Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Shifty on February 14, 2011, 08:47:28 PM
-
After the USSR Japanese Italian and French planesets are beefed up of course. ;)
It's not a world beater by any means and would have no place in the LWA. However in the EW SEA and AVA it would be very useful.
The P-36.
General characteristics
Crew: One
Length: 28 ft 6 in (8.7 m)
Wingspan: 37 ft 4 in (11.4 m)
Height: 8 ft 5 in (2.6 m)
Wing area: 235.94 ft² (21.92 m²)
Empty weight: 4,567 lb[14] (2,076 kg)
Loaded weight: 5,650 lb (2,560 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 6,010 lb[14] (2,732 kg)
Powerplant: 1× Pratt & Whitney R-1830-17 Twin Wasp air-cooled radial piston engine, 1,050 hp (783 kW)
Performance
Maximum speed: 313 mph (272 knots, 500 km/h) at 8,500 ft, 2,960 m
Cruise speed: 270 mph (235 knots, 432 km/h)
Range: 625 mi (543 nmi, 1,006 km) at 270 mph (419 km/h), 860 mi (748 nmi, 1,385 km) at 200 mph
Service ceiling: 32,700 ft (9,967 m)
Rate of climb: 3,400 ft/min (17 m/s)
Wing loading: 23.9 lb/ft² (116.8 kg/m²)
Power/mass: 0.186 hp/lb (306w/kg)
Armament
1 × 0.30 in (7.62 mm) M1919 Browning machine gun
1 × 0.50 in (12.7 mm) M2 Browning machine gun
Used by various Air Forces early in the war both Axis and Allied.
(http://www.gaetanmarie.com/images/p36/p36-001.jpg)
(http://www.gaetanmarie.com/images/p36/p36-002.jpg)
(http://www.gaetanmarie.com/images/p36/p36-003.jpg)
(http://www.gaetanmarie.com/images/p36/p36-007.jpg)
(http://www.gaetanmarie.com/images/p36/p36-008.jpg)
(http://www.gaetanmarie.com/images/p36/p36-010.jpg)
(http://www.gaetanmarie.com/images/p36/p36-018.jpg)
(http://www.gaetanmarie.com/images/p36/p36-019.jpg)
-
It's certainly not fast, but its power loading is .18, the same as the P-51, and the 3,400fpm climb figure seems to bear this at. IOW, it has a great climb for an EW aircraft. And this with a wing-loading of 23 lbs/foot. I can see this actually being flown for the performance.
After the USSR Japanese Italian and French planesets are beefed up of course. ;)
It's not a world beater by any means and would have no place in the LWA. However in the EW SEA and AVA it would be very useful.
The P-36.
General characteristics
Crew: One
Length: 28 ft 6 in (8.7 m)
Wingspan: 37 ft 4 in (11.4 m)
Height: 8 ft 5 in (2.6 m)
Wing area: 235.94 ft² (21.92 m²)
Empty weight: 4,567 lb[14] (2,076 kg)
Loaded weight: 5,650 lb (2,560 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 6,010 lb[14] (2,732 kg)
Powerplant: 1× Pratt & Whitney R-1830-17 Twin Wasp air-cooled radial piston engine, 1,050 hp (783 kW)
Performance
Maximum speed: 313 mph (272 knots, 500 km/h) at 8,500 ft, 2,960 m
Cruise speed: 270 mph (235 knots, 432 km/h)
Range: 625 mi (543 nmi, 1,006 km) at 270 mph (419 km/h), 860 mi (748 nmi, 1,385 km) at 200 mph
Service ceiling: 32,700 ft (9,967 m)
Rate of climb: 3,400 ft/min (17 m/s)
Wing loading: 23.9 lb/ft² (116.8 kg/m²)
Power/mass: 0.186 hp/lb (306w/kg)
Armament
1 × 0.30 in (7.62 mm) M1919 Browning machine gun
1 × 0.50 in (12.7 mm) M2 Browning machine gun
Used by various Air Forces early in the war both Axis and Allied.
