The Curtiss A14 Shrike looks superficially to be very advanced for its time. Could it have been up-engined into a "heavy fighter" of the type in vogue in the late '30s? Obviously such aircraft had their limitations and the Shrike's small dimensions meant that it was not as versatile as something as the later Beau or even the 110, but that slippery all-metal shape seems to have had potential with more grunt. Thoughts?
Upgrading the Curtiss A14 Shrike (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Onslow
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Shortround6
Major General
Nope.............................
It was not as small as it appears. It's wing span was a bit longer than a Beaufighter and the wing area was a bit bigger (and it was about 25% bigger than the 110).
Being an early/mid 1930s design it was of light weight construction. While it is described as being "all metal" that means there was no structural wood. Covering material was often not included. The A-14 and A-18 (different engines) used fabric covering on the wings from the main spar back.
With a wing over twice the size it was only a few hundred pounds heavier than the later Westland Whirlwind empty.
It might have been possible to develop it but it would mean a new stronger/heavier structure that just looked the Shrike and probably a new wing (smaller in addition to being stronger.) The Shrike's wing was 14% bigger in area than the wing on an A-20.
It was just a little too early.
It was not as small as it appears. It's wing span was a bit longer than a Beaufighter and the wing area was a bit bigger (and it was about 25% bigger than the 110).
Being an early/mid 1930s design it was of light weight construction. While it is described as being "all metal" that means there was no structural wood. Covering material was often not included. The A-14 and A-18 (different engines) used fabric covering on the wings from the main spar back.
With a wing over twice the size it was only a few hundred pounds heavier than the later Westland Whirlwind empty.
It might have been possible to develop it but it would mean a new stronger/heavier structure that just looked the Shrike and probably a new wing (smaller in addition to being stronger.) The Shrike's wing was 14% bigger in area than the wing on an A-20.
It was just a little too early.
- Thread starter
- #3
Good information, thanks. I meant, and should have said, that the fuselage's dimensions seemed to small to allow it to become a nightfighter or heavier attack aircraft. I didn't realise the structure was that light - it's a very hard aircraft to find information about. Cheers
I always wondered the same...
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Curtiss did improve on the A-14 with the A-18, but not much became of it.
Shortround6
Major General
Basically all Curtiss did was change the engines from the 14 cylinder R-1670s to the 9 cylinder R-1820s.
The R-1670 engine went nowhere. The larger diameter R-1820s in 1937 were good for 930hp take-off, the 1000-1100hp versions were several years away.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
Slap some Hinomarus on it. I think it's a twin of the IJN/IJA twins. Beautiful lines.
Howard Gibson
Senior Airman
I am looking at the Wikipedia page for the Curtiss A-18 Shrike, developed from the A14. Top speed, 247mph on a pair of Wright R-1820s putting out 850hp. The R-1820 eventually put out 1200hp. According to my calculation, that puts us up to 277mph. This is not fast enough to catch a Ju88. It was armed with four rifle calibre machine guns.
Light weight construction is noted above. The A18's weights are 9580lb empty, and 12849lb fully loaded. This is significantly less than several important American single engined fighters of WWII. The Shrike's wingspan is almost sixty feet. This is larger than a de Havilland Mosquito, a P-38 Lightning, or a Messerschmitt Bf110. The thing looks sexy, but maybe the aerodynamics are not good. Wing design improved rapidly in the 1930s.
Engineering note:
Drag is a function of velocity squared. Power is force times velocity; therefore, power is a function of velocity cubed.
octave:1> 247/850^(1/3)*1200^(1/3)
ans = 277.09
octave:2>
special ed
2nd Lieutenant
- 5,897
- May 13, 2018
Curtiss' version of Bell's XFM-1 with radial engines, no 37mm cannons of course. Even the wing planform is similar.
Wing size is very suitable for a bomber/attacker, not for a fighter.
Add the low power installed - even considering the upgrade - and the performance had every reason to remain sedate.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
But look good doing it.
Shortround6
Major General
Doesn't seem to be much information on the wing profile/section.
and something does seem to be a bit off. The Martin Marylander had a wing only 8-9 sq ft bigger.
It managed to do just over 300mph with engines rated at 900hp at 12,000ft.
While the Marylander was used as fighter on occasions, very few people suggest using it as a basis for an actual heavy fighter.
Although now that I think about it...................................
Martin Baltitmore used the same basic wing (beefed up) and a pair of 1700hp (T-O) engines.
Design a skinny fuselage, mount a crap load of guns in the nose/belly and there you go!!!!
