What about a turbocharged P36?

[tomo pauk]

To give the credit to the P-36 - it never received the up-rated R-1830s, not even the up-rated R-1820s (Twin Wasps and cyclones, respectively). The Twin Wasps used in the P-36 were not even with military rating, though there is a rumor that French and Finns were pushing their US-produced radials above specs.

Then we have a slight confusion about the engine types - there were several '1200 HP' R-1830s, that differed considerably. That is before we start tossing in the 2-stage variants. The R-1830-17 have had 1200 HP for take off, and 1050 HP at 6500 ft, not much of performance will be there. The R-1830-23 is not the '1200 HP' R-1830, having 1100 HP for take off, but also 950 HP at 14300 ft, due to the change in supercharger gearing vs. the -17. Will be a bit better at altirude, but still the power is too low to really compete. One engine built.
The things got more interesting with the -33, that was used on P-66 and some early non-turbo B-24s, but not on the P-36. It received the 2-speed supercharger drive, new carb, the high gear is with still greater multiplication than the (only) gear of the -23, it gives 1000 HP at 14500 ft at 2700 rpm, that being max continuous rating.

So yes, the P-36 with a better engine and just 2 HMGs should probably be good for 340-350 mph in 1941/42. Question remains - is that what the Allies need?

 

[pinsog]

To give the credit to the P-36 - it never received the up-rated R-1830s, not even the up-rated R-1820s (Twin Wasps and cyclones, respectively). The Twin Wasps used in the P-36 were not even with military rating, though there is a rumor that French and Finns were pushing their US-produced radials above specs.

Then we have a slight confusion about the engine types - there were several '1200 HP' R-1830s, that differed considerably. That is before we start tossing in the 2-stage variants. The R-1830-17 have had 1200 HP for take off, and 1050 HP at 6500 ft, not much of performance will be there. The R-1830-23 is not the '1200 HP' R-1830, having 1100 HP for take off, but also 950 HP at 14300 ft, due to the change in supercharger gearing vs. the -17. Will be a bit better at altirude, but still the power is too low to really compete. One engine built.
The things got more interesting with the -33, that was used on P-66 and some early non-turbo B-24s, but not on the P-36. It received the 2-speed supercharger drive, new carb, the high gear is with still greater multiplication than the (only) gear of the -23, it gives 1000 HP at 14500 ft at 2700 rpm, that being max continuous rating.

So yes, the P-36 with a better engine and just 2 HMGs should probably be good for 340-350 mph in 1941/42. Question remains - is that what the Allies need?

I believe the US needed it more than the British needed it. Early in the war the US needed something to compete with the Japanese on equal footing. We had 1 airplane that could climb, the P38 and it wasn't quite ready and there weren't enough of them. The P39C had a very good clim rate up to 12000 or 15000 (3700 fpm up to 10,000 feet) feet and then the Allison engine fell on its face. Then the US added 1,000 pounds of stuff to it, called it the P39D and dropped the climb rate down to 2700 fpm. The US needed a plane that had performance at 20,000 feet that was reasonable for the time period. It would have been reasonable to take a P36, 1200 hp, add a 75 pound chunk of armor behind the pilot seat, 2 50's through the prop, remove the 30's and it could have, I believe, held its own against anything in the world in 1940, 1941 and even 1942 without anything special or out of the timeline happening. Yes the Spitfire and ME109 were both faster, but the P36 could easily outturn either plane. It had a fast roll rate, its climb rate was in the ballpark with either plane(in fact, if it climbed at 3400 fpm with 1050 hp, it might have out climbed the Spit and 109 if a 1200 hp engine was installed). It could dive fast without the controls getting stiff. It was already tough, the French can tell us about its ability to sustain damage and we know radials are tough engines.

The US needed fast climbing planes at Guadalcanal. Faster, better turning planes on Midway Island. The British could have used a plane with 50 BMG during the BoB(even if it only had 2 and they were slower firing synchronized guns) Wake Island, the Philipines, Port Moresby. Anywhere we had the P39 and P40 in the early part of the war, I think a slightly updated P36 would have done better.

Whats not to like?

