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

"I am not the free Wiki, if you want me to do web searching for you I can send you my address and you can send me some money."

Good to know. I guess I have been foolish for contributing to this forum for 4-5 years.

You want any sources from me can you send a check.

As I'm sure this will bring relief to a number of readers , here are my final comments on "Axis adversary" killer threads.

Has anyone noticed that these threads are almost exclusively about woulda, coulda shoulda capabilities of some not so great American aircraft vs. the Japanese Zero? When's the last time you saw a thread titled "P-40, BF 109 Killer?" Why is that?
Could it be that since Dec. of 1941 we've been trying to justify(or cover up) how we got our butts kicked by a supposedly inferior nation with crappy airplanes when it was we that had inferior equipment?
It started several days after Clark Field got wiped out with PR stories that Messerschmits were encountered and that white blonde haired enemy pilots were seen bailing out of the numerous planes we shot down. Then of course it progressed to Colin Kelly sinking(and in some versions crashing into, take your pick) a battleship, further progressing to reports that Japanese
pilots flying missions to Java were wearing native clothes so they could blend in with the locals when they were shot down.
Spin it the way you want, but the bottom line is we were embarresed then and to some extent now that our pilots were expected to be victorious flying inferior planes that in some cases were out of production for several years. How do you improve a plane based on combat reports when it's not even being built anymore? If Japanese planes was better than the American plane, who cares why? They were and the pilots of the American plane were the first to admit it. How do we think word got back to Washington in 1942 that despite what MacArthur was saying, we were being shot to pieces? It doesen't really matter how incremently better they were, or how a certain American aircraft could have benefited from a bigger and better engine down the road. At the time, we were being beat up by planes from a country whose claim to fame for us was chop sticks.
We owe a great deal to those pilots that had to fly under those conditions, but we can't change facts, or for that matter, history.

Duane

GrauGeist said:

And to the comment Bob made:

Curtiss is still in business...Curtiss-Wright corporation...they did like many other comanies did after the war, they merged.

Click to expand...

You are correct, I should have said out of the airplane business.

varsity07840 said:

As I'm sure this will bring relief to a number of readers , here are my final comments on "Axis adversary" killer threads.

Has anyone noticed that these threads are almost exclusively about woulda, coulda shoulda capabilities of some not so great American aircraft vs. the Japanese Zero? When's the last time you saw a thread titled "P-40, BF 109 Killer?" Why is that?
Could it be that since Dec. of 1941 we've been trying to justify(or cover up) how we got our butts kicked by a supposedly inferior nation with crappy airplanes when it was we that had inferior equipment?
It started several days after Clark Field got wiped out with PR stories that Messerschmits were encountered and that white blonde haired enemy pilots were seen bailing out of the numerous planes we shot down. Then of course it progressed to Colin Kelly sinking(and in some versions crashing into, take your pick) a battleship, further progressing to reports that Japanese
pilots flying missions to Java were wearing native clothes so they could blend in with the locals when they were shot down.
Spin it the way you want, but the bottom line is we were embarresed then and to some extent now that our pilots were expected to be victorious flying inferior planes that in some cases were out of production for several years. How do you improve a plane based on combat reports when it's not even being built anymore? If Japanese planes was better than the American plane, who cares why? They were and the pilots of the American plane were the first to admit it. How do we think word got back to Washington in 1942 that despite what MacArthur was saying, we were being shot to pieces? It doesen't really matter how incremently better they were, or how a certain American aircraft could have benefited from a bigger and better engine down the road. At the time, we were being beat up by planes from a country whose claim to fame for us was chop sticks.
We owe a great deal to those pilots that had to fly under those conditions, but we can't change facts, or for that matter, history.

Duane

Click to expand...

Duane, everybody here KNOWS the Zero was better than anything we fielded early in the war. Personally, I think the Zero was the best airplane in the world up until the introduction of the FW190, it certainly roughed up every allied aircraft put up against it early in the war including the Spitfire and we all know the Spitfire and ME109 were neck and neck.

We know what really happened and why. The reason we do "What if?" and "Why?" is to discuss 'could things have been different'. What I have gleaned from everything I have read on this sight in the last 5 years or so is, given the historical timeline of when things were introduced, we did as well as we could do even knowing what happened.

