Could the P36 have become America's Zero? (1 Viewer)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

I'm not going to argue that the P-36 was aerodynamically inferior to the P-40, just that the P-36 did not have as well-designed an engine installation as did many other radial-engined fighters, probably because it was one of the earlier ones, and did not get the kind of attention that was given to the F4F.

And there you have it. NOBODY had well designed radial installations in 1936-41 compared to what was being done in 1942-45. They were working on it, and working on it hard but it took time and a lot of failed experiments to get on the right path.
The timing for a good radial engine installation is "just" too late to have any real effect for a service aircraft in 1942 (FW 190 was the exception) To be in service in 1942 in numbers, it had to go into production in 1941 which means the design had to be finalized when in 1941?

It wasn't just a bit of clean-up in a wind tunnel that helped the F4F, it is the fact that the 2 stage engine used offered 1000hp at 19,000-20,000ft compared to the 600-630hp that the engine in the P-36 supplied.

A newer version of the two stage engine in the F4F did propel the P&W test Mule aircraft to over 380mph in the fall of 1942 but that is much too late to have any effect on the course of the war.

We are getting into what ifs like "what if" Curtiss could have used the P-51 wing and radiator in 1938 on the P-40?

The XP-42 is a P-36 airframe and went through something like 13-14 different cowls and engines with extended shafts and short shafts while they worked on reducing drag for air cooled engine WHILE still getting acceptable cooling. This all took time. Vultee tried the extended shaft engine and pointy nose on the first Vultee 48 (P-66) and had to give up on it.

Everybody KNEW there was a drag problem. A number of people were spending time and money on solving it. They did solve it, just not in time for 1942.
 
And there you have it. NOBODY had well designed radial installations in 1936-41 compared to what was being done in 1942-45. They were working on it, and working on it hard but it took time and a lot of failed experiments to get on the right path.
The timing for a good radial engine installation is "just" too late to have any real effect for a service aircraft in 1942 (FW 190 was the exception) To be in service in 1942 in numbers, it had to go into production in 1941 which means the design had to be finalized when in 1941?

It wasn't just a bit of clean-up in a wind tunnel that helped the F4F, it is the fact that the 2 stage engine used offered 1000hp at 19,000-20,000ft compared to the 600-630hp that the engine in the P-36 supplied.

A newer version of the two stage engine in the F4F did propel the P&W test Mule aircraft to over 380mph in the fall of 1942 but that is much too late to have any effect on the course of the war.

We are getting into what ifs like "what if" Curtiss could have used the P-51 wing and radiator in 1938 on the P-40?

The XP-42 is a P-36 airframe and went through something like 13-14 different cowls and engines with extended shafts and short shafts while they worked on reducing drag for air cooled engine WHILE still getting acceptable cooling. This all took time. Vultee tried the extended shaft engine and pointy nose on the first Vultee 48 (P-66) and had to give up on it.

Everybody KNEW there was a drag problem. A number of people were spending time and money on solving it. They did solve it, just not in time for 1942.

What is the BEST performing/most powerfull P&W engine that could have historically been installed in the P36 in late 1941 or early 1942 in time for the P36 to see combat at say Midway and Guadalcanal? What is your best guess on the performance of the P36 with your historical engine of choice with 2 synchronized 50's for armament?
 
What is the BEST performing/most powerfull P&W engine that could have historically been installed in the P36 in late 1941 or early 1942 in time for the P36 to see combat at say Midway and Guadalcanal? What is your best guess on the performance of the P36 with your historical engine of choice with 2 synchronized 50's for armament?
You'd be better off getting rid of the syncronized cowl weapons...too low of a rate of fire. Four .50 or six .30 wing-mounted MGs would be a better choice.
 
You'd be better off getting rid of the syncronized cowl weapons...too low of a rate of fire. Four .50 or six .30 wing-mounted MGs would be a better choice.