 

[tomo pauk]

A good deal of the answer to the last question can be drawn exactly with the unloved (on the West) P-39.
The P-39D introduced self-sealing tanks, 262 lbs of armor, another pair of LMGs, now with 4000 rounds for the 4 of the LMGs. There were also up to 3 (three) radio sets. So let's revert to the non-self sealing tanks, delete all armament ammo but the two synchronised HMGs, and cut their ammo load to 2 x 250 instead of 2 x 500 rds, reduce the pilot protection. That saves us indeed a great amout of weight and also cuts a bit of drag, so the resulting lightweight Airacobra climbs better and it is faster than the P-39C. That was able to do 379 mph at 16100 ft (here), ie. it is in league of Spitfire V and Bf 109F1/F2. Cutting on drag weight buys us how much, 10 mph, so the 'P-39 light' makes now almost 390 mph? The improvement of the RoC is much better.

The statement of 'the Allison engine fell on its face' does not hold the water here. The P-39D and subsequent carried the armament battery as heavy as the P-38 (paying the same drag penalty), that have had 2 such engines, turboed to boot. Let's try doubling up the armament on the Bf 109E, or install 4 cannons on the Spitfire I and see how good they perform.

For the P-40, the similar analysis can be performed. Delete 4 LMGs from the wings, and the 'P-40B light' makes 360 mph. In 1941/42, that is 30 mph better than Ki-43, and not worse than Zero.

So what should the USAF buy, the 380-390 mph P-39 or 340-350 mph P-36, or 360 mph P-40?

The US needed fast climbing planes at Guadalcanal. Faster, better turning planes on Midway Island.

Indeed there was the need for the faster fighters. I'd propose a greater emphasis on the production of the P-38 in 1941, with the Hudsons and the like farmed out to another manufacturers, plus starting out with another production source. Then, the USAF can start the purchase process on the P-51, the 1st example arrived ot Wright Field for testing in late August 1941. We can bet dollars for donuts that a P-51 with only 2 HMGs would've been another 10 mph faster than the one with it's full battery (4 LMGs, 4 HMGs) and climb better.
Then we have the lightweight P-39 and P-40, each a better proposal than the improved P-36.

The USN and Marines also need to work on the escort job and navigation, plus the correct flight path to the seaborne target, failings in those categories cost them much more men and machines than IJN fighters and AAA.

Yes the Spitfire and ME109 were both faster, but the P36 could easily outturn either plane.

Let's not expect from the adversary to make mistakes. The 380-400 mph Bf-109F won't turn with anybody, they knew better. RAF/RAAF pilots, as well as their US coleagues also learned soon not to enter into a turning fight if it can be avoided.
A good turner will have no advantage when chasing bombers, and here the bigger punch is essential. Two sysnchronised BMGs are not a good example of a big punch. That leads us to:

The British could have used a plane with 50 BMG during the BoB(even if it only had 2 and they were slower firing synchronized guns)

That is not a winning proposal. The 340 mph P-36, even if we can have such one in 1940 does not offer anything over the Spitfire, or the Hurricane I with Merlin XX engine. The BMG in service in 1940 does 600 rpm, not 800, synchornised it is less than 500 rpm. The 8 .303s in Hurricane or Spitfire do 9600 rpm combined, vs. how much, 950 rpm with P-36 considered.

The ammo for the BMG in 1940 is not the ammo of 1944 either, the Soviet API is yet to be copied.

 

[pinsog]

A good deal of the answer to the last question can be drawn exactly with the unloved (on the West) P-39.
The P-39D introduced self-sealing tanks, 262 lbs of armor, another pair of LMGs, now with 4000 rounds for the 4 of the LMGs. There were also up to 3 (three) radio sets. So let's revert to the non-self sealing tanks, delete all armament ammo but the two synchronised HMGs, and cut their ammo load to 2 x 250 instead of 2 x 500 rds, reduce the pilot protection. That saves us indeed a great amout of weight and also cuts a bit of drag, so the resulting lightweight Airacobra climbs better and it is faster than the P-39C. That was able to do 379 mph at 16100 ft (here), ie. it is in league of Spitfire V and Bf 109F1/F2. Cutting on drag weight buys us how much, 10 mph, so the 'P-39 light' makes now almost 390 mph? The improvement of the RoC is much better.

The statement of 'the Allison engine fell on its face' does not hold the water here. The P-39D and subsequent carried the armament battery as heavy as the P-38 (paying the same drag penalty), that have had 2 such engines, turboed to boot. Let's try doubling up the armament on the Bf 109E, or install 4 cannons on the Spitfire I and see how good they perform.

For the P-40, the similar analysis can be performed. Delete 4 LMGs from the wings, and the 'P-40B light' makes 360 mph. In 1941/42, that is 30 mph better than Ki-43, and not worse than Zero.

So what should the USAF buy, the 380-390 mph P-39 or 340-350 mph P-36, or 360 mph P-40?



