P-40 Warhawk/Kittyhawk

[davebender]

Curtiss Hawk 75A-3 (P36G)
According to the above flight simulator site, which may or may not be accurate, the P-36 was very maneuverable at both slow and high speed. However it was slow and had a poor rate of climb.

The P-40 had a decent top speed. However it still had a poor rate of climb and was less maneuverable then the P-36. The self sealing fuel tanks are nice. But this is offset by the liquid cooled engine being inheritly more vulnerable.

At $23,000 each the P-36 cost 38% the price of a P-40 and 17% the price of a P-38. With a production cost that low it could become the ultimate Lend-Lease fighter aircraft. Produce 1,000 per month and give them to everyone in the Pacific except Japan. It is one of the few aircraft that can dog fight with the Japanese A6M, Ki-27 and Ki-43.

[MikeGazdik]

Originally Posted by davebender

Curtiss Hawk 75A-3 (P36G)

At $23,000 each the P-36 cost 38% the price of a P-40 and 17% the price of a P-38. With a production cost that low it could become the ultimate Lend-Lease fighter aircraft. Produce 1,000 per month and give them to everyone in the Pacific except Japan. It is one of the few aircraft that can dog fight with the Japanese A6M, Ki-27 and Ki-43.

But who will make them? Curtiss was maxxed out, which is why North American was approached to build them.

[davebender]

Build a new state of the art factory. Just like we did for the production of so many other aircraft models.

[Elvis]

Originally Posted by MikeGazdik

But who will make them? Curtiss was maxxed out, which is why North American was approached to build them.

...on top of that, the Brewster F2A-1 was a more maneuverable airplane, had a better climb rate and was better armed.....plus I think the U.S. government was more willing to "lease" those, than the P-36's, if for no other reason than Brewster was kind of a pain in the government's rear end.
The relationship with Curtiss was older and much better.

Also, here's something that might warm davebender's heart just a little.
A summary of how the P-36 fared in service to Finland...

Originally Posted by Warbirds Resource Group

Finland

After the fall of France, Germany agreed to sell captured Curtiss Hawk fighters to Finland in October 1940. In total, 44 captured aircraft of five subtypes were sold to Finland with three deliveries from 23 June 1941 to 5 January 1944. Not all were from the French stocks, but some were initially sold to Norway and captured in their wooden crates when the Germans conquered the country. The aircraft were given serial codes CU-551 to CU-585.

In Finnish service, the Hawk was well-liked, affectionately called Sussu ("Sweetheart"). The Finnish Air Force enjoyed success with the type, credited with 190 1/3 kills by 58 pilots, between 16 July 1941 and 27 July 1944, for the loss of 15 of their own. Finnish ace Kyösti Karhila scored 13 1/4 of his 32 victories in the Hawk, while the top Hawk ace K. Tervo scored 15 3/4 victories. The Hawks were flown by Lentolaivue 32 throughout their wartime operational service.

The Finnish Hawks were initially armed with either four or six 7.5 mm machine guns. While sufficient during the early phase of Continuation War, the increasing speeds and armor of Soviet aircraft soon showed this armament was not powerful enough. From 1942 the State Aircraft Factory replaced the fuselage machine guns with either one or two 12.7 mm Colt machine guns and installed two or four 7.7 mm Browning machine guns to each wing. The 12.7 mm Berezin UB or LKk/42 heavy machine guns were also used. The installation of heavier armament did not cause changes to the very good flying characteristics of the fighter but the armament was much more powerful against Soviet planes. The Finnish Hawks were also equipped with Revi 3D or C/12D gunsight.

Surviving Finnish aircraft remained in service with the FAF aviation units HLeLv 13, HLeLv 11 and LeSK until 1948.

So it seems the P-36 was used successfully by, at least some of, the foreign nations it flew under.
That being stated, though, the Finns were known to prefer the Brewsters over the Mohawks.



Elvis

[Elvis]

Originally Posted by JoeB

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

Hey, thanks Joe!
Cool pic of the bird, too.


Elvis

[Elvis]

Originally Posted by davebender

Build a new state of the art factory. Just like we did for the production of so many other aircraft models.

Dave,

Other than North American (P-51) and Boeing (B-17), who else did that?...and for what aircraft?
Sounds like a lot, but I'm only aware of those two.



Elvis

[FLYBOYJ]

The Hawk 75A IMO was one of the most under-rated fighters of WW2. Although it was said to be "slow," compare it to early Bf 109s, Hurricanes and Spitfires. From wiki, take it for what it's worth.

On 8 September 1939, aircraft from Groupe de Chasse II/4 were credited with shooting down two Luftwaffe Messerschmitt Bf 109Es, the first Allied air victory of World War II on the Western front. During 1939–1940, French pilots claimed 230 confirmed and 80 probable victories in H75s against only 29 aircraft lost in aerial combat. Of the 11 French aces of the early part of the war, seven flew H75s. The leading ace of the time was Lt. 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 to seven shot down American planes. From late 1942 on, the Allies started re-equipping French units formerly under Vichy and the H75s were replaced by P-40s and P-39s.