I would normally agree with you, especially in the european theater, but against Japanese fighters and single engine dive bombers and torpedo planes I don't think it would have been too much of an issue. My school of thought is with the limited amount of engine power available in 1941 and 1942: I would rather have 2 50's and be behind the Japanese fighter, than have 4 or 6 50's and he is behind me. Also, the SBD Dauntless only had 2 synchronized 50's, I know it was a dive bomber, but still. (Does anyone know the rate of fire of the Dauntless's synchronized guns?)
 
The main consideration for a higher rate of fire is to deliver more damge in a short amount of time. In a confrontation, it's good to be able to "pump some lead" into the adversary, but he usually had a buddy nearby so inflicting the maximum amount of damage in the shortest possible time was a key factor in survivability.

While the Dauntless was capable of putting up a fight against the Japanese (much to thier surprise), many did not survive.
 
The main consideration for a higher rate of fire is to deliver more damge in a short amount of time. In a confrontation, it's good to be able to "pump some lead" into the adversary, but he usually had a buddy nearby so inflicting the maximum amount of damage in the shortest possible time was a key factor in survivability.

While the Dauntless was capable of putting up a fight against the Japanese (much to thier surprise), many did not survive.

Again, I agree 100% with what your saying, but until the Hellcat and P38 came out I think our fighters were overgunned for their horsepower. Also, it is hard to "pump some lead" into your enemy if he is always behind you do to superior performance. Or in the case of the raids on Darwin, your heavily armed P40 can't even climb high enough or go fast enough at that altitude to get to the enemy bombers. Many P39, P40 and F4F's didn't survive either.
 
The main consideration for a higher rate of fire is to deliver more damge in a short amount of time. In a confrontation, it's good to be able to "pump some lead" into the adversary, but he usually had a buddy nearby so inflicting the maximum amount of damage in the shortest possible time was a key factor in survivability.

While the Dauntless was capable of putting up a fight against the Japanese (much to thier surprise), many did not survive.

I think that the USN's next-generation of attack aircraft, like the AD Skyraider and the AM Mauler, eschewed the gunner because of the resulting loss of performance and because they concluded that attack aircraft were, in general, too vulnerable to enemy fighters to manage without escort.
 
I think that the USN's next-generation of attack aircraft, like the AD Skyraider and the AM Mauler, eschewed the gunner because of the resulting loss of performance and because they concluded that attack aircraft were, in general, too vulnerable to enemy fighters to manage without escort.

AND the US Navy had established 100% air supremacy by the end of the war with swarms of Hellcats and Corsairs escorting strikes, so they may have thought they would never be in a situation where the bombers needed to defend themselves.
 
I keep posting this picture.

curtiss_75r.jpg


That is a picture of the Hawk 75 with TWO stage supercharger that was at the Army 1939 fighter trial. Please notice the duct/fairing under the plane about under cockpit. That is the fairing/duct for the inter cooler.

There is no such thing as a free lunch, You want the power of the F4F up high you pay the cost in weight, bulk and drag, which hurts performance down low.

The compromise is the single stage, two speed engine as used in the F4F-3A.

part of the problem with making an "American" Zero is that the Americans would never have bought an aircraft with the low structural strength of the Zero or it's low diving speed limit. The heavier structure means more weight so unless you really cut armament or fuel you will wind up with a heavier airplane.

As far as armament goes the two cowl 50s with 200rpg weigh about the same as six wing mounted .30 cal guns with 333 rpg ( 75% of the armament of a Hurricane I) that are firing almost 120 rounds per second instead of 15-16 rounds per second of the two cowl mounted .50s. Against the Japanese in 1942 who were using few or poorly protected fuel tanks and little, if any armor what does the .50 cal do for you?
 
I keep posting this picture.

View attachment 242960

That is a picture of the Hawk 75 with TWO stage supercharger that was at the Army 1939 fighter trial. Please notice the duct/fairing under the plane about under cockpit. That is the fairing/duct for the inter cooler.

