What about a turbocharged P36?

[GregP]

One of the better fighters of the early war was the A6M Zero. It had 2 MG and 2 cannons. You could select cannons, MGs or both. Very many airplanes were shot down using only 2 guns by the Axis side. I'm not too suree why we couldn't do the same if the occasion arose.

I think the P-39 could have been good with a decent cannon, 2 cowling MGs of 50-cal / 7.62 mm, and a 2-stage supercharger. The Bf 109 seemed to manage just fine with similar armament on a lot of occasions.

The P-36 could have done just fine with 4 MGs of 50-cal or 2 MGs and 2 cannons.

 

[pinsog]

One of the better fighters of the early war was the A6M Zero. It had 2 MG and 2 cannons. You could select cannons, MGs or both. Very many airplanes were shot down using only 2 guns by the Axis side. I'm not too suree why we couldn't do the same if the occasion arose.

I think the P-39 could have been good with a decent cannon, 2 cowling MGs of 50-cal / 7.62 mm, and a 2-stage supercharger. The Bf 109 seemed to manage just fine with similar armament on a lot of occasions.

The P-36 could have done just fine with 4 MGs of 50-cal or 2 MGs and 2 cannons.

I would love to have seen the P39 with 2 synchronized 50's and a good RELIABLE 20mm cannon. Ditch most of the armor except for a 100 pound plate behind the pilot and add fuel tanks to the wings. Could have been a great asset.

I think 2 synchro 50's and may 2 50's in the wings of a P36 would be about all it needed to carry

 

[GrauGeist]

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.

I meant 6 MGs...my bad.
P-36A-3: 6 .30 MGs (two cowl, four wing)
There was a 50 pound difference between the .30 and the .50...so granted, 6 .30 MGs weighed 186 pounds, where 6 .50 MGs would weigh bout 500 pounds.

Personally, I always thought that 4 fifties (2 in each wing) would have been ideal.

There were several other multiple gun configurations either used or tested, both for the USAAC/USAAF and foreign customers.

This would include the 23mm Madsen trial on a P-36A

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

And how many times did an IJN fighter get on a Wildcat's tail and use all it's ammo trying to bring it down?

Let's be realistic here:
If the USAAF thought that two or three MGs would have been sufficient, then why was there 8 aboard the P-47?
Why did the USN feel that six .50 MGs were needed on their aircraft?

Having a couple fifties to peck away at an enemy because of "weight" and other excuses is not good logic.

The A6M's armament was a throwback to the 1930's ideology as was the early P-36 and the F2A and so on.

The Italians made some excellent aircraft, but they too, were lightly armed:
M.C200 with (2) 12.7mm in wings
M.C202 with (2) 12.7mm in the cowl and (2) 7.7mm in the wings

At least the G.55 was an improvement with it's (2) cowl 12.7mms and (3) 20mm cannon

 

[tomo pauk]

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

Thank you for the link, guess I'd should've remeber that Mike's site host it
The RoC for the P-36C shows 2150 fpm at 15 kft, and 1400 fpm at 20 kft; the Bf 109E has 2500 fpm at 15 kft and maybe 1980 fpm at 20 kft. The Spitfire I (eg. N.3171) was good for 2340 fpm at 15 kft, 1840 fpm at 20 kft, max boost (where available) +6.25 psi. Spitfire II is better by some 10% than the Mk.I.
At lower altitudes both P-36 versions are better than Bf 109, with P-36 using 100 oct fuel (moot point for the UK and US). The P-36 sports no protection here?
With both Spitfire and P-36 using 100 oct fuel I doubt that P-36 will come ahead.

On the other hand, we don't have data for the P-36 (B?) with -23 engine, that one should indeed come close to the RoC of the Bf 109E/Spit I at altitude, while loosing some RoC under 10000 ft.

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.

The concept sounds now silly, but methinks it was based good deal on the reality - it was claimed that most of the pilots were lousy shots, especially novices, in any air force. Having four, unsynchronised BMGs would perhaps make more sense than relying on just two, further slowed via synchronisation? The BMG of 1939-40 was not the BMG of 1944.

 

[tomo pauk]

...
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?

Dave, the P-39 started out with 2 HMGs and 2 LMGs, all four in the nose, firing synchronised, plus of course the cannon.
The 3 BMGs might impart a lasting impression on the pilots of fighter aircraft, at least from 1941 on when the BMG was at 800 rpm unsynchronised and maybe 550 synchronised.

 

[Lefa]

https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luettelo_Lentolaivue_32:n_ilmavoitoista_ja_sotatoimitappioista

There is a list squadron 32 gains and losses.

