What about a turbocharged P36?

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

GrauGeist said:
The P-35 may have had some potential, but the airframe wasn't "clean" by virtue of it's design.

The "greenhouse" cockpit, the maingear stowage and other factors all created a good deal of drag.

View attachment 308133
Click to expand...

I agree. I think the P36 with a turbocharger behind the pilot would have been the plane to go with instead of the P35/P43 Lancer that got the turbo instead. If they could get a P43 Lancer up to 356 mph with a 1200 hp turbocharged engine, wonder what a P36 could have gotten up to? Plus, the P36 would have had much better handling and a much better rate of climb.
 

I have "Republics P47 Thunderbolt" by Bodie, I plan on re reading the P35/P43 section for the next 2 days at Christmas to refresh my memory. (I think I just skimmed over that part the first time)
 
On the other hand, if you have to land the P-35 gear-up, there is very little airframe damage. Considering when the P-35 was designed, the arifields at the time and their relative small number, this was perhaps a very good design for a fledgling modern air force whose pilots had never flown a retractable gear airplane much.

For peak performance, I agree the P-36 was a better aircraft, but the P-35 served well while it served. You well might write off a P-36 in a gear-up landing, but it would certainly out-perform the P-35 in almost every category. Probably the turning point was when all aircraft had a radio so the tower could scold the pilot if he was landing gear-up. Without a radio, all you could do was watch it happen.
 
That might be a good consideration for a trainer, Greg, but the performance penalty the maingear cowlings imposed put the aircraft at risk in a confrontation.

A bellied airframe has the potential to be recovered, but if it's shot down in combat, it's most certainly a loss.
 

Are you referring to the P35 or the P36? I agree that the P35 was not the aircraft we needed. On the other hand, I think they had spent the time and money putting a turbocharged radial into the P36 instead of the Allison V12, they could have had a competitive high altitude fighter in production when the war started. But I have to rely on people such as GregP and FLYBOY, since they work on these things, to tell me if the turbo and plumbing would fit in the P36 behind the cockpit, or if I am completely wrong.
 
What I was saying is the P-35 with the half-exposed wheels was a good choice for an air force just learning retractable fighters. The P-36 was very probably a much better combat aircraft, but the P-35 gave great service to our cadre of pilots who initially fought in WWII. By the time they transitioned into more modern types, they probably had already done their "gear up landing training."
 
pinsong, I was referring to the P-35.

Greg, I can see where your going, with the semi-retracted maingear, but I would suppose that an advanced trainer would be far better with this feature. Also, consider this: with fully retractable maingear, the airframe bellies flat, with or without a powered prop-strike...the damage is not as bad as it may seem (depending on the energy contained in the initial contact), however, with the semi-retracted gear, the inertia of the gear-up landing is carried over by the friction of the gear cowling and the airframe pitches forward, shoving the nose into the ground (much like a P-47 or Fw190 under excessive braking). This seems far more stressful to the airframe and more potential damage to the engine (powered prop-strike or not).

The A-10 does have the semi-retractable gear and it has successfully served it's purpose and many occasions, so it is a sound idea.
 
Now that we're at the P-40 pros cons, would some kind soul delete or rectify the claim in Wikipedia entry about the type:

The P-40's lack of a two-speed supercharger made it inferior to Luftwaffe fighters such as the Messerschmitt Bf 109 or the Focke-Wulf Fw 190 in high-altitude combat and it was rarely used in operations in Northwest Europe.
Click to expand...

The lack of two-speed supercharger on (most of) P-40s had nothing to do with the type's lack of performance at high altitude.
 
Last edited:
To the earlier question, I go with Joe here. I think a 2-stage supercharger would have been the way to go, and I would have opted for a 2-stage P-36 if I had the choice. The P-35 was good for its day but outmoded by the time we were actually in WWII. I would have transferred all of them to training fields and that could well be where they would up ... I never really tracked down what the ultimate fates of the P-35 inventory were.

I could be that had Curtiss developed the P-36 for the R-2800 by enlarging it a bit, it might have been a better P-47. I would not propose that as an alternate history thread, but certainly would as an alternate possibility had the P-47 failed miserably after some effort at sorting it out. In fact, they DID need some effort to sort it out, but it turned out pretty darned well. Meanwhile, Curtiss faded. To bad for an old-school aircraft company to let things go the way they did.

Bad outcomes can be overcome. Bad management is state difficult to escape from since the bad managers seldom put their own names on the layoff list.
 
I would still have issues with a P-35 belly landing - although the bulging landing gear fairings may keep most of the belly off the ground, I would wonder what type of stress would be placed on the wheel well and wing.