(http://www.gaetanmarie.com/images/p36/p36-001.jpg)
(http://www.gaetanmarie.com/images/p36/p36-002.jpg)
(http://www.gaetanmarie.com/images/p36/p36-003.jpg)
(http://www.gaetanmarie.com/images/p36/p36-007.jpg)
(http://www.gaetanmarie.com/images/p36/p36-008.jpg)
(http://www.gaetanmarie.com/images/p36/p36-010.jpg)
(http://www.gaetanmarie.com/images/p36/p36-018.jpg)
(http://www.gaetanmarie.com/images/p36/p36-019.jpg)
-
After the USSR Japanese Italian and French planesets are beefed up of course. ;)
It's not a world beater by any means and would have no place in the LWA. However in the EW SEA and AVA it would be very useful.
The P-36.
General characteristics
Crew: One
Length: 28 ft 6 in (8.7 m)
Wingspan: 37 ft 4 in (11.4 m)
Height: 8 ft 5 in (2.6 m)
Wing area: 235.94 ft² (21.92 m²)
Empty weight: 4,567 lb[14] (2,076 kg)
Loaded weight: 5,650 lb (2,560 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 6,010 lb[14] (2,732 kg)
Powerplant: 1× Pratt & Whitney R-1830-17 Twin Wasp air-cooled radial piston engine, 1,050 hp (783 kW)
Performance
Maximum speed: 313 mph (272 knots, 500 km/h) at 8,500 ft, 2,960 m
Cruise speed: 270 mph (235 knots, 432 km/h)
Range: 625 mi (543 nmi, 1,006 km) at 270 mph (419 km/h), 860 mi (748 nmi, 1,385 km) at 200 mph
Service ceiling: 32,700 ft (9,967 m)
Rate of climb: 3,400 ft/min (17 m/s)
Wing loading: 23.9 lb/ft² (116.8 kg/m²)
Power/mass: 0.186 hp/lb (306w/kg)
Armament
1 × 0.30 in (7.62 mm) M1919 Browning machine gun
1 × 0.50 in (12.7 mm) M2 Browning machine gun
Used by various Air Forces early in the war both Axis and Allied.
(http://www.gaetanmarie.com/images/p36/p36-001.jpg)
(http://www.gaetanmarie.com/images/p36/p36-002.jpg)
(http://www.gaetanmarie.com/images/p36/p36-003.jpg)
(http://www.gaetanmarie.com/images/p36/p36-007.jpg)
(http://www.gaetanmarie.com/images/p36/p36-008.jpg)
(http://www.gaetanmarie.com/images/p36/p36-010.jpg)
(http://www.gaetanmarie.com/images/p36/p36-018.jpg)
(http://www.gaetanmarie.com/images/p36/p36-019.jpg)
I'd fly it
-
Kinda looks like a jug
-
Kinda looks like a jug
A-cup ;)
-
A-cup ;)
But would it. Be 34 acup of 36acup
-
I like the way you are thinking, Shifty! Diversity on plan sets.
-
i would fly it, would probably have to ram someone to kill em though :joystick:
-
It would be good for scenarios, but if that is the next American fighter you'll have some seriously bummed P-61 fans.
How much structure does it share with the P-40?
-
Great minds think alike Shifty :aok You must be getting a bit slower in your old age though. I brought up the "Mohawk" a few days ago in my updated wishlist thread for all the same reasons :)
-
Those aircraft seem to have two different nose designs eh?
-
I really hope we'll get it when the P-40 gets remodelled! I wouldn't even really call it American in the context of AH/WWII. It was obviously American made but it saw almost all of its action in the foreign air forces. I think it should have French default skin and be listed under French in the aircraft listing.
It is my #1 favourite for several reasons!
It's certainly not fast, but its power loading is .18, the same as the P-51, and the 3,400fpm climb figure seems to bear this at. IOW, it has a great climb for an EW aircraft. And this with a wing-loading of 23 lbs/foot. I can see this actually being flown for the performance.
Normal take-off weight with full fuel and ammo for Hawk75A would be ~3000kg and the export versions had a Twin Wasp version that produced 1065hp (only 15hp difference to the P-36). So that would put it to the 0.16 region. 3400ft/min is way too optimistic figure to be initial climb rate with full take off weight.
It is true though that P-36 had less guns/ammo than the French export models, so it certainly would be lighter. But I think it's clear that if we'd get one we'd get it as a Hawk75 which the French fought their Battle of France with. P-36 only saw action in the Pearl Harbour attack with the US.
-
Those aircraft seem to have two different nose designs eh?
The larger diameter cowling indicates that the variant in question is powered with Wright's Cyclone 9 and the ones with the smaller cowlings are powered with P&W's Twin Wasps.
