bobbysocks
Chief Master Sergeant
I saw a reference for a "long nose " version of the p36....what was that or did it even exist.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
- Thread starter
- #82
I think if you had installed the 2 speed 2 stage P&W 1830 in the P36 airframe, 4 50's max, 1 sheet of armor 100 pounds behind the pilots back and head and you would have had performance like the KI43 had. The last model of the KI43 maxed out at 358 mph with I think 1,180 hp. The P36 did not lose its handling at high speed like many other fighters. If it could do 358 mph at around 20,000 feet, it would have been a handful for any other fighter on the planet at the time
bobbysocks
Chief Master Sergeant
got to remember how all of that figures into weight and balance. you may need to add counter weight or shift something to bring it back to correct CoG or you may end up with some very unsavory flight characteristics.
fastmongrel
1st Sergeant
Was there any utility in using the R2180-A as a fighter engine for a P36
- Thread starter
- #85
Shouldn't be difficult balancing a P&W 1830, after all they hung an Allison V12 on the front and balanced it out
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
XP-37 = P-36 with a V-1710 installed
XP-42 = P-36 with an aerodynamic spinner and cowl designed to improve performance while retaining the R-1830 radial. This gave it the appearance of having a V-12.
The USAAC/F never removed the turbo from the original P-40 - it is hard to remove what was not present in the 1st place.
The P-40 came to life exactly because it sported plain vanilla V-1710 - no turbo V-1710, nor the 2-stage R-1830, as neither of the 2 was a viable powerplant in early 1939 when XP-40 won for the Army contract, against the XP-37, XP-38, XP-39, AP-4 and XP-41.
The only P-40 project with turbo was the XP-40H, that was in the design stage when IJN attacked P. Harbor. Curtiss got the contract to produce the P-47 (that they botched up miserably) and P-53/60 development contract(s), that never come to fruititon for one or another reason, the XP-40H got canned.
P-40 grow up as an overweight machine, and indeed not much is going to change when the 1-stage Merlin came aboard, though the speed and climb improved a bit over the P-30E, above 15000 ft. Both P-40E and F were about a ton (~2200 lbs) heavier than the Spitfire V, max weight but without external stores, while either having far less power, or thereabout. And we know that Spitfire V struggled vs. German opposition from mid 1941 on.
So indeed - unless the P-40 gets a considerable increae in engine power, preferably via the 2-stage Merlin or V-1710, it won't fare well vs. Luftwaffe. The lighweight P-40s, the ones in hands of AVG, flown by well trained pilots and using a primitive but workable early warning system, were capable to trash Ki-27s (no surprise) and IJA bombers, while not suffering vs. Ki-43.
The last model of Ki-43 have had 950-980 HP at ~20000 ft, same power as the 2-stage R-1830 that will be also a bit more draggier. The Soviet I-180 did, as a prototype, ~350 mph with engine giving 1000 HP at ~20000 ft, and it was a tiny aircraft.
~350 mph is great for 1939, very good in 1940, good in 1941, behind the curve in 1942. The 2-stage R-1830 is not available in 1939 in the shape size as it was in 1941.
If 4 HMGs, no bullet proof glass and no self-sealing tanks are the standard, there is no reason not to have the P-39/40/51 outfitted as such, outperforming the proposed P-36 by smaller or bigger margin.
Looks like the engine was a flop, at least the pre-war engine of that name. There were two P&W engines named as such, the post war R-2180 was basically half of the Wasp Major of 28 cylinders.
bobbysocks
Chief Master Sergeant
just a quick look at the 2 planes (P36 and P40 ) it looks like when they put the Allison on they moved the firewall to the rear...closer to the cockpit. it also looks like they extended the fuse and made it longer by 2 sections. that could just be an optical illusion between the pictures I was looking at.
GregP
Major
We've been over that before, Tomo. The designer's son says otherwise, and was around him for most of his life. Don Berlin left Curtiss in part because of frustration with not being allowed to make a better fighter. Most of the rest was probably due to inept Curtiss management coupled with good offers elsewhere.