The later model P-36 IMO was one of the most under rated fighters of WW2, giving it better high altitude performance might have made it a game changer. Although it wasn't a speed demon, it performed well in combat.

For what it's worth, from Wiki;

On September 20, 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 against only 29 aircraft lost in aerial combat. While making up only 12.6% of the French Air Force single-seater fighter force, the H75 accounted for almost a third of the air-to-air kills during the 1940 Battle of France. 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. While under the Vichy government, these units clashed with British aircraft over Mers el-Kébir and Dakar. During Operation Torch in North Africa, French H75s fought against U.S. Navy F4F Wildcats, losing 15 aircraft while shooting down seven American aircraft. From late 1942 on, the Allies started re-equipping the formerly Vichy-controlled French H75 units with P-40s and P-39s.
 
I have a book on the P36 that gives several individual pilot accounts of the aircraft. One pilot flying for, I think The Netherlands, against the Japanese, reported in a dogfight that a Hamp pulled up and was climbing away from him, he pulled up behind the Hamp in his P36 AND CAUGHT THE HAMP IN A STEADY CLIMB and shot him down. Not something you read about before late 1943 or early 1944. He also reported that his P36 could outturn a Hamp in a slow speed dogfight. Like I said, I think with a 2 speed 2 stage P&W 1830, 2 synchronized 50's, 1 sheet of armor behind the pilot, and self sealing tanks and this could have equalized the field from the beginning of the war until the Hellcat, Corsair, P38 and P47 came along.

Also, same book said all of the P36's that got airborne during Pearl Harbor were being used for gunnery training and were only armed with a single synchronized 30. One pilot reported being 10 or 20 feet behind a Japanese torpedo bomber and unloading all the ammo he had from that one gun into the plane, which dropped off smoking. He had to evade another plane and doesn't know if it crashed or not. I would like to suggest that no early war Japanese single engine plane would have lasted more than a few seconds in front of a 50 in that situation before bursting into flame. That is why I suggest that 2 slow firing, synchronized 50's with say 250 rounds each are better than 30's with any ammo count even if the 30's fired twice as fast.
 
The XP-42 was with the 1-stage, 2-speed supercharger. In one of it's many iterations, I especially like the one with individual exhaust stacks and fan for cooling under the 'short cowling', all akin to what Fw 190 had. The P-40 with the 2-stage R-1830 mated, no guns ammo, was supposed to do 385 mph.

With that said - both the P-36 and Zero climbed good and turned good when sported next to no protection, plus light armament ammo load. Add some protection, heavier draggier battery of armament, heavier draggier engine (due to the intercoolers) and heavier structure so the G limits are met - that would meant that a great deal of performance gain is cancelled out. The radial in question won't allow for any overboosting until water injection arrives in late 1943, unlike the V-1710 that can be overboosted, officialy or otherwise.
On the other hand, if the non-protected and weakly armed fighter is okay, press on with P-40 (no suffix), while deleting the wing LMGs. This means 360 mph fighter out from the box, that would be much a better climber than the overweight P-40E usually used by USAF in 1942.

Tailoring the future fighter on what we know the Japanese had in 1942, while neglecting what was known the Germany and UK have in production is not that a great idea, no offense on the Christmas
 

All good points. BUT, the book I have on the P36 talked about French pilots, naming them by name, who were saved by the backseat armor in 1940 over France. I have a couple of books on the Battle of Britain, and supposedly the Spitfire and Hurricane had self sealing fuel tanks during the BOB but it seems like many, if not most of the British pilots shot down during the BOB were horribly burned. Not sure why. Were early British self sealing tanks not very effective? They also speak of the P36 EASILY out turning everything in the air including the Spitfire and the Hurricane. The P36/P40 did not have the high speed control issues the Japanese Zero had. The book I have on the P36 also speaks of the durability of the P36 during the Battle of France, with many of them returning just riddled with bullets but still bringing their pilots home safely. If the Spitfire, Hurricane and ME109 can add some armor, decent weapons and self sealing tanks and still have good performance, then I see no reason why a 2 speed 2 stage 1830 in a P36 couldn't do the same thing.

The P47 Thunderbolt, by Bodie says that the P43 Lancer was faster than a Spitfire II above 20,000 feet (I think it was 20,000) and the P43 weighed between 7400 and 8400 pounds. If a P36 could fit the same turbocharged 1830 with the turbo behind the seat, I still think you have an early war game changer.
 