By the way, "Was the P40 as good as the ME109" has been done on this sight about half a dozen times, so it isn't just the Japanese who get the "what if?" treatment.

varsity07840 said:

As I'm sure this will bring relief to a number of readers , here are my final comments on "Axis adversary" killer threads.

Could it be that since Dec. of 1941 we've been trying to justify(or cover up) how we got our butts kicked by a supposedly inferior nation with crappy airplanes when it was we that had inferior equipment?

Spin it the way you want, but the bottom line is we were embarrassed then and to some extent now that our pilots were expected to be victorious flying inferior planes that in some cases were out of production for several years. How do you improve a plane based on combat reports when it's not even being built anymore?
Duane

Click to expand...

Part of the trouble people here say better as if an aircraft is better in every paradigm an aircraft has to deal with to perform, which did not exist to the end of the war.
There was no fighter aircraft in WWII was the best in every paradigm, including the P-51.

The Oscar could out handle the Zero but was lacking in more areas than the Zero.
Japanese planes were flying Molotov Cocktails an area all Allied planes were superior.
The Japanese had aircraft definitely better at bomber altitude than USAAF in China-Burma but at low altitudes U.S. fighters had more strong points against the Japanese than Japanese aircraft had against U.S. aircraft.
The British Hurricane was a better aircraft, in more ways, in China-Burma than the Spitfire.
The Curtiss CW-21 has been written about as one of the few Allied aircraft that could dogfight with a Zero without a disadvantage but poor firepower was a huge deficit.
Etc., etc., etc.

The Flying Tigers embarrassed the Japanese because they were pilots who due to Chennault had an idea of what they had to deal with.
Had all U.S. pilots at the start of the war had the information the Tigers did, whilst also being as prepared for combat as Chennault's people were, things would have been different but they did not; they had the worthless information the military gave them.

As shown by the P-40s in China and the F2A in Finland, which plane is supposedly the best means nothing when pilots are prepared to fly what they have in a mode the plane they are flying works best at.

How much did the Japanese know of the Wildcat's performance before they encountered them in combat, as Wildcats and P36s had been around for a few years before 41/42 had any information percolated back to the Japanese that eneabled them to develop tactics to defeat them?

Had any French Hawks fought the Japanese when the Japanese took over French IndoChina or did the Japanese caputure any their that they were able to use to evaluate their performance?

Kyösti Karhila said in an interview, when he was a green pilot and fly P36, he had to turn battle whit I-16 fighter. After couple full turn, he realized that the I-16 is getting his tail, and broke away from the fight by diving.
I think this shows that I-16 was able to turn in the P-36 fighter. I understand I-16 and Zero were equal to turn, but the Zero was faster and climbed better.

From what I've read some time ago, the F4F-4 was not well liked by (good?) pilots because of the weight gain by additional guns while having less ammo for each gun (AFAIR 150 rounds less per gun than in 4-gun F4F-3).
Fesh pilots may have been more confortable with 6 guns with a larger spread of bullets but it was quite easy to run out of ammo.
Navy and marine pilots had to learn the pros and cons of their own and primary enemy aircraft to develop proper tactics to beat them, this took some time.

beitou said:

How much did the Japanese know of the Wildcat's performance before they encountered them in combat, as Wildcats and P36s had been around for a few years before 41/42 had any information percolated back to the Japanese that eneabled them to develop tactics to defeat them?

Had any French Hawks fought the Japanese when the Japanese took over French Indo-China or did the Japanese capture any their that they were able to use to evaluate their performance?

Click to expand...

Even with its faults, read the Ragged, Rugged Warriors as it includes rarely mentioned action in China pre-Flying Tigers.
The Japanese knew how the Hawk with fixed gear handled, as they flew against it as it was part of the International Squadron and probably made assumptions about it as they switched from their fixed gear aircraft to the Ki-43 which like the Hawk was based off of a fixed gear predecessor.

BobR said:

There was no fighter aircraft in WWII was the best in every paradigm, including the P-51.

Click to expand...