Indeed there was the need for the faster fighters. I'd propose a greater emphasis on the production of the P-38 in 1941, with the Hudsons and the like farmed out to another manufacturers, plus starting out with another production source. Then, the USAF can start the purchase process on the P-51, the 1st example arrived ot Wright Field for testing in late August 1941. We can bet dollars for donuts that a P-51 with only 2 HMGs would've been another 10 mph faster than the one with it's full battery (4 LMGs, 4 HMGs) and climb better.
Then we have the lightweight P-39 and P-40, each a better proposal than the improved P-36.

The USN and Marines also need to work on the escort job and navigation, plus the correct flight path to the seaborne target, failings in those categories cost them much more men and machines than IJN fighters and AAA.



Let's not expect from the adversary to make mistakes. The 380-400 mph Bf-109F won't turn with anybody, they knew better. RAF/RAAF pilots, as well as their US coleagues also learned soon not to enter into a turning fight if it can be avoided.
A good turner will have no advantage when chasing bombers, and here the bigger punch is essential. Two sysnchronised BMGs are not a good example of a big punch. That leads us to:



That is not a winning proposal. The 340 mph P-36, even if we can have such one in 1940 does not offer anything over the Spitfire, or the Hurricane I with Merlin XX engine. The BMG in service in 1940 does 600 rpm, not 800, synchornised it is less than 500 rpm. The 8 .303s in Hurricane or Spitfire do 9600 rpm combined, vs. how much, 950 rpm with P-36 considered.

The ammo for the BMG in 1940 is not the ammo of 1944 either, the Soviet API is yet to be copied.

I agree with you on the P39. I would delete all the wing guns, maybe install fuel tanks in the wings, keep the 2 50's in the nose and replace the 37 with either a 20mm that worked(we all know of the US 20mm problem) or a 3rd 50, and put a 100 pound sheet of armor behind pilot seat and head. BUT that still doesn't solve the Allisons lack of power at altitude.

P36B

WAR DEPARTMENT
AIR CORPS, MATERIEL DIVISION
Wright Field, Dayton, Ohio
September 25, 1939
ENGINEERING SECTION MEMORANDUM REPORT ON
Curtiss P-36B Airplane, A.C. No. 38-20

Serial No: 19-430-1001-A
SUMMARY
1. Object -- High speed of Curtiss P-36B with and without camouflage. Airplane equipped with Pratt and Whitney R-1830-23 engine rated 950 hp at 2700 rpm and 1100 hp at 2700 rpm for take-off, three-bladed constant speed propeller, Dwg. No. 512CC1.5 range 20° to 45° at 42" radius. Landing gear retracted, carburetor cold, cockpit cabin and ventilator closed, wing flaps neutral, cowl flaps closed. Airplane flown with full gas and oil load. Weight of camouflage paint was 7.0 lbs.

2. Test results at 950 bhp at 2700 rpm at 17,000 ft.:
a. Speed without camouflage was 317.5 mph.

b. Speed when camouflaged with water color paint was 316.0 mph.

Hurricane

Aeroplane and Armament Experimental Establishment
Boscombe Down
12th June 1940
Hurricane L.2026
(Merlin III)
(Rotol Constant Speed Airscrew)
Comparitive Performance Trials
under
Normal and Overload conditions


SUMMARY
At Full Throttle
Height Feet Speed M.P.H Time to Climb Mins Rate of Climb ft/min
S.L 0 0
2000 0.75 2610
5000 276 1.9 2625
10000 291 3.8 2640
15000 307 5.85 2250
20000 316 8.35 1675
25000 307 12.0 1100
30000 292 18.3 530

When the P36 has the proper engine, this one available in 1939 vs the BoB Hurricane with the constant speed prop, the Hurricane has less performance below 20,000 feet in both speed and climb and turn. The P&W in the P36 had no WEP at the time. Wonder what the best high altitude P&W 1830 would have done for it in 1941 and 1942?

As far as 2 50's vs 8 30's

http://explodingfueltanks.com/pdf/ExplodingFuelTanks-chapter1.pdf

The German self sealing tanks were made to stand up to 30 caliber bullets, none of them worked for 50's at the time. British pilots had to start aiming at the engines because they couldn't set the tanks on fire. Adding to that, the British supposedly didn't aim all of their 8 guns on the same spot, they sort of used an "open choke shotgun" pattern, losing the effect a concentrated pattern would have had. French pilots during the Battle of France had 6 7.5 mm machine guns and they reported having to close to 50 meters or less to bring down German bombers. They reported that closing to 50 meters brought them in range of the Germans defensive guns causing unnecessary losses. They reported that with heavy machine guns they could have brought them down from 200 yards and stayed out of effective range of the Germans defensive guns.