There is no such thing as a free lunch, You want the power of the F4F up high you pay the cost in weight, bulk and drag, which hurts performance down low.

The compromise is the single stage, two speed engine as used in the F4F-3A.

part of the problem with making an "American" Zero is that the Americans would never have bought an aircraft with the low structural strength of the Zero or it's low diving speed limit. The heavier structure means more weight so unless you really cut armament or fuel you will wind up with a heavier airplane.

As far as armament goes the two cowl 50s with 200rpg weigh about the same as six wing mounted .30 cal guns with 333 rpg ( 75% of the armament of a Hurricane I) that are firing almost 120 rounds per second instead of 15-16 rounds per second of the two cowl mounted .50s. Against the Japanese in 1942 who were using few or poorly protected fuel tanks and little, if any armor what does the .50 cal do for you?

I despise RCM for fighters in WW2, BUT against the Japanese, I would say they would be acceptable if not VERY effective, especially against single engine fighters and dive bombers(Don't know how well it would work for the Betty)

P36 with the F4F-3A engine: either 2 50's or 6 30's, can you give a best guess on performance?

When I say "American Zero", it is the best way for me to characterize the P36 before we increased the weight by 30% or 40% and killed its climb rate and hurt its turning ability.
 
Your "despised RCM" seem to have worked moderately well for both the Germans and Japanese. The 109 E used two of them in cowl and it's 20mm guns ran out of ammo after about 8 seconds so the Germans did a fair amount of fighting with just the cowl guns. Same for the Zero, two rcmg in the cowl and two 20mm guns with just 55-60 rounds each in the wings. Quite a number victories after the cannon were empty. The Japanese army fighters in 1941/early 1942 used either two rcmgs or one rcmg and one 12.7.
The Italian 12.7mm guns used explosive bullets that the US guns did not have. They also may have had a better rate of fire when synchronized.

There is no reason I can think of that the Betty should be resistant to rcmg fire. One description has the ONLY armor on early versions as ONE piece about the size of a pancake protecting an ammo rack. The wing was practically one big fuel tank and NOT self sealing. Using a mixture of AP, tracer and incendiary ammunition multiple rcmgs should have little trouble setting it on fire.

Speed is rather dependent on the cowling, the difference in armament may be minor (more drag with 6 guns?) but the fasted figure I have seen for a "service" radial engine Hawk is under 330mph. Climb is more dependent on weight and that depends on protection and structure more than armament, unless you go nuts and try to fit 4 or more .50 cal guns.
 
Your "despised RCM" seem to have worked moderately well for both the Germans and Japanese. The 109 E used two of them in cowl and it's 20mm guns ran out of ammo after about 8 seconds so the Germans did a fair amount of fighting with just the cowl guns. Same for the Zero, two rcmg in the cowl and two 20mm guns with just 55-60 rounds each in the wings. Quite a number victories after the cannon were empty. The Japanese army fighters in 1941/early 1942 used either two rcmgs or one rcmg and one 12.7.
The Italian 12.7mm guns used explosive bullets that the US guns did not have. They also may have had a better rate of fire when synchronized.

There is no reason I can think of that the Betty should be resistant to rcmg fire. One description has the ONLY armor on early versions as ONE piece about the size of a pancake protecting an ammo rack. The wing was practically one big fuel tank and NOT self sealing. Using a mixture of AP, tracer and incendiary ammunition multiple rcmgs should have little trouble setting it on fire.

Speed is rather dependent on the cowling, the difference in armament may be minor (more drag with 6 guns?) but the fasted figure I have seen for a "service" radial engine Hawk is under 330mph. Climb is more dependent on weight and that depends on protection and structure more than armament, unless you go nuts and try to fit 4 or more .50 cal guns.

I certainly don't want to start a MG debate here, but I have often wondered if the reputation of American aircraft being tough was because the Germans and Japanese had run out of cannon rounds and sprayed them with RCM?

