P-40 Warhawk/Kittyhawk

[Clay_Allison]

Originally Posted by davebender

Why was ANY American aircraft equipped with the Allison rather than the superior RR Merlin engine?

Allisons were in fact available in quantity, and it was not a bad engine in its' own right. I'd say the late Allison mark that powered the P-82 Twin Mustang was as good as any Merlin. The real question is why the stupid USAAF delayed domestic development of a good two-stage supercharger.

[Clay_Allison]

Originally Posted by davebender

Will it fit? The R2600 radial is relatively large and heavy.

R1830 twin radial.
48.03 in diameter.
1,250 lb dry weight.

R2600 twin radial.
55 in diameter.
2,045 lb dry weight.

Allison V1710 liquid cooled V12.
41.18 in height.
1,445 lb dry weight.

A later mark of 1830 would have been fine, it developed 1200 horsepower in the F4F with the -86.

The P-40 was ridiculously overweight for a fighter. It was a ground attack plane with some self defense capability from the beginning.

If the P-36 had been given later marks of engine and not overarmored so badly it might have been a better performer than the P-40 in fighter vs. fighter duels.

[Elvis]

Originally Posted by davebender

Sounds good to me.

However you still need to make the P36 more aerodynamic if you want it to have a higher top speed. Otherwise you will only improve the acceleration and rate of climb.

True, thus my comments on aerodynamics.
...maybe if you used the big R-1340/R-2000 cylinders with the bottom end of the R-1535.
This would create an "R-1886" (possibly rounded up to "R-1890", for publications sake).
I know the Twin Wasp Jr. was about 6" narrower than the Twin Wasp, so if the fueslage was left alone, this would mean the cowling could be built in a more conical shape, aiding aerodynamics.
How much of a difference it would make overall?
I don't know.



Elvis

[archerynut]

later in the development, like after they moved the machine guns from the cowling to the wings, i read they added almost 200 pounds of armour to the airplane, around the cockpit area. what would this have been? like heavy steel plating or something else bullet/shrapnel resistant?

[Waynos]

Was the PW radial suitable for a Fw190/Sea Fury style close cowl? That was found to be the most aerodynamic way to cowl a big radial, maybe a model project in there?

[tomo pauk]

Originally Posted by delcyros

The added weight is IN FRONT OF THE COG. Removing weight from BEHIND OF THE COG does make things worser! You need to elongate the hull and install dead weights (armour?) as far aft as possible to counter this. Or You move the wing forward.
Remember also that it´s engine dry weight, not netto weight increases. The support frames needs to be enforced to cope with the heavier loads and torque effects produced by the larger engine, too.

Sorry if I haven't make myself clear (English is not my 1st language). The point was to put more armor & fuel tanks behind pilot, and remove the radio further back.

[davebender]

Like the Me-109 and Spitfire, the P-36 was a light weight fighter. There are limits as to how much armor and firepower you can add, unless you want to drastically reduce performance.

I think that a 375 mph P-36 armed with 4 x .50cal MGs would be good for Pacific service. It compares well with most Japanese fighter aircraft (both army and navy) and has adequate firepower for the job. Certainly better then both the naval F4F and army P-40.

[HellToupee]

There were p-36s with more powerful engines 1200hp brits received a few called em Mohawks

[tomo pauk]

Originally Posted by davebender

Like the Me-109 and Spitfire, the P-36 was a light weight fighter. There are limits as to how much armor and firepower you can add, unless you want to drastically reduce performance.

I think that a 375 mph P-36 armed with 4 x .50cal MGs would be good for Pacific service. It compares well with most Japanese fighter aircraft (both army and navy) and has adequate firepower for the job. Certainly better then both the naval F4F and army P-40.

Both Spit and 109 ended up with 2000 HP on board, so, while adding MGs and armor, we also add the power.
I agree that a more moderate approach (1200HP and 4 HMGs) would serve it's purpose though.

Here is the uber P-36/40, the XP-60:
Curtiss P-60 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It's combat performance was under 1944 standards.

[Elvis]

I think a ground attack / second line fighter role would've probably been the best scenario for the P-36.
Minimal structure mods could've allowed it to carry a sizeable bomb/rocket load, and 4-50's would work well to back all those munitions up.
FWIW, I guess some P-36's actually made it into service, mostly with foreign nations.
In that case, I think the "best" engine it could've been outfitted with would've been a Wright Cyclone, as it seems a few copies were already being built in foreign countries, so there would've been an alternate supply of engines (besides us).

Interesting article on the P-60, Tomo. Thanks for posting the link.



Elvis

[Elvis]

Originally Posted by archerynut

later in the development, like after they moved the machine guns from the cowling to the wings, i read they added almost 200 pounds of armour to the airplane, around the cockpit area. what would this have been? like heavy steel plating or something else bullet/shrapnel resistant?

Thin armour plating, which is essentially very heavy, very dense steel.
I used up an entire brand new 12" "Cuts-All" wheel (mounted on a chop saw) on one, one time, and barely scratched the surface.


Elvis

[davebender]

Fact Sheets : Curtiss XP-42 : Curtiss XP-42
The P-42 is more what I have in mind. Improve the aerodynamics and engine HP without doubling the aircraft weight and tripling the aircraft cost. With a bit more effort the cooling problems could have been fixed in a manner similiar to the German Fw-190.

[Clay_Allison]

Originally Posted by Waynos

Was the PW radial suitable for a Fw190/Sea Fury style close cowl? That was found to be the most aerodynamic way to cowl a big radial, maybe a model project in there?

They tried that with a bunch of different designs and they couldn't make it work.

The cowling didn't significantly reduce drag and the engine had continuing cooling problems even though numerous cowlings were tested.

[Elvis]

FWIW, here's some basic data on the P-36...

Specifications: Curtiss P-36G Hawk / Mohawk
Dimensions:
Length: 28.51ft (8.69m)
Width: 37.01ft (11.28m)
Height: 9.25ft (2.82m)
Performance:
Max Speed: 322mph (518kmh; 280kts)
Max Range: 650miles (1,046km)
Rate-of-Climb: 2,500ft/min (762m/min)
Ceiling: 32,349ft (9,860m; 6.1miles)
Structure:
Accommodation: 1
Hardpoints: 1
Empty Weight: 4,676lbs (2,121kg)
MTOW: 5,880lbs (2,667kg)
Power:
Engine(s): 1 x Wright R-1820-G205A Cyclone piston radial engine generating 1,200hp.
Weapons:
4 x 7.62mm machine guns
2 x 12.7mm machine guns

I read that there was one or two test aircraft put together that was armed with one 23mm cannon on each wing (along with one .30 and one .50 MG mounted in the nose), so it may be that the military was considering a ground attack variation at one time.
Personally, I think two 50's in each wing may have proved more useful, if you consider the alternate "second line fighter" role it could've been pressed into, as well.



Elvis

[JoeB]

Originally Posted by Elvis

FWIW, here's some basic data on the P-36...


I read that there was one or two test aircraft put together that was armed with one 23mm cannon on each wing (along with one .30 and one .50 MG mounted in the nose), so it may be that the military was considering a ground attack variation at one time.

Thailand's Hawk 75N export versions had the 23mm cannon; also fixed undercarriage so somewhat slower. They saw air combat action against French Ms406's in the Thai-French war of 1940-41.



Joe