The P-36 a Zero Killer??? (P-36 Hawk/Hawk 75)

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

Otherwise the Hurricane is the MUCH better performing aircraft in actual war, given the relative records of the two protagonists.
Click to expand...

This isn't so easy to quantify, to be honest, Greg. The Hurricane did not do anywhere near as well over Singapore as it did over Britain and elsewhere; in fact, it did no better than the Buffalo over Singapore. The problem wasn't the individual aircraft, but a shortage of spares, adequately trained pilots with combat experience, no early warning, not enough aircraft, poor intel etc. Even if the Brit squadrons had Spitfires in Singapore, the result would still have been the same.

Since the only other comparison between Hurricanes and Buffaloes where the two of them fought side by side is in Finland, both did very well there against the Russians. The FAA did use a limited number of land based Buffaloes in the Desert in North Africa, but their number was very small.
 
FiAF Hurricanes didn't do very well against Russians, partly because we didn't have 100 oct fuel for them. Brewster B-239s on the other hand did extremely well in 1941 and 42.

Juha
 
Hello Greg P!

Check out the following link on what the British that about the Buffalo vs the Hurricane I

http://www.warbirdforum.com/eagle.htm

It does not contradict your statement about the Buffalo and Hurricane II, but does indicate the effect of the extra equipment added to the Buffalo had on its performance.

Eagledad
 

from the same website on the Brewster vs Huricane

"Hurricane Mk II: Straight from the Hans Wind, the top-scoring Brewster ace, while keeping a lecture to new fighter pilots: "Hurricane is the easiest enemy plane to shoot down. Under 3000 metres (9000ft) it's no match for us. It's slow and very clumsy and stiff. When you meet a Hurricane, immediately start a dogfight, then it can only depend on our good will. Aim to the front part of it, then it usually flares up" (This was taken from the "Lent{j{n n{k|kulma II")"
 
The RAF Buffalo had terrible performance:

BUFFALO I AS430
Engine: R-182OG105A*
Test weight: 6,430lb
Climb: 10.5min to 20k ft.
2,240fpm up to 8,200 ft
Celing: 31,800
Vmax: 294mph at 18,700ft. (data from The Secret Years)

The Buffalo wing loading at 30.8lbs was far higher than a Hurricane 1 (26.2lb at 6750lb) and the Hurricane could out roll the Buffalo at all except the very highest speeds. A Buffalo at 6430lb would be no match for a Hurricane 1 at 6750lb. The Belgian Buffalos taken over by the RAF only weighed 5746lb but they were not equipped to RAF standards. The Secret Years also states" "The unique undercarriage proved too fragile in service use."

*1100hp TO to 1500ft
900hp normal at 6700ft
800 military at 17100ft
 
Last edited:
I've read several accounts of how maneuverable the P-36/Hawk 75 was against many of it's pre/early-war competitors. Was it a Zero killer? Not really, but it was credited with at least 2 Zero kills at Pearl Harbor. It probably could have been more of a Zero killer if it was employed longer, in greater numbers and was flown by the right pilots. The USAAC withdrew the P-36 from combat service soon after PH, as it was replaced by more "modern" types. IMO, except for the P-39/P-400, retiring the P-36 was the right call. Having none of the reference books remaining in my library, I resorted to the old standby and found several interesting entries. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-36_Hawk:

Comparison of a borrowed French Hawk 75A-2 with a Supermarine Spitfire Mk I revealed that the Hawk had several advantages over the early variant of the iconic British fighter. The Hawk was found to have lighter controls than the Spitfire at speeds over 300 mph (480 km/h), especially in diving attacks, and was easier to maneuver in a dogfight (thanks to the less sensitive elevator) and better all-around visibility. The Hawk was also easier to control on takeoff and landing. Not surprisingly, the Spitfire's superior acceleration and top speed ultimately gave it the advantage of being able to engage and leave combat at will.

On September 20th, Sergeant André-Armand Legrand, pilot of the H75A-1 n°1 in the Groupe de Chasse II/5 La Fayette was credited of the first Allied air victory of World War II on the Western front with shooting down one Messerschmitt Bf 109E of the Luftwaffe 3/JG53, over Oberhern. During 1939–1940, French H75 pilots claimed 230 air to air kills (of a total of 1,009 air to air kills by the French Air Force during the 1939-40 time period) and 81 probable victories in H75s[15] against only 29 aircraft lost in aerial combat. While only 12.6% of the French Air Force single-seater fighter force the H75 accounted for almost a third of air-to-air kills during the 1940 Battle of France.[14] Of the 11 French aces of the early part of the war, seven flew H75s. The leading ace of the time was Lieutenant Edmond Marin la Meslée with 15 confirmed and five probable victories in the type. H75-equipped squadrons were evacuated to French North Africa before the Armistice to avoid capture by the Germans.

and

The only combat by U.S.-operated P-36s took place during the Pearl Harbor attack. Five of the 39 P-36A Mohawks at Pearl Harbor, delivered previously by the USS Enterprise, were able to take off during the attack and were credited with shooting down two Japanese Mitsubishi A6M2 Zeros for the loss of one P-36, among the first U.S. aerial victories of World War II.