That sums it up right there!

gjs238 said:

Inspired by the thread The P-39 a Zero Killer???, I'm wondering if the P-36/Hawk 75, with a 2-stage supercharged engine like the F4F, would have performed better for the Army and Marine units in the PTO - Midway and Guadalcanal periods?

In the P-39 thread it was discussed how poorly the P-400's and P-39's performed at altitude and how valuable the 2-stage F4F's were.
Even the P-40 entered the discussion.

While an older design, might 2-stage P-36's have provided the altitude performance lacking in the other Army fighters?

Click to expand...

Returning to the original question it depends on a number of things.

1. Which Zero do you want to kill?
A. The A6M2 with the Sakae 12 that had 940hp for take-off and 950hp at 13,780ft.
B. The A6M3 with the Sakae 21 that had 1130hp for take-off, 1100hp at 9,350ft and 980hp at 19,685ft.

2. Which route to better performance you take.
A. Fit later model P&W R-1830 with 2 speed supercharger.
B. Fit the P&W R-1830 with 2 stage supercharger
C. Fit the Wright Cyclone R-1820.
D. shoot the works and try to jam a Wright R-2600 in the plane.

3. P-36A C had no armor and no self sealing tanks as they left the factory
A. Leave them that way in pursuit of better performance and handling.
B. Fit some sort of protection so pilots can survive at a greater rate and gain experience.

4. Actually killing the the "Zero"= firepower, how much is enough? P-36As had one .50 and one .30 cal. P-36Cs had one.50 and three .30 cal. Foreign Hawk 75s often had six RCMGs.
A. are these combinations enough
B. do you fit one or more .50s in each wing?

For information on the P-36 and Hawk 5 it does not get much better than this form Mike Williams site.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-36/Curtiss_Hawk_75-A_Detail_Specifications.pdf
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-36/P-36_Operation_and_Flight_Instruction.pdf

some considerations.
1. The A6M3 was first tested in the summer of 1941 and was being issued to units in spring/summer of 1942.

2. The original P&W R-1830-17 was good for 1200hp at sea level, 1150hp at 5,000ft, 975 at 10,000ft and 810hp at 15,000ft. all at 2700rpm. We can see that there is altitude problem but since this is a 1938/39 engine it is somewhat expected.
A, No later (unless real late) R-1830 does any better with a single speed supercharger, so on to the two speed. The engine used in the F4F-3A and Martlet II III was good for 1200hp at sea level, 1200hp at 4900ft and 1000hp at 14,500ft.
A roughly 25% increase in power at 15,000ft is certainly nothing to sneeze at and might even work against the A6M2. There is very little weight increase or installation problem. Against the A6M3 you are down almost 5,200ft in FTH.
B, The basis of this thread, fit the Wildcat two stage engine, 1200hp at sea level, 1100hp to about 12,500ft and (maybe?) 1040hp at 19,500ft (?)(graph is hard to read) I would note that the last calls for 2700rpm and most ALL references call
for a max of 2550 rpm in high gear. We can actually beat the Zero here. But we have installation problems and weight. We have picked up 65lbs and some length over the two speed engine ( two speed picked up about 90lbs over the singe speed) but that does not include the inter-coolers and ducting.

There is a lot less volume in the fuselage right behind the engine in a P-36 than an F4F. It was done (intercoolers installed) and done twice.

The "pod" behind the left wheel and under the cockpit is the intercooler on the Hawk 75R flown in the 1939 fighter trials with a two stage supercharger.

This is the Fall of 1942 test configuration for a P&W test mule Hawk 81 with a two stage engine and intercooler. Please note all new fuselage from cockpit forward (including non-standard windscreen?) please note scoops needed for inter-cooler compared to "normal" P-36.

C. The Wright Cyclone might work. Installation already worked out and it is a lighter engine. Main option is fitting a G-205A engine. Some of the export Hawks got this engine and it offers 1000hp at 14,200-15,000ft depending on source (or RAM?) Trouble is it has more drag and this is as good as it gets until the "H" series engine comes out and it won't show up in large numbers until the spring/summer of 1943. (engine used in FM-2 Wildcat), too late for "Zero Killer" in 1942 and early 1943.