Is the 330 mph figure for the Hawk with the best P&W engine at the time? Did it have a 2 speed supercharger or single speed? Was the F4F-3 engine more powerful or rated at a higher altitude?
 
That is part of it but thousands of aircraft were shot down with rifle caliber machine guns. They are not ideal by any stretch but the American .50 has a bit of an over blown reputation. While it was fairly effective as a gun it had one rather major draw back and that was it's weight, both of the gun and it's ammunition. While four of them, mounted int the wings, can certainly be fairly effective they are firing 48-52 rounds per second, not 15-16 rounds per second of two cowl mounted guns.

To damage a plane, first you have to hit it and just two cowl mounted .50s don't have a very good hit potential. They are firing close to the number of projectiles per second as the 20mm cannon in the 109E or the Zero, except that each .50 cal projectile has much less effect than a 20mm projectile on average. Granted the .50 can fire longer.

I have given the figures of the for the P&W engines earlier.

Basically you have around 1000-1050 at around 6500ft (most single speed engines) or 1000-1050 at 13,100ft ( two speed engines in high gear) or 1000hp at 19,000ft (two stage engines). There are some minor variations but not enough to get too excited about. There may have been something not quite right with the P&W single stage supercharger. Some engines were restricted to 2550rpm in high gear instead of the 2700rpm they could run in low gear. Changing to high grade fuels often wasn't used to change the power output but to raise the full throttle height.


There is no real difference between the engine in an F4F-3 and a F4F-4. The -4 just gained weight. The early F4F-3 NOT having self sealing tanks or much for armor.

I said "fasted figure I have seen for a "service" radial engine Hawk is under 330mph." they are usually in the 323-326mph range.
 
To my knowledge, most of the opposition was IJA, but the IJN used China as a test bed for the A6M, and on occasion ran into the AVG. But at any rate, tactics against the Ki-43 are the same that work against the A6M.

I don't believe this is entirely true.
The Ki-43 and A6M behaved quite differently:
The A6M was faster the Ki-43 in their equivalent versions. The last version of the Ki-43 was a touch faster but did it with cosiderably more horsepower.
The roll rate of the A6M degraded much worse than the Ki-43 as speed increased. Even at very low airspeeds, the roll rate of the Ki-43 was superior.
The armament was simply different. The A6M had cannons but had very little ammunition for them until the late war versions came out.

- Ivan.
 
Was the P36 ever flown head to head against the F4F Wildcat in a mock dogfight?
 
Could the P36 have become America's Zero? - No

The P-36 was a delightful little aircraft and quite the dogfighter, but it never had the speed, rate of climb, range or altitude performance necessary to make it the kind of theater altering aircraft that the A6M did.

In 1940-1942 the Zero had several major advantages against its opponents. It was faster than the majority of them at medium to high altitudes, was more maneuverable than them at low to medium speeds, it climbed better than them across the altitude band and it generally had well trained and more combat experienced pilots. Its range was also a combat multiplier, allowing it to escort bombers or strike on its own without fear that its own bases (land or carrier) would be threatened.

The Zero's major opponents in the early war in the Pacific were the Hurricane and Buffalo with the RAF, the F4F and F2A-2/3s with the US Navy and the P-40B/C/E and P-39C/D with the USAAF. It also faced various Soviet types - predominately I-16s and I-153s - in early deployment testing.

Against this opposition it held all the cards in most forms of maneuvering combat. Any opponent that it couldn't out turn, it could easily outrun. Against the Western types, it could make tighter, faster circles and loops. It could out-climb them and actually accelerated as well as or better than most in a dive - the problem for the Zero not being dive acceleration, but limiting speed.

It also had better altitude performance than all the Western types bar the F4F, which was roughly its equivalent above 20,000 ft.