Personally, I would go for 2 50 BMG knowing that a single round would punch a large hole in a fuel tank(or an engine, or a person) and a few more should ignite it.

During the BoB the ME109 was a 348 mph plane, the P36 was a 315 mph plane that could easily outturn anything in the battle, climb with the 109 and Spitfire and with a tough radial engine.

 

[Lefa]

Finnish Forces - Finnish Curtiss P-36 Hawk

There some information to P 36 in Finnish use.

 

[GrauGeist]

I agree with you on the P39. I would delete all the wing guns, maybe install fuel tanks in the wings, keep the 2 50's in the nose and replace the 37 with either a 20mm that worked(we all know of the US 20mm problem) or a 3rd 50, and put a 100 pound sheet of armor behind pilot seat and head. BUT that still doesn't solve the Allisons lack of power at altitude.

Having only two .50 MGs is not making this much of a fighter.

The ability of the U.S. fighters to deliver such a heavy knockout punch to the Axis types was because of the multiple .50s, especially the P-38, that had centerline mounted MGs which didn't rely on convergence to maximize their effect.

It seems to me, that the P-39's cannon could have been deleted and have, instead, 6 .50 MGs (two cowl and 4 in the wings).

And why so much armor for the pilot? There is an engine back there that makes a very handy piece of armor.

 

[tomo pauk]

I agree with you on the P39. I would delete all the wing guns, maybe install fuel tanks in the wings, keep the 2 50's in the nose and replace the 37 with either a 20mm that worked(we all know of the US 20mm problem) or a 3rd 50, and put a 100 pound sheet of armor behind pilot seat and head. BUT that still doesn't solve the Allisons lack of power at altitude.

I like the '3-gun' P-39 proposal.
The V-1710 E4, as installed in the P-39C/D, was making a bit more power than the DB 601A of the BoB vintage, so the problem was not so great. It beacames a big problem when requiring it to propel through the air the hefty gun battery and protection package, that includes both sheet metal and 2 times the BP glass. SO deleting of heavy items from the P-39 solves a good deal of the V-1710's altitude 'problem'.

When the P36 has the proper engine, this one available in 1939 vs the BoB Hurricane with the constant speed prop, the Hurricane has less performance below 20,000 feet in both speed and climb and turn. The P&W in the P36 had no WEP at the time. Wonder what the best high altitude P&W 1830 would have done for it in 1941 and 1942?

Comparing the P-36 with the Hurricane model that is out of production before BoB ended is a damning with a faint praise. Hurricane IIa (8 .303s) was good for 342 mph at 22000 ft, and we can hope that a P-36 will equal that in 1941, once the 2-stage R-1830 is available in quantity..
The R-1830 never got water injection in ww2 to the best of my knowledge, so no WER for it.

The German self sealing tanks were made to stand up to 30 caliber bullets, none of them worked for 50's at the time. British pilots had to start aiming at the engines because they couldn't set the tanks on fire. Adding to that, the British supposedly didn't aim all of their 8 guns on the same spot, they sort of used an "open choke shotgun" pattern, losing the effect a concentrated pattern would have had. French pilots during the Battle of France had 6 7.5 mm machine guns and they reported having to close to 50 meters or less to bring down German bombers. They reported that closing to 50 meters brought them in range of the Germans defensive guns causing unnecessary losses. They reported that with heavy machine guns they could have brought them down from 200 yards and stayed out of effective range of the Germans defensive guns.

There was a reason for the British to have the 'open choke' spread in times - that will give more chances for the rookie pilots to score any hits. Cutting the combined rate of fire by 90% and cancelling the 'open choke' will mean far less hits for those pilots - not everybody was Sailor Malan.

During the BoB the ME109 was a 348 mph plane, the P36 was a 315 mph plane that could easily outturn anything in the battle, climb with the 109 and Spitfire and with a tough radial engine.

The Bf 109 pilot will not turn with anybody if he can help it, though it was no slouch in turning.
I'd kindly ask for hard data that will confirm that any P-36 will climb with 109(E?) and/or Spitfire.

 

[tomo pauk]

...
It seems to me, that the P-39's cannon could have been deleted and have, instead, 6 .50 MGs (two cowl and 4 in the wings).

With 6 HMGs and their heavy ammo, were back to the too heavy P-39.