-
How much structure does it share with the P-40?
Except for few minor differencies (tail fairing, aft canopy glazing, landing gear doors etc.), the basic airframe is very closely an early P-40 model from firewall to the rudder.
-
<puts check in mail to Wmaker>
Came across and intersting photo of an RAF Mohawk with 11 kills painted on, German, Italian and Japanese. Still amazes me the RAF had it frontline in Burma into January 44.
-
It would be good for scenarios, but if that is the next American fighter you'll have some seriously bummed P-61 fans.
How much structure does it share with the P-40?
Not sure in the production models exactly but Curtiss did come under some criticism when the P-40 was introduced on account of the similarities. According to America's Hundred Thousand the XP-40 prototype was essentially a P-36 airframe mated to the Allison V-1710 engine with the required additional plumbing.
(http://forum.valka.cz/files/thumbs/t_xp-40_864.jpg)
The single prototype in the initial configuration of a P-36 airframe with an Allison V-1710 engine in shiny metal finish. Note the aft location of the Prestone cooler in a position similar to the of the later P-51 airplane. The carburetor air intake is on the top of the cowling halfway between the propeller and the cockpit; the oil cooler intake ducting is low and forward. The landing gear is strictly P-36 type.
-
Not sure in the production models exactly but Curtiss did come under some criticism when the P-40 was introduced on account of the similarities. According to America's Hundred Thousand the XP-40 prototype was essentially a P-36 airframe mated to the Allison V-1710 engine with the required additional plumbing.
(http://forum.valka.cz/files/thumbs/t_xp-40_864.jpg)
Curtiss came under criticism from who? They manufactured both the P-36 and P-40. I believe America's Hundred Thousand has it right.
It's like accusing John Fogerty of plagiarizing himself. Oh, wait.....
:D
wrongway
-
Curtiss came under criticism from who? They manufactured both the P-36 and P-40. I believe America's Hundred Thousand has it right.
It's like accusing John Fogerty of plagiarizing himself. Oh, wait.....
:D
wrongway
I'd expect the criticism would be along the lines of Curtis having not produced a next generation fighter and instead simply having reused their prior work, not criticism of plagiarism.
-
I'm pretty sure our P36's had bigger armament, I'll look it up.
-
I'd fly it
it only had 1 50cal and 1 303 a think
-
Thanks WMaker!
-
Agreed with Wrongway: There was no criticism. It was a remarkable new design. It changed the way the aircraft performed and the end result was very interesting to the US Army.
No more worthy of criticism than the P-51B being derived from the A-36.
Noir: Nope, the P-36 initially started with 1x30cal and 1x50cal in the nose...
Later models of the Hawk had, depending on the version, 30cals in the wings or 7mm in the wings and the nose guns were both .50cal.
P-36 had the lighter armament.
-
As the poster said,i would like to see the Japanese, Italian,and Russian plane sets decked out more first. But after that, then this plane would be one that I would fly and support. Looks like a fun one, and I'm all about the early war planes.
Still holding out for the Ki-43, Ki-44, Ki-100, A6M3, J2M, N1K1, Ki-21, Ki-48, Ki-49, C.200, G.55, Re.2005, Sm.79
:pray
-
Ki-43-II with only 1x7mm and 1x12.7mm option loadout would be best. And maybe a Ki-43-I with lower horsepower and 2-blade prop for early war as well. Definitely would be great to have!
(note: I only specify the guns load because it only really had the one setup based on some findings I posted about a while back)
-
As the poster said,i would like to see the Japanese, Italian,and Russian plane sets decked out more first. But after that, then this plane would be one that I would fly and support. Looks like a fun one, and I'm all about the early war planes.
Still holding out for the Ki-43, Ki-44, Ki-100, A6M3, J2M, N1K1, Ki-21, Ki-48, Ki-49, C.200, G.55, Re.2005, Sm.79
:pray
the sad thing is about the early war planes is the will be hanger queens with really bad guns.....i say HE177 :x :banana: :banana:
-
I remember that post and agree with it. Although some had the 2x12.7mm gun pack, I do believe that it wasn't the most common. But for me any Ki-43 we might get would be tops. I'm still don't like that it lost so bad in HTC's poll for a new plane. But in the voting the Japanese fans were split, with right around 5% for both the Ki-45 and Ki-43. Wish the Japanese fans could of consolidated their votes.
