Suppose there was no Curtiss wright: P-35 with the Allison 1710 liquid cooled engine

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

oldcrowcv63

Tech Sergeant
1,986
180
Jan 12, 2012
Northeast North Carolina
I have had one too many Bellini cocktails tonight on the canals of Venezia and the following thought surfaced based on thread entires discussing the evolution of the P-40 from the P-36: Suppose no Curtiss Wright and no P-36, would the P-35 have been nominated for installation of the Allison V-1710 engine?
What would it have looked like? How would it perform?

Probably have to imagine a P-43 with an Allison.
 
Last edited:
I think the P35 was a good basic design as proved by the later P47's and Regianne's, no idea how well the Allison would have worked in it though but at a guess maybe as well as it did in the P40. As far as appearance goes, again I don't know perhaps the design may have turned into something more like the Regianne that the P47.
 
Biggest thing with no P-36, then there would be no P-40, and North American wouldn't have been approached to build them for Britain, and thus no P-51.............
 
The reason the Army chose the P-36 over the P-35 for a trial installation of the V-1710 was that it was very much narrower behind the engine section. This would suggest that a P-35/V-1710 would not gain the advantage over its parent aircraft than the P-40 did over the P-36.
 
R Pope said:
Biggest thing with no P-36, then there would be no P-40, and North American wouldn't have been approached to build them for Britain, and thus no P-51.............
Click to expand...

I would imagine that if the P-35 was chosen as the airframe for the V-1710 that it would spawn the P-37 and P-40 variants.
 
gjs238 said:
The P35, and later P43, wet wing concept never worked out.
Click to expand...

The P-47N had a successful wet wing (it was directly modified developed out of one of the P-47M prototypes).
I suspect there were minor problems with the wet wings in the P-35 and P-43 that could have been resolved. To avoid any anxiety in selling the P-47 Republic probably had them removed from the P-47 entirely to move the conversation on.
 
I don't know if the P-47N used a "wet wing" or not.

Fuel tanks in the wing do NOT mean a wet wing. In the P-35 and P-43 ( and a number of other late 1930s aircraft) they tried to seal up spaces in the wing and use the space as a fuel tank instead of installing a seperate tank in the space or even sticking a rubber bladder into the space. However as wings flexed in flight the seams (usually riveted) worked loose causing leaks. Different sealants were tried, maybe by 1944/45 they got a sealant to work, I don't know. But trying to make these tanks self sealing in a combat damage sense was much harder.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Curtiss P-36 with the Wright R-2600 Twin Cyclone (hypothetically)
2
Replies
21
Views
1K
Shortround6
S
A
Worst liquid-cooled, V12-powered, single-engine, single-seat, monoplane, retractable undercarriage fighters of WW2?
2 3
Replies
56
Views
5K
yulzari
M
Allison v-1710 Engine Life
2 3
Replies
54
Views
6K
BiffF15
A
Italy VS USA: Different ways to improve the P-35
Replies
14
Views
2K
Jugman
J
A
Was the Hispano-Suiza 12Y the worst ≥25L V-12 of WW2?
2 3
Replies
46
Views
3K
ThomasP
T
Menu
Log in
Register