MT is Bf109 G6
FR is Fokker D XXI
HC is Hurricane
CU is Curtis
LG is Lagg 3

Squadron worked for 44 of the last month of summer assault against the enemy troops, that why the rest of the losses caused by the anti-aircraft defense.

 

[pinsog]

I meant 6 MGs...my bad.
P-36A-3: 6 .30 MGs (two cowl, four wing)
There was a 50 pound difference between the .30 and the .50...so granted, 6 .30 MGs weighed 186 pounds, where 6 .50 MGs would weigh bout 500 pounds.

Personally, I always thought that 4 fifties (2 in each wing) would have been ideal.

There were several other multiple gun configurations either used or tested, both for the USAAC/USAAF and foreign customers.

This would include the 23mm Madsen trial on a P-36A


And how many times did an IJN fighter get on a Wildcat's tail and use all it's ammo trying to bring it down?

Let's be realistic here:
If the USAAF thought that two or three MGs would have been sufficient, then why was there 8 aboard the P-47?
Why did the USN feel that six .50 MGs were needed on their aircraft?

Having a couple fifties to peck away at an enemy because of "weight" and other excuses is not good logic.

The A6M's armament was a throwback to the 1930's ideology as was the early P-36 and the F2A and so on.

The Italians made some excellent aircraft, but they too, were lightly armed:
M.C200 with (2) 12.7mm in wings
M.C202 with (2) 12.7mm in the cowl and (2) 7.7mm in the wings

At least the G.55 was an improvement with it's (2) cowl 12.7mms and (3) 20mm cannon

I read that the 23mm Madsen cannon was tried by the Finns but it cut the top speed from 310 or so down to about 280 or so, so they removed them.

I definitely would WANT more firepower than 2 synchronized 50's, as long as it wasn't at the expense of too much performance. But since the Allison powered P40 gained 1000 pounds with just the engine change maybe 2 synchronized 50's and 2 in the wings would be just fine in a P36.

Please remember that when the early Zeros and ME109's ran out of cannon ammo, 60 rpg, they both had 2 synchronized 30 caliber guns. Fuel tanks and pilots were VERY well protected against 30 caliber fire, that is why I would substitute as few as 2 fifties for as many as 6 30's. In the Battle of Midway, many of the Dauntless dive bombers returned to their carriers and the fuel tanks had MULTIPLE HITS from 30 caliber bullets, the fuel tanks still did not leak! In fact, in a report after the battle it was said if an airplane has hits in its self sealing fuel tank the tank needs to be filled up when the airplane lands because if the tank is left empty, the self sealing rubber will dry out and it will start leaking, putting the airplane out of service. I don't believe a Dauntless would have stood up to multiple 50 BMG through its fuel tanks and still got home. It would either have caught fire or the fuel would simple have drained out of the holes. I know the British scratched several German planes out of the air in the BoB with 30 caliber guns, but I think the kill rate would have been much higher with 4 50's.

Anyway, those are the reasons I think 2 synchronized 50's would be adequate at the beginning of the war, but if the P36 could carry them, then I would add 2 more wing 50's

 

[pinsog]

Thank you for the link, guess I'd should've remeber that Mike's site host it
The RoC for the P-36C shows 2150 fpm at 15 kft, and 1400 fpm at 20 kft; the Bf 109E has 2500 fpm at 15 kft and maybe 1980 fpm at 20 kft. The Spitfire I (eg. N.3171) was good for 2340 fpm at 15 kft, 1840 fpm at 20 kft, max boost (where available) +6.25 psi. Spitfire II is better by some 10% than the Mk.I.
At lower altitudes both P-36 versions are better than Bf 109, with P-36 using 100 oct fuel (moot point for the UK and US). The P-36 sports no protection here?
With both Spitfire and P-36 using 100 oct fuel I doubt that P-36 will come ahead.

On the other hand, we don't have data for the P-36 (B?) with -23 engine, that one should indeed come close to the RoC of the Bf 109E/Spit I at altitude, while loosing some RoC under 10000 ft.



The concept sounds now silly, but methinks it was based good deal on the reality - it was claimed that most of the pilots were lousy shots, especially novices, in any air force. Having four, unsynchronised BMGs would perhaps make more sense than relying on just two, further slowed via synchronisation? The BMG of 1939-40 was not the BMG of 1944.

I agree with what you said here. That -23 engine, available in 1939, looks like it would have made the P36 a real performer, wish we had climb data. Look at the climb rate from sea level to 15,000, very impressive. Did they improve the high altitude performance of the P&W 1830 over the -23 model between 1939 and 1941?