And why so much armor for the pilot? There is an engine back there that makes a very handy piece of armor.

There was a plate to protect the oil tank - perhaps with just 3 BMGs in the nose the oil tank can be relocated in the nose, thus that armor can be deleted? Also cures the tail heaviness the P-39 was sometimes accused of.

Armor layout of the P-39: picture.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Finnish Forces - Finnish Curtiss P-36 Hawk

There some information to P 36 in Finnish use.

"In Finnish service, the Hawk was well-liked, affectionately called Sussu ("Sweetheart"). The Finnish Air Force enjoyed success with the type, credited with 190⅓ kills by 58 pilots, between 16 July 1941 and 27 July 1944, for the loss of 15 of their own."

Thanks for that post - again I think shows how underrated this aircraft was.

 

[fastmongrel]

"In Finnish service, the Hawk was well-liked, affectionately called Sussu ("Sweetheart"). The Finnish Air Force enjoyed success with the type, credited with 190⅓ kills by 58 pilots, between 16 July 1941 and 27 July 1944, for the loss of 15 of their own."

Thanks for that post - again I think shows how underrated this aircraft was.

I think it shows how good the Finnish Airforce were.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I think it shows how good the Finnish Airforce were.

It does and they were - but it would have been kind of hard achieving that record without the right equipment.

 

[tomo pauk]

Now that we're talking about the BoB, in the Hurricane variants article (here) at Wikipedia there couple of hits that landed wide from the mark, that I'd again ask kind people to rectify (the bolded part):

Lower down the situation was a little more even. The Rolls-Royce Merlin engine gave more power at low altitude than the Daimler-Benz DB 601 used in the Bf 109, on account of a different supercharger design. The DB601A-1 did not start to outperform the Merlin III and XII until above 15,000 ft (4,572 m).

Namely - the surplus power was due to higher boost used since the higher octane fuel was used; DB 601A didn't outperform the Merlin III, let alone the XII at altitude during the BoB.

 

[fastmongrel]

It does and they were - but it would have been kind of hard achieving that record without the right equipment.

I sometimes like to wonder what they could have done with Chain Home and all the planes, equipment and backup the RAF had. Never mind executing his generals after the Winter War debacle Stalin would have probably suffered severe lead poisoning himself.

Instead of the EU we might now be part of the FU (Finnish Union) though I doubt the Finns would f**k it up quite as convincingly as the EU has managed.

 

[pinsog]

Having only two .50 MGs is not making this much of a fighter.

The ability of the U.S. fighters to deliver such a heavy knockout punch to the Axis types was because of the multiple .50s, especially the P-38, that had centerline mounted MGs which didn't rely on convergence to maximize their effect.

It seems to me, that the P-39's cannon could have been deleted and have, instead, 6 .50 MGs (two cowl and 4 in the wings).

And why so much armor for the pilot? There is an engine back there that makes a very handy piece of armor.

3 gun fighter, 2 synchronized and 1 through the prop hub. Be nice if the US had a good 20 mm cannon at that time, 2 50's and 1 20mm through the hub with a lot of ammo would have been a great combination at that time. I think 6 50's would have been too heavy for the HP in 1941-1942

 

[pinsog]

I like the '3-gun' P-39 proposal.
The V-1710 E4, as installed in the P-39C/D, was making a bit more power than the DB 601A of the BoB vintage, so the problem was not so great. It beacames a big problem when requiring it to propel through the air the hefty gun battery and protection package, that includes both sheet metal and 2 times the BP glass. SO deleting of heavy items from the P-39 solves a good deal of the V-1710's altitude 'problem'.



Comparing the P-36 with the Hurricane model that is out of production before BoB ended is a damning with a faint praise. Hurricane IIa (8 .303s) was good for 342 mph at 22000 ft, and we can hope that a P-36 will equal that in 1941, once the 2-stage R-1830 is available in quantity..
The R-1830 never got water injection in ww2 to the best of my knowledge, so no WER for it.



There was a reason for the British to have the 'open choke' spread in times - that will give more chances for the rookie pilots to score any hits. Cutting the combined rate of fire by 90% and cancelling the 'open choke' will mean far less hits for those pilots - not everybody was Sailor Malan.



The Bf 109 pilot will not turn with anybody if he can help it, though it was no slouch in turning.
I'd kindly ask for hard data that will confirm that any P-36 will climb with 109(E?) and/or Spitfire.