I don't think we need a thread "Was the P-26 Peashooter a Zero Killer?"
 
Last edited:
French Hawks did very well against the 109D but against the 109E she was outclassed. British Mohawks held there own against the Ki43 the losses being pretty much even which for an aircraft that didn't have a speed or dive advantage was as good as you could expect.
 
RCAFson said:
The Secret Years also states" "The unique undercarriage proved too fragile in service use."
Click to expand...

More unresearched myth-quoting, I'm afraid. The RAF's Buffalos in the Far East, which were the heaviest operated by British forces, had no greater problems with the undercarriage than any other aircraft, indeed probably fewer.

There are only 2 instances of of Buffalos in the Far East being lost or damaged because of undercarriage failure - that's 2 incidents across 167 aircraft operating in training and operations for a period of approx 8 months. Hardly fits the category of "too fragile for operational use" in my opinion. There were other occasions where pilots didn't complete landing procedures correctly but that's a pilot error issue not a problem with the aircraft.
 
varsity07840 said:
Firepower is meaningless when you can't lose the guy on your tail. Read Lew Sander's report of his combat with Zeros on Dec. 7th.

Duane
Click to expand...
I am sure the guys who were blown out of the sky before their landing-gear was even retracted would agree with you but sadly they are dead.
 
Unless you were there I would think real hard before throwing the word excuse around.

The P-36 used in Hawaii had five .30 and one .50.
The ones who flew it and lived said it was under-gunned; go tell them they are making excuses.

The Hawk had a climb rate of 3,400 fpm and a wing loading of 23.9 lbs.
The Zero had a climb rate of 3.100 fpm and a wing loading of 20 lbs.

When the P-40 was put into service, pilots who had flown the P-36 were disappointed that the P-40 did not handle as well as the Hawk, plus as it was "improved" it got slower.
The main problem with the P-40 was not the aircraft the people running the company that built it.

If you go to sites dedicated to the Hawk, if some projected engines had been used, the Hawk would have been near as fast as the fastet in service P-40 with better handling.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
My great Uncle flew the P-36 and had nothing but admiration for the aircraft, even after being assigned the P-38 later on.

The problem was that the pilots that flew the P-36 had no combat experience when thrown up against a Japanese adversary, who in many cases, did have combat experience in their type.

The F4F had an uphill battle, facing down battle proven Japanese aircraft and pilots and eventually learned what did and what did not work, in beating them. *IF* the P-36 had remained the primary U.S. Army fighter during the onset of the war, like the U.S. Navy's F4F was, then it too, would have experienced the learning curve like the Wildcats did.

As it happens, the P-36 was being phased out, so history will never know what the P-36 was truly capable of against Japanese adversaries, with an experienced U.S. Army pilot in the cockpit.
 
BobR said:
Unless you were there I would think real hard before throwing the word excuse around.
Click to expand...

Let's see shall we

The P-36 used in Hawaii had five .30 and one .50.
The ones who flew it and lived said it was under-gunned; go tell them they are making excuses.
Click to expand...

Really? sources please.
Most books say the P-36A had one .50 and one .30 and the P-36C had one .50 and THREE .30 cal guns.

ONE experimental P-36D had TWO .50s and four .30s. Was this plane at Pearl Harbor?
Most sources say that the planes at Pearl Harbor were P-36As with the one.50 and one .30

Four P-36s got airborne from Wheeler Field and shot down (between them) two B5N1s. The few P36s that got airborne from Haliewa made no contact with the Japanese forces. Unless the pilots complaining about the lack of fire power were Lts Sterling, Sanders, Thacker and Rasmussen, the ONLY US pilots flying P-36s to make contact with the Japanese forces in ANY theater, it seems that the complaints of being under-gunned (especially with one .50 and five .30s) have little bases in fact. If the four pilots mentioned were, indeed flying P-36As with ONE .50 and ONE .30 then their complaint may be justified. The P-36 never made contact again with enemy forces in US service.

British Mohawks with (usually) six .303 guns did fight the Japanese for quite some time.


yeah, it got so slow that the slowest P-40 was around 20-25mph faster than the fastest P-36. Granted most the later P-40s couldn't climb for spit unless using WER. If you are trying to blame the Curtiss for the problems with the P-40 it would be nice to see some references.