 

[pinsog]

Dave, the P-39 started out with 2 HMGs and 2 LMGs, all four in the nose, firing synchronised, plus of course the cannon.
The 3 BMGs might impart a lasting impression on the pilots of fighter aircraft, at least from 1941 on when the BMG was at 800 rpm unsynchronised and maybe 550 synchronised.

Agree with Tomo Pauk 100% on this

 

[tomo pauk]

I agree with what you said here. That -23 engine, available in 1939, looks like it would have made the P36 a real performer, wish we had climb data. Look at the climb rate from sea level to 15,000, very impressive. Did they improve the high altitude performance of the P&W 1830 over the -23 model between 1939 and 1941?

Yes, the power got a bit up with the -33, stated already in post #41 here, gain was some 50+ HP above 14500 ft. The R-1830-33 was installed in the P-66, among other A/C, giving decent performance, but nothing sparky. Please note that it is also an engine with supercharger driven via 2-speed gearing, meaning that the power will be decent also at lower altitude.
Similar engine was sometimes installed in the F4F (they also got the Cyclones), P&W could not churn out the needed quantity of the 2-stage R-1830s to meet the demand of the F4F airframe production until the end of 1942?

 

[buffnut453]

There's a book about Alexander de Seversky and it tells all about the P-35.

Coming late to this thread so have some catching up to do.

Joe, can you provide the title of the book? Sounds interesting. I continue to be amazed at the courage of the P-35 pilots in the Philippines flying against the Japanese...took a lot of guts!

 

[GrauGeist]

Coming late to this thread so have some catching up to do.

Joe, can you provide the title of the book? Sounds interesting. I continue to be amazed at the courage of the P-35 pilots in the Philippines flying against the Japanese...took a lot of guts!

You think tangling with the Japanese in a P-35 is impressive, how about the P-26 that successfully locked horns with the Japanese and actually held up well against the A5M, A6M and downed several bomber types.

 

[pinsog]

I would MUCH rather have been in a P36 than a P35 under those circumstances. In fact, I would have rather been somewhere else completely!

 

[GrauGeist]

I would MUCH rather have been in a P36 than a P35 under those circumstances. In fact, I would have rather been somewhere else completely!

A quick bit of off-topic trivia:
The air battles between the P-26 and the A5M over China were the world's first combat between all metal, monoplane fighters.

 

[fastmongrel]

Didn't know that fact. If I had been asked to guess I would said it was over Spain between I-16s and 109s

 

[GrauGeist]

Didn't know that fact. If I had been asked to guess I would said it was over Spain between I-16s and 109s

You would have been very close, as the Rata encountered the Bf109 not long after the P-26 clashed with Japanese elements, both events happening in 1937

 

[GregP]

I got a PM from one of the members asking whether I had worked on our P-40 and whether I had ever seen a P-36. As it happens one of our pilot / members runs a restoration business and his company recently finished a brand new baby P-36. It flew in our last airshow before being shipped off to the owner. I thiough a pic might be nice.

The engine was freshly overhauled and everything was new and shiny. It started and flew without issue the whole weekend and should be a reliable performer for the owner in the UK. They did a formation flyby with the P-36 leading our Seversky AT-12 / 2-PA. Here is a video of it.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fg_qy4hHHJE

Just FYI, they were doing passes because the aerobatic box was only open for the specific routines we had scheduled and this aircraft was a last-minute addition. Add to that the owner might not have cleared it on his insurance for aerobatic demos, public or private, and you can see why it was flybys only. We DID have aerobatic routines with warbirds, but not this one.

Typically it is with a Tigercat, Bearcat, P-51, P-38, Sea Fury, F-86, etc., though almost all of them have done it at one time or another. I've posted videos of the three F-86 show before in here.

 

[fastmongrel]

Cant beat the P&W sound 8)

 

[gjs238]

Wonder how it would perform with a V-1710 installed?
Oh, wait...

 

[GregP]

The P-40 flies just fine. What it needed was a 2-stage supercharger since the UASSC/F removed the turbo that was planned. A lot of people in here have questioned whether the turbo could have been installed in the airframe, but here we are in a thread about installing one in the exact same airframe with another engine up front. Go figure.

The same people have said what the P-40 need was a Merlin, but the P-40F/L HAD a Merlin and didn't do any better. Naturally, it was a single-stage Merlin. Again, go figure.

All of that history is why I'd opt for a 2-stage, supercharged radial, assuming I was there, had 20-20 hindsight, and anybody actually listened.