In Finnish service, the Hawk was well-liked, affectionately called Sussu ("Sweetheart"). The Finnish Air Force enjoyed success with the type, credited with 190 1/3 kills by 58 pilots, between 16 July 1941 and 27 July 1944, for the loss of 15 of their own.[2] Finnish ace Kyösti Karhila scored 13 1/4 of his 32 victories in the Hawk, while the top Hawk ace K. Tervo scored 15 3/4 victories. The Hawks were flown by Lentolaivue 32 throughout their wartime operational service.

[MikeGazdik]

I think the P-36 and P-40 are both quickly and wrongly forgotten when speaking of fighters.

Both of these aircraft performed quite well, considering in almost all cases they were out-numbered, flown by less experienced pilots , and were flown when either poor tactics were used, or good tactics were only being discovered.

The scars and failures learned with (but not neccessarily the fault of )both of these planes, contributed to even better designs and tactics. That coupled with the reversal of pilot expererience and numbers, made the Allies later aircraft appear much better then they were.

If we gauged the Me 109 the same way, it would be considered an utter and complete failure. It lost the war, it couldn't stop the bombers, the alllied fighters shot it down in droves. But we know that is not true. It was a brilliant fighter with some deficiencies, I think, the same as the Curtiss Warhawk.

[HoHun]

Hi Dave,

>Curtiss Hawk 75A-3 (P36G)

>According to the above flight simulator site, which may or may not be accurate, the P-36 was very maneuverable at both slow and high speed. However it was slow and had a poor rate of climb.

Hm ... this site says "The Bf109E4 is faster than you by about 20kph", but I don't think the Hawk was so fast (or the Me 109E-4 so slow) that this could be realistic.

Here is an analysis of the Hawk I prepared a while back ...

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Clay_Allison]

Vultee could have made cheap P-36s under license for lend lease, Brewster could make Buffaloes for lend lease. One used the P&W Twin Wasp, the other used the Wright Cyclone 9, so there was a niche for both.

[Elvis]

Originally Posted by HoHun

Hi Dave,

>Curtiss Hawk 75A-3 (P36G)

>According to the above flight simulator site, which may or may not be accurate, the P-36 was very maneuverable at both slow and high speed. However it was slow and had a poor rate of climb.

Hm ... this site says "The Bf109E4 is faster than you by about 20kph", but I don't think the Hawk was so fast (or the Me 109E-4 so slow) that this could be realistic.

Here is an analysis of the Hawk I prepared a while back ...

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

HoHun,

Forgive me if this sounds like a silly question, but what is the line running through the graph represent?
It doesn't seem to corresspond with the plots.


Elvis

[HoHun]

Hi Elvis,

>Forgive me if this sounds like a silly question, but what is the line running through the graph represent?
>It doesn't seem to corresspond with the plots.

The line is the performance I calculated for the Hawk 75C powered by the R-1830-17, running at 2700 rpm.

It is calibrated to the coresponding data point from T.O. 01-25CB-1 - as the other data point from that source is for another power setting, that one is not on the line.

The line also runs close to another data point for P-36A and C with the same engine.

The other data points are for differently-engined Hawk variants so they cannot be expected to coincede with the calculated performance line.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Elvis]

Ah, I see now.
Thanks for explaining that.

...and since I'm here...

Originally Posted by Clay Allison

Vultee could have made cheap P-36s under license for lend lease, Brewster could make Buffaloes for lend lease. One used the P&W Twin Wasp, the other used the Wright Cyclone 9, so there was a niche for both.

I don't know about Vultee, but that's the very reason why Brewster and the US Government ended up on bitter terms.
Brewster kept promising to fill the orders, but could never deliver.
Maybe, if the Government had owned the Buffalo design (like what they did with the Jeep), Vultee could've been brought in to help produce the plane for sale/lease to foreign markets (thus a "Brewster / Vultee Buffalo" would've existed), along with the P-36, but Brewster, as the sole manufacturer, seemed to have a hard time actually producing the design in the numbers the military needed.
This could've eventually led to the two companies coming together, to create one "new" company, who's job would've been to produce planes (and maybe other munitions) for foreign sales / lease.
...and this probably would've included some P-40 manufacture, as well.
Of course, with the demand for "US-use-only" items needed so desperately, I feel that may have been only part of what they would've been doing.

So maybe, "B-V Aviation", or "Brew-Tee", or maybe even, "Vulster" might have a been name that would now be remembered as one of the manufacturers that helped with the war effort during those years...had this actually happened.


Elvis

[renrich]

I believe the Willow Run factory was built by Ford to build B24s. GM may have built a factory to build FM2s and TBMs and Goodyear also to build Corsairs.

[renrich]

Mike the F4F was the same vintage fighter as the P40 and was flown by pilots in the beginning with no combat experience but acquitted itself well against tough competition.