The P-36 had none of these advantages. It was probably as nice a dogfight aircraft as the early F2As, but lacked some of their pace. Both the Buffalo and the P-36 had problems hitting their advertised speeds. The French found their Hawk 75s with R-1820s had problems with engine cooling and oiling the limited their time at full power and imposed restrictions on combat maneuvers (such as going inverted and performing steep dives).

Lateral control, turning ability and roll rate was better than the Hurricane I or Spitfire I. However, the Spitfire, with a 30-40 mph speed advantage at most heights, could engage or disengage combat at will, meaning that the pilot could dictate the fight.

This speed disadvantage is the key distinction between the P-36's potential and the A6Ms potential. Without at least parity in speed, the P-36 is going to suffer against first line opposition like the Bf 109 or A6M.

What you'd see is what happened to the A6M. Once it lost that speed parity as newer fighters entered the Pacific theater (P-38, F6F, F4U ect) it quickly went from a hunter to a target.
 
Last edited:
AND the US Navy had established 100% air supremacy by the end of the war with swarms of Hellcats and Corsairs escorting strikes, so they may have thought they would never be in a situation where the bombers needed to defend themselves.

While it's true that the USN had established total air superiority by the time the AD and AM saw service, and these aircraft rarely faced fighter opposition in service, the design history of these aircraft, including the choice of a single seat, dated back to 1943. I also suspect that the USN and USMC aviators who were involved in writing the specs for these aircraft did not forget the days they didn't have air supremacy: they used OR and found that the gunners saved too few aircraft to justify their presence. It was, overall, more effective to escort the strike aircraft than to have gunners.

I think that operations research found something similar with the heavily armed USAAF bombers in Europe: without escort, the gunners could not save enough aircraft to justify their presence. Once long-range escorts were available, removing the ball gunner and the waist gunners from B-17s and B-24s would probably have resulted in fewer USAAF crew casualties. (Logic? a: the ball and waist gun installation and gunners probably added something on the order of a 1500 pounds to the aircraft's take off weight, which was probably something like 25% of the bomb load on a long mission, so removing these guns and their crew would permit fewer sorties for the same effect on target, which means that the Luftwaffe gets fewer targets, and the aircraft they shoot down have smaller aircrews, so even if the number of aircraft shot down increases, the total number of casualties is less, or, if the same number of sorties is flown, more targets can be selected or they can be hit more often, b: since the same number of escorts would be available, the escorts may be more effective. Clearly, this logic does not apply if escorts cannot be provided).

Again, the entire chain of logic depends on the availability of sufficient escorts. One of the changes the USN made to its carrier air groups pretty early was increasing the ratio of fighters to strike aircraft, probably because they had found they had over-estimated the effectiveness of the gunners.
 
The US had decided in 1940 that planes without armor and self sealing tanks would be used as operational trainers. So ANY operational aircraft against the Japanese either carry that weight penalty or need the decision changed.

The P-36 was built to a higher load (G) factor and so had a heavier structure. Later Zeros improves their dive speed by using thicker (heavier) wing skin panels.

The American planes were cursed with the .50 cal MG. The Zero carried about 120kg of guns and ammo. the Ki 43 carried 70kg, the 109E carried 149kg, A P-40C carried over 230kg ( perhaps well over). There were experimental P-36s with two .50s and two .30s and two .50s and four .30s. Two .50 cal guns with 200rpg is 122kg.

When you are designing a plane the payload was about 30% of the gross weight, give or take a few percent. Changing the gun/ammo load by 100kg could change the gross weight of the rubber (paper drawing) airplane by 300kg. ( heavier structure/larger wing/bigger landing gear,etc) It never quite works this practice because you have to pick an existing engine and other parts and not one scaled perfectly to the payload but that is the start of things. Once you have the plane built however, you cannot take out some of the payload AND the up-sized structure/landing gear, etc.

The P-36/Hawk 75 was never going to be as light as the Zero. It could have been improved a bit but like I keep saying, every P-36 built is a P-40 NOT BUILT. A P-40 with sensible armament and proper tactics should be able to counter the zero.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back