If you go to sites dedicated to the Hawk, if some projected engines had been used, the Hawk would have been near as fast as the fasted in service P-40 with better handling.
Click to expand...

care to post a link? Please note that one site "dedicated to the Hawk" seems to be a bit "fanboy" and one of the "proposed" engines didn't make it into service until late summer of 1943.
The P-40s handling got worse as it aged. Adding self sealing tanks and armor ( with the US p-36s did NOT have) would affect climb and handling, adding guns and ammo would affect climb and handling. Beefing up the structure and landing gear to handle the increased weight of protection and increased firepower will also affect climb and handling ( and early P-36s had a few structural problems even at their lighter weight).

People who think you can shove two stage supercharged R-1830s or Wright R-2600s into a P-36 airframe and keep the P-36s handing characteristics must think they can repeal the laws of physics.

BTW. The 2nd fastest P-40 ever after the "Q" model was an airframe used by P&W for engine development of the R-1830. Problem is that had unprotected tanks, no guns, no armor and didn't set it high speed run figures until around Sept, of 1942 which is way too late to think about production ( in service in the spring/summer of 1943?)
 
 

The pilots that got airborne at Pearl Harbor and lived to tell about it very quickly discovered the P-36s capabilities(or lack of) against the Zero. Just because several Japanese planes were downed does not mean that the P-36 was not obsolete. Obsolete
Japanese aircraft shot down P-51s. The comparison to the F4F is really not valid. While it's certainly true that the F4F, especially the F4F-4 struggled to combat with the Zero and depended more upon tactics than performance, it did so with substantial armor protection, self sealing tanks and 6 .50 cal guns, none of which were installed on the P-36A or C, but were considered a necessity in combat. The F4F's two stage two speed engine also set it apart from the P-36, giving better altitude performance where it counted, Japanese bombing altitude. The performance performance degradation from the added weight would have turned the P-36 into a flying truck that lost all it's nice handling qualities. The P-36A could barely clock 300MPH without that added equipment.
There's a difference between prefering on aircraft over another based on handling qualities and choosing on that you'd rather fly in combat. I'd guess your great uncle's preference for the P-36 was based on the former.

Duane
 
Based on the fact that my Great Uncle flew a P-38 throughout the Pacific Theater, encountering Japanese and lived to tell about it, would certainly offer impact when he says that he appreciated the P-36.

As far as comparing the P-36 to the F4F, why not? They were both in service at the same time, they are both comparable in size and powerplant and they were both piloted by inexperienced pilots who were up against a battle-tested adversary.

Before everyone rushes to their charts and tables to point out minute differences between the two types, step back for a moment and look at the point being made. The PILOTS are what will make or break the success of the type. There were certainly shortcomings with both the P-36 and the F4F in terms of speed, turning, firepower and so on. In it's initial encounter against Japanese fighters, the F4F did not produce stellar results. It wasn't until they figured out how to engage the Japanese fighters on terms that would give the F4F survivability in a fight, that victories started to mount in favor of the F4F.

This is the point I am making. The P-36 was not a world beater, but if the U.S. Army was stuck with it until a replacement was provided, the pilots of the P-36 would have learned how to engage the Japanese fighters in a real-world learning curve just like the U.S. Navy and Marine pilots did with the F4F.

Remember, the training the U.S. pilots had up to 7 December 1941 was based on prewar data and tactics. This changed quickly over the next several months.
 
Graugeist,

I entirely agree with you. I would also add the air defence operating environment as a crucial factor in the success or otherwise of a given airframe. A fighter which lacks adequate support from the early warning and C2 elements within the air defence system isn't likely to succeed, neither is a fighter that is so outnumbered that it simply gets swamped by the opposition. I'd also add logistics as vital to maintaining operational effectiveness. When taken at this larger systematic level, individual aircraft performance is far less significant.
 
The F4F have had more powerful armament (by a wide margin) and it featured increased (by far, again) protection, both for pilot and fuel tanks. It was also faster.
I do agree that a decent C2 network was crucial for making intercepts possible.
 
Good point there, Buffnut, and a fact about the P-36 that may surprise the A6m advocates, the P-36A had a RoC of 3,400 feet per minute compared to the A6M2's RoC of 3,100 feet per minute. With advanced warning (which the P-36 did not have at Pearl) they could use height to their advantage (which became an important tool for combating the A6M and KI-43).

Just for the record, the early F4F had a RoC of 2,300 feet per minute, the later F4F was worse.
 
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
Paper comparing the flight performance of the P-40E Warhawk and the A6M2 Zero
Replies
8
Views
882
Ivan1GFP
I
M
P-61 Performance
Replies
15
Views
944
Snautzer01
Navalized P-36/-40 instead of the F2A/F4F/FM?
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
ThomasP
T
Effectiveness of the P-38
6 7 8
Replies
145
Views
12K
Thumpalumpacus
Menu
Log in
Register