With all due respect to the Mr. Berlin's son, he is mistaken on this one. There we have the talk of an eventually disgrunted Curtiss' employee, and unfortunately it is still a talk. The son was not there when USAF wen't shopping, nor he was at the Curtiss board of directors discussing what to offer, and they were muddling with two designs, plus the XP-40 in 1938/39 time frame.
The XP-37 was the 'turbo XP-40', and while it give some good insight to the people institutions involved, we all know how far that aircraft was away from the viable combat aircraft that was needed ASAP to the USAC/F.
The XP-37 was the 'turbo XP-40', and while it give some good insight to the people institutions involved, we all know how far that aircraft was away from the viable combat aircraft that was needed ASAP to the USAC/F.
GregP
Major
There are two possibilities. You are correct or you are incorrect.
The evidence presented in his talk convinces me the other way, but it never came to pass, and the situation is unlikely to change at this late date, so the end result is the same as if you are correct. In the end, the result is what shapes history, so your position is what people will no doubt believe, for the most part.
You would find one of his talks interesting. At least, I did.
The evidence presented in his talk convinces me the other way, but it never came to pass, and the situation is unlikely to change at this late date, so the end result is the same as if you are correct. In the end, the result is what shapes history, so your position is what people will no doubt believe, for the most part.
You would find one of his talks interesting. At least, I did.
wuzak
Captain
The P-40 came about because of the issues with the turbocharged P-37.
GregP
Major
True, but the P-37 was NEVER going to be a fighter. It was an experimental powerplant airframe. The cockpit was way too far back to be practical. That's one of the main reasons why they relocated the turbos on other U.S. planes to behind the cockpit. I'm definitely a tubocharger fan, but not especially of early efforts like WWII fighters. At that time, I believe multi-stage superchargers were the way to go.
In the end, they did just that with the Merlin in the P-51. I would like to have seen it in a P-63D with the bubble canopy. It never happened.
Looking just at airframes, a 2-stage Merlin in a Yak-3 might have been very interesting. Likewise a 2-stage Merlin in a Ki-61. But these are just pipe dreams and not anything realistic. The potential still makes me wonder a bit. Something as small as the shape and location of the carburetor airscoop on a Yak-3 makes 15 - 20 mph difference today. At least on the ones at Reno (not racing, but flying).
In the end, they did just that with the Merlin in the P-51. I would like to have seen it in a P-63D with the bubble canopy. It never happened.
Looking just at airframes, a 2-stage Merlin in a Yak-3 might have been very interesting. Likewise a 2-stage Merlin in a Ki-61. But these are just pipe dreams and not anything realistic. The potential still makes me wonder a bit. Something as small as the shape and location of the carburetor airscoop on a Yak-3 makes 15 - 20 mph difference today. At least on the ones at Reno (not racing, but flying).
Last edited:
wuzak
Captain
The P-37 showed them that it wasn't going to work too well - at least at that point in the turbo's evolution.
btw, it wasn't the turbocharger that caused the cockpit to be pushed back on the P-37 - it was the radiator and inter-cooler, both of which were mounted in the space between the engine and the cockpit. The turbocharger was mounted under the engine.
GregP
Major
Can't think of a better place for a turbocharger, right under an engine that leaks an occasional bit of oil. The Allison was assembled with Tightseal, and it sometimes weeps a small oil trail. Not much, but a few drips on the hot side of a turbo isn't a good way to keep and airplane in one piece.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #97
If your going to turboocharge something, turbocharge the P36. The B17 and P43 already had the bugs worked out, so turbocharge the P&W 1830, stick the turbo behind the pilot and now you have a plane that can outturn a Spitfire, radial engine toughness and 1200 hp up to 25,000 feet. You could have had this in production in 1940. The P43 flew in 1939.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #99
A turbocharged P36 was the original subject of this thread, we seemed to have talked about everything BUT a turbocharged P36. I wonder how much extra weight a turbocharger would add to the P36?
