning bench tests at Wright Field to deliver production 1650-3 #1 to P-51B-1-NA #1 for tests beginning May 1943.
Note that neither ROC or top speed were validated by AAF, nor was armament installed, nor was fuel load fraction to production max internal fuel discussed for the test. The P-51B-1 in half fuel condtion had top speed of 450mph without wing racks and 4200 fpm ROC at 61" - and a ceiling of 42000 feet. May 1943. That is what Curtiss had to shoot for - then ask 'for what mission'? About all that come to mind is short to medium range air supremacy role and perhaps same as fighter bomber as P-40N.
Compare vs XP-51F which flew Feb 1944.
Finally. both the XP-46 and the XP-60 gossly underachieved stated Curtiss claims when loaded up with self sealing tanks, armament, etc. AAF wasn't buying what Curtiss was selling in new designs.
The problem with this is factory space.P-36 may have gotten a new lease on life for secondary Theaters..............
A lot of bad information.I think P-40Q had different wings than the 75 / 81 / 87 right? Lower drag and shorter span.