JoeB reported this result for the Hawk 75: 38 losses for 23 Bf 109 in the BoF, the best french fighter,
in the Phoney war: 15 losses for 13 Bf 109 (not all Emil, Nikademus reported for 23 Bf 109 idk what is the missprint)
In Operation Torch around 10 losses for 5 victory on F4F
Pearl Harbour 1 P-36 loss for 2 Zero
NEI: 5 Hawk and 12 CW-21 losses for 3 (at max) Zero in the alone Hawk engagement of campaign
Burma: 7 Mohawk for 7 Oscar
East Africa no fighter vs fighter combat for the Mohawk

I've no data for the finnish Curtiss, i'm sure we can get losses and claims for our finnish agent/s, for soviet losses... we have a russian agent?

thanks to waybackmachine we had the finish Curtiss claimed 190 1/3 enemy planes for 15 losses
 
Last edited:
There were several reasons why the P-36 could outmaneuver the Spit or 109, most if not all related to the favorable wing loading. Light engine, light armament battery ammo, generous wing size - yes. the aircraft will be very maneuverable, plus it will climb well. Lets add weight and drag and see what happen.
The comparison vs. the Spit, 109 or Hurri give us some clues. Eg. the Spitfire V sported greater protection, with no apreciable gain in performance despite 200 HP more at 19-20 kft vs. SPit I. The version with cannons, two let alone 4 was there with Spit I or II, was as fast as the Spit I. Engine weight did not changed, while the swap for the 2-stage R-1830 will add weight on the P-36, as will the added protection and 'lethality pack'.
The Hurricane II was barely faster than th Hurri I, esp. the 4 cannon variant - added firepower and protection eat up the gain in power.
Bf 109E gained some 80% power vs. the Jumo powered predecessors, vs. 10-20 % more the 2-stage engine will give to the P-36. I don't buy we'd see the desird effect here with that kind of increase in power. The 109F featured one cannon less for less drag, wholesale modification of performance-stealing items (nose, tail struts, tail wheel, radiators) plus anothe 15% or increase in power - unlike the new P-36 that will receive more engine- and weapon-related drag weight.

For the reality check, we can look at the P-40F - with no less power vs. the 2-stage R-1830, far less powerplant drag, better use of exhaust thrust - it was barely topping 360 mph. Swap the Packard Merlin with 2-stage R-1830 and we are at 350 mph?

What kind of performance, armament and protection is required for the early war game chager?
 
fastmongrel said:
Interesting pdf all about self sealing fuel tanks

http://explodingfueltanks.com/pdf/ExplodingFuelTanks-chapter1.pdf
Click to expand...

Great article! After reading that, it doesn't look like the P36 was as outmoded as they like to lead us to believe. Doesn't appear that Spitfires and Hurricanes were armored and the "self sealing" fuel tanks were less than adequate at best. With a 1200 hp P&W 1830, delete the 30 caliber wing guns, keep 2 synchronized 50's with 250 rpg, add a 73 pound armor plate behind the seat and I think it would have been more effective than the Hurricane. German fuel tanks could withstand 30 caliber rifle hits, but not hits from a 50 bmg. No wonder German bombers could make it back to base riddled like a sieve from dozens, if not hundreds of .303 rounds where just a few 50's would have ruptured the fuel tank and started a fire.
 

The Spitfire and Hurricane did have rear armour for the pilot by the time of the Battle of Britain. The Spitfire fuel tank was between the pilot and the engine and had a double layer Aluminium fire resistant bulkhead protecting the pilot from flames sometimes for long enough to bail out if he was capable and a big lump of V12 protecting it from the front. The Hurricane had Linatex coated self sealing tanks in the wing roots but if the tank was hit and burnt the flames went into the cockpit which had no fire bulkhead, most burnt RAF pilots around 80% flew Hurricanes. The 109E in use in the BoB I am not sure of some say the fuel tank under the cockpit was armoured but not self sealing some sources say it was self sealing. Possibly a modification in light of experience.

Armouring the fuel tank wasnt a great idea its not the penetration that makes it burn its the exit hole which because of deforming and tumbling caused by penetrating the armour is much bigger. Sounds strange but an unarmoured self sealing tank is safer than an armoured self sealing tank. The safety of the self sealing varies with how much fuel is in it a nearly empty tank can explode a nearly full tank is a lot less likely to explode but will burn. A choice between a hanging or a firing squad admittedly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

The poor performance of the 343 Kokutai against USAAF fighters
2 3 4
Replies
60
Views
7K
GrauGeist
D
About strafing Aces
2 3
Replies
55
Views
4K
Reluctant Poster
R
D
About "Bombs Away"
Replies
7
Views
1K
bse7entn
Question for HGabor about Tóth Lajos
Replies
0
Views
640
CHen10
S
How about a hemispherical combustion chamber for R-1820?
Replies
3
Views
1K
yulzari
Menu
Log in
Register