Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The P35 was never a good performer, poor handling/turning ability and poor workmanship (leaking wing tanks)
I guess our post crossed in space. So all wet wings leak…learned something new today. Wonder why they would do such an arrangement on a fighter plane that gets shot at??? Where did I get assessment on P35? Multiple places. Everything I have read (admittedly much of it was in cyber space) including just the specs showed it to be slow, poor climbing and poor turning.
Keep in mind that while the P-36 was a great performer, it also was lacking self-sealing tanks and suitable cockpit armor.
It was also lightly armed, with 1 .30 MG and 1 .50 MG, although later models were a little better equipped, with twin .50 MG in the cowl and 2 (or 4) .30 MGs in the wings.
So adding a supercharger wouldn't do much good unless you added the armor and self-sealing tanks...and now you're in the league of the P-40, weight-wise.
The R-1830-17 of the P-36 was going to be slightly different than the R-1830-49 of the P-43. The supercharger would require quite a bit of additional space, too.Agree that the weight would go up and quite possibly match the P40. BUT you would also have 1200 hp up to 25,000 feet. Pilot would definitely need a sheet of armor behind his seat and head, self sealing tanks, weapons: Against Japan I would give it 2 synchronized 50's. If it fought against Germany either 2 synchronized 50's and 1 50 in each wing, or 4 50's in the wing and no fuselage guns. What I wouldn't do is weight it down with 6 50's like they did the F4F4 Wildcat and later P40's.
Back to my other question: Would the same turbo charger setup the P43 used fit in the P36? Or is the P36 too small?
(glad you responded GrauGeist, didn't you say your uncle flew P36's?)
By what standards: I would compare it directly to the P36 since they were designed at the same time and the P35 comes off very poorly except in range.
Specifications (P-35A)[edit]
Data from The American Fighter[34]
General characteristics
Crew: One
Length: 26 ft 10 in (8.17 m)
Wingspan: 36 ft 0 in (10.97 m)
Height: 9 ft 9 in (2.97 m)
Wing area: 220 ft² (20.43 m²)
Empty weight: 4,575 lb (2,075 kg)
Loaded weight: 6,118 lb (2,775 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 6,723 lb (3,050 kg)
Powerplant: 1 × Pratt Whitney R-1830-45 Twin Wasp radial engine, 1,050 hp (783 kW)
Performance
Maximum speed: 290 mph (252 knots, 467 km/h) at 12,000 ft (3,660 m)
Cruise speed: 260 mph (226 knots, 418 km/h)
Range: 950 mi (826 nmi, 1,530 km)
Service ceiling: 31,400 ft (9,570 m)
Rate of climb: 1,920 ft/min (9.8 m/s)
Wing loading: 27.8 lb/ft² (135.8 kg/m²)
Power/mass: 0.172 hp/lb (0.282 kW/kg)
Specifications (P-36A)[edit]
Data from Curtiss Fighter Aircraft: A Photographic History 1917-1948[24]
General characteristics
Crew: 1
Length: 28 ft 6 in (8.7 m)
Wingspan: 37 ft 4 in (11.4 m)
Height: 8 ft 5 in (2.6 m)
Wing area: 235.94 ft² (21.92 m²)
Empty weight: 4,567 lb[25] (2,076 kg)
Loaded weight: 5,650 lb (2,560 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 6,010 lb[25] (2,732 kg)
Powerplant: 1 × Pratt Whitney R-1830-17 Twin Wasp air-cooled radial piston engine, 1,050 hp (783 kW)
Performance
Maximum speed: 313 mph (272 knots, 500 km/h) at 8,500 ft, 2,960 m
Cruise speed: 270 mph (235 knots, 432 km/h)
Range: 625 mi (543 nmi, 1,006 km) at 270 mph (419 km/h), 860 mi (748 nmi, 1,385 km) at 200 mph
Service ceiling: 32,700 ft (9,967 m)
Rate of climb: 3,400 ft/min (17 m/s)
Wing loading: 23.9 lb/ft² (116.8 kg/m²)
Power/mass: 0.186 hp/lb (306w/kg)
These are from Wiki, I know I know, but anyway, the P36 beats the P35 rather badly on everything but range. But, when a turbocharger was added to the P35, its performance up high was better than anything the US had at the time except for the P38. So, what if they had installed the same turbocharged engine in the P36 with its exceptional handling and climb rate? Would a turbocharger and the plumbing fit in a P36?