I couldn't copy and paste the specific part of this, so go down until you get to the P36C data for climb.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-36/P-36_Operation_and_Flight_Instruction.pdf

I understand why they used the "open choke" aiming, but I still think it was a dumb idea based on a flawed concept. If they are having to close within 50 yards because 1. their guns suck 2. they can't hit anything Then let them close to within 50 yards with 2 synchronized 50's, at least a 50 will punch through a self sealing fuel tank and leave a big hole in both sides. At least a 50 will do critical damage to an engine. At least a 50 might punch through the pilots thin backseat armor.

Using that silly "open choke" spread with 30 caliber weapons against medium bombers with self sealing tanks and some armor would be like shooting buzzards with an open choke shotgun and #9 birdshot "Did you kill any?" "Not a single one, but I know a few pellets hit them"

 

[pinsog]

With 6 HMGs and their heavy ammo, were back to the too heavy P-39.



There was a plate to protect the oil tank - perhaps with just 3 BMGs in the nose the oil tank can be relocated in the nose, thus that armor can be deleted? Also cures the tail heaviness the P-39 was sometimes accused of.

Armor layout of the P-39: picture.

Agree with everything you say here.

 

[GrauGeist]

I find it interesting how the discussion has gone to great lengths to say the P-36 needed more MGs in order to increase it's effictiveness and yet, at the same time, the P-39 needs to reduce it's MGs (to less than the suggested P-36 enhancements) - in order to be more effective

 

[pinsog]

I find it interesting how the discussion has gone to great lengths to say the P-36 needed more MGs in order to increase it's effictiveness and yet, at the same time, the P-39 needs to reduce it's MGs (to less than the suggested P-36 enhancements) - in order to be more effective

On the P36, I said "delete all wing guns and only have 2 50's with 250 rounds each" So for a French P36 I am trading 6 7.5mm guns for 2 50 BMG's. On the American version, I am trading 5 30's and 1 50 for 2 50 BMG. I am definitely not adding more guns.

 

[GrauGeist]

The early P-36 had a single .30 and a single .50

The later configurations deleted the .30 and replaced it with a .50 and in some cases, the armament was as high as six .50 MG, which would prove to be a very effective and deadly combination on many types.

The P-39 only had four .50 MGs to start with and keep in mind that the cowl MGs only had 200 rounds per weapon as well as a slow RoF because of the syncronization. The wing mounted MGs had only 300 rounds per unit. The M4 37mm cannon was really not nessecary and could be omitted, retaining the 4 MGs and saving over 200 pounds.

If the P-39 were to have the wing MGs removed and a .50 put in the M4's place, you would have a fighter that is VERY lightly armed and next to worthless in a fight. What good is increasing the performance it it can't do anything when it gets there?

 

[pinsog]

The early P-36 had a single .30 and a single .50

The later configurations deleted the .30 and replaced it with a .50 and in some cases, the armament was as high as six .50 MG, which would prove to be a very effective and deadly combination on many types.

The P-39 only had four .50 MGs to start with and keep in mind that the cowl MGs only had 200 rounds per weapon as well as a slow RoF because of the syncronization. The wing mounted MGs had only 300 rounds per unit. The M4 37mm cannon was really not nessecary and could be omitted, retaining the 4 MGs and saving over 200 pounds.

If the P-39 were to have the wing MGs removed and a .50 put in the M4's place, you would have a fighter that is VERY lightly armed and next to worthless in a fight. What good is increasing the performance it it can't do anything when it gets there?

Of all the info I have on the P36, nothing mentions 6 50's. It starts out as 1 30 and 1 50, then 1 30 1 50 synchronized with 1 30 in each wing, then 1 30 1 50 synchronized and 2 30's in each wing. French planes had 6 7.5 mm guns. Nothing, nowhere ever mentions 6 50's on a P36.

The P39, if it had 2 synchronized 50's and 1 50 through the prop would be fine for nearly anything through 1942. In fact, except for the big 4 engined flying boat, it would be fine for anything in Japan until the end of the war. Dauntless dive bombers shot down several airplanes with just 2 50's synchronized through the prop. How many P38, P39, P40, Spitfires, Hurricanes, ect were shot down by KI43 Oscars with just 2 12.7mm guns firing through the prop? Zeros and early war ME109's had very limited cannon ammo and used synchronized LMG when they ran out of cannon rounds. I would rather have a slow firing 50 than any LMG.

Overloading of underpowered fighters is what troubled all the early war US fighter planes. As I stated at the beginning, I would rather be behind a 109 or a Zero with 2 synchronized 50's than be in front of him with 6 50's