More later.

Well now, that is interesting
Thank you for taking the time.
Bob

Returning to the original question it depends on a number of things II.

engines contin:

D. Trying to use the R-2600 calls for an extensive re-work. Engine is about 500 lbs heavier than the R-1830 or about 100 lbs heavier than the Merlin and cooling system in a P-40Fand 300lbs heavier than the engine and cooling system in a P-40C.
It needs a bigger prop and a host of other changes. Maybe it can be done but the cost in weight means that the turning radius and good handling the P-36 was known for is now as bad or worse than the P-40. You do have a LOT power down low though. You also have a lot of drag. Even the 1700 hp take-off versions of the R-2600 are down to about 1100 hp at 20,000 ft so the power advantage, while still there, is much less marked at the altitudes people are looking at. You have about 12% more power but used a much heavier engine to get it than Zero.

3. Protection. The early P-40s used 91lbs of armor and BP which is not a lot. P-39s used around 240-26 0lbs and F4F-3 used 155 lbs. The P-36 used 3 fuel tanks with 2 holding the "normal" load of 105 gallons and the 3rd tank holing the "overload fuel". We don't have a weight for the tanks but an early P-40 with plain tanks has a wight of 171 lbs for the fuel system. This goes to 253 lbs for a P-40B (160 gals)and 420 lbs for a P-40C (135 gal) with better tanks and all three protected. Later P-40s got a bit more fuel (148-157 gals) for only a little more weight. The stripper models got 120 gals in two tanks for a weight of 322 lbs.
So pick a fuel capacity and desired protection level. The R-2600 is going to need a LOT of fuel. We can cheat and use the 105-120 gal 2 tank option and use a belly tank though.

4. Firepower. One .30 cal gun in each wing can be 111 lbs for guns and ammo. Double that for 2 guns in each wing but if you ditch the fuselage .50 and swap it for a .30 you can save 63lbs. Stick a single .50 in each wing with just 200 rounds per gun and you have 277lbs or 55lbs more than the four .30s set up. Changing to either the two stage R-1830 or R-2600 engines may require giving up the fuselage guns.

Adding much weight (more than a few hundred pounds) will require beefing up the structure in order to maintain the "G" limits. The original 12 "G" limit was without the rear tank filled (105 gallons only). Add a lot of weight and the landing gear may have to increased in strength. I would note that the power-plant section of an F4F-4 is about 30-60lbs heavier than the power-plant section of a P-40C including the P-40C cooling system. The engine in the P-40C was good for about 840hp at 20,000ft.

Since a P-36 and a P-40 are pretty much identical from the firewall back any changes in maneuverability, handling or flying qualities are pretty much due to weight changes and/or a shift in the center of gravity due to the weight change.

SR, what is the difference between the 2 stage R-1830s specified in 2A and 2B?

2A is a 2 speed supercharger, not two stage.

The US P-36A C used single speed superchargers. I don't think any Hawk production fighter got a two speed P&W engine.

Shortround6 said:

2A is a 2 speed supercharger, not two stage.

The US P-36A C used single speed superchargers. I don't think any Hawk production fighter got a two speed P&W engine.

Click to expand...

Ok, understood.

I guess I should read more carefully!

SR6: Thanks for all the time effort for the excellent posts!

Perhaps an overly simplistic idea, but it is too bad that the P-36 (as a R-1830 powered plane) did not seem to have the potential and longevity of the F4F, another R-1830 powered plane.

Perhaps an overly simplistic idea, but it is too bad that the P-36 (as a R-1830 powered plane) did not seem to have the potential and longevity of the F4F, another R-1830 powered plane.

Click to expand...

It did; it led directly to the P-40. That was the next step in its evolution. Just as we like to talk about putting bigger more powerful engines in existing airframes, that's exactly what Curtiss did with the Hawk 75.

Technically, the transition of the P-36 to the P-40 is a real-life "what if" that actually happened.

Correct, but the genesis of this thread was how valuable the high altitude performance of the F4F was early in the war.
The thought was to use the same 2-stage R-1830 from the F4F in the P-36.
Not quite so easy.