-
The only 2x7mm were training units, war weary planes removed from combat. They didn't want to waste the 12.7mm guns on non-combat planes so they put the 2x 7mms in there.
EDIT: Oh, you said 12.7mm... Well only a few examples ever had that, and they weren't even associated with any unit/squadron (they were 1-off deals apparently for some special mission)
-
the sad thing is about the early war planes is the will be hanger queens with really bad guns.....i say HE177 :x :banana: :banana:
95% pilot and 5% plane. If they end up hanger queens(which is another term for planes not being easy mode and pilots looking for no challenge) then it is the pilots fault not the planes.
-
Great minds think alike Shifty :aok You must be getting a bit slower in your old age though. I brought up the "Mohawk" a few days ago in my updated wishlist thread for all the same reasons :)
Actually, you both are pretty slow in your old age since I brought up this wish for the P-36 about 4 years ago :D
ack-ack
-
Curtiss came under criticism from who? They manufactured both the P-36 and P-40. I believe America's Hundred Thousand has it right.
It's like accusing John Fogerty of plagiarizing himself. Oh, wait.....
:D
wrongway
I believe most of the criticism came from other corporations who were in competition at the time. There's a mention of it in "Fire in The Sky" by Bergerud.
In April 1939, Congress awarded Curtiss Wright a contract to build 550 P-40's (the largest aviation contract in American history until that time), a storm of controversy erupted in aviation circles. Other corporations accused Curtiss of simply modifying an older plane (the P-36) and wedding it to a new Allison engine. The result, they charged, was an aircraft that would be inferior to foreign makes. Curtiss responded that the P-40 was a sound design and because it was based on much proven technology, could be produced quickly, economically, and in large numbers. American, Curtiss argued, needed fighters quickly. Better aircraft , after all, were in the pipeline already.
-
Later models of the Hawk had, depending on the version, 30cals in the wings or 7mm in the wings and the nose guns were both .50cal.
All the Hawks from the French order, including the "later models" were delivered with rifle calibre fuselage guns, not with HMGs. French used the 7.5mm calibre but as the Brits got the remainder of the order, they replaced them with 7.9mm calibre MGs.
-
Kinda looks like a jug
P-36 was a precussor to the P-47 and was made by the same company.
-
P-36 was a precussor to the P-47 and was made by the same company.
:headscratch:
curtiss = p-36
republic = p-47
ya...i can see where that would be the same company... :rolleyes:
-
:headscratch:
curtiss = p-36
republic = p-47
ya...i can see where that would be the same company... :rolleyes:
But, but, they "look" the same. They both have radial engines. Didn't they make the 190 too?
:huh ;)
Lagg3(water cooled v-engine)--> La5(radial engine)--> La7
wrongway
-
P-36 was a precussor to the P-47 and was made by the same company.
You are thinking of the P43 Lancer
-
no we already have a brewster
-1
-
no we already have a brewster
-1
What does Brewster have to do with this?
-
this thing looks alot like a brewster.
all im saying
-
this thing looks alot like a brewster.
all im saying
put down the crack pipe and step away from the keyboard... :rolleyes:
-
put down the JOINT and step away from the keyboard... :rolleyes:
fixed
naaaa man...ahm havin teh fun with the nuns...
-
P-36 was a precussor to the P-47 and was made by the same company.
It evolved into the P-40 if anything...
-
Great minds think alike Shifty :aok You must be getting a bit slower in your old age though. I brought up the "Mohawk" a few days ago in my updated wishlist thread for all the same reasons :)
Darn very sorry Dan... Yes I am getting older, probably why I missed your post. :old:
Ack Ack I guess I'm not getting any smarter either. :D
-
You are thinking of the P43 Lancer
I'm sorry bout that guys, It looks like the P47 undoubtedly, I have read a website on the complete history of the P47 and looking so much like it I assumed that it was the earliest model that was described in detail on the website.
My mistake :salute
-
Ki-43-II with only 1x7mm and 1x12.7mm option loadout would be best. And maybe a Ki-43-I with lower horsepower and 2-blade prop for early war as well. Definitely would be great to have!
(note: I only specify the guns load because it only really had the one setup based on some findings I posted about a while back)
Findings which we pointing out to you pertained only to the Ki-43-I.
You subsequently ignored us, stating we were wrong despite having no evidence to support your position.
-
I'm sorry bout that guys, It looks like the P47 undoubtedly, I have read a website on the complete history of the P47 and looking so much like it I assumed that it was the earliest model that was described in detail on the website.
My mistake :salute
I've never thought it to look like a P-47. To me they always appeared as radial engined P-40s.
-
I'm sorry bout that guys, It looks like the P47 undoubtedly, I have read a website on the complete history of the P47 and looking so much like it I assumed that it was the earliest model that was described in detail on the website.
My mistake :salute
When i first saw the P-36, i thought it was a P-47.
-
When i first saw the P-36, i thought it was a P-47.
Too much generalization. Both have radial engines, therefore.....
On the other hand, P-47s were mistaken for Fw190s, P-51s for Bf109s.
The thing that's made me the saddest on here is people thinking the Russian Tu-95 Bear:
(http://www.air-attack.com/MIL/f22/f22_tu95bear.jpg)
was somehow related to the B-29:
(http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bomber/b29-2_300.jpg)
I can only assume because both have four engines and are silver.
:headscratch:
wrongway
-
Findings which we pointing out to you pertained only to the Ki-43-I.
You subsequently ignored us, stating we were wrong despite having no evidence to support your position.
Not so. The links I provided and the findings discussed included Ki-43s all the way til the end. From the beginning of service til the end, the armament didn't change. That was why it was such an interesting find -- it debunked a few wrong theories about that plane.
-
Darn very sorry Dan... Yes I am getting older, probably why I missed your post. :old:
Ack Ack I guess I'm not getting any smarter either. :D
:rofl
ack-ack
-
Not so. The links I provided and the findings discussed included Ki-43s all the way til the end. From the beginning of service til the end, the armament didn't change. That was why it was such an interesting find -- it debunked a few wrong theories about that plane.
No they didn't. They were exclusive to the Ki-43-I, which was pointed out to you. You initially backtracked based on that, saying you hadn't noticed that in the article. Then, for reasons unknown, you declared that the article applied to all Ki-43s despite the complete lack of evidence supporting that position.
-
Not so. The links I provided and the findings discussed included Ki-43s all the way til the end. From the beginning of service til the end, the armament didn't change. That was why it was such an interesting find -- it debunked a few wrong theories about that plane.
<sigh> :rolleyes:
The article you linked was about Ki-43-Is and Ki-43-Is alone, not about II or III-variants. Next time you read an article, try to read the title aswell.
Here's the article: http://www.j-aircraft.com/research/rdunn/nakajima_ki43arm.htm (http://www.j-aircraft.com/research/rdunn/nakajima_ki43arm.htm). It says in the title: Nakajima Ki-43-I Armament -- A Reassessment - A RESEARCH STUDY.
Now, can we get back to the topic of this thread?
-
Noir: Nope, the P-36 initially started with 1x30cal and 1x50cal in the nose...
Later models of the Hawk had, depending on the version, 30cals in the wings or 7mm in the wings and the nose guns were both .50cal.
P-36 had the lighter armament.
The Curtiss Hawk model 75 as known in french service had 4 or 6 7.5mm machine according to a not so good website.
(http://www.avionslegendaires.net/Images/Gh75.jpg)
(http://www.avionslegendaires.net/Images/Gh75-2.jpg)
-
more info there http://www.aviation-history.com/curtiss/p36.htm (http://www.aviation-history.com/curtiss/p36.htm)
-
Karnak, Wmaker: whoops you're both right. Sorry 'bout that, memory was a bit fuzzy as I hadn't revisited that in a while. My erronous comment was with regards to thinking back now, at the time of this recent reply.
you're right, let's keep it on track.
-
those things look more like long brewsters than they do jugs...
(http://www.helmo.gr/gallery2/d/38262-1/f2a-3_brewster_buffalo_8-42.jpg)
(http://www.avionslegendaires.net/Images/Gh75-2.jpg)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/ca/P-47b.jpg)
-
i do like the looks of it, if those count for anything
+1
-
Too much generalization. Both have radial engines, therefore.....
On the other hand, P-47s were mistaken for Fw190s, P-51s for Bf109s.
The thing that's made me the saddest on here is people thinking the Russian Tu-95 Bear:
(http://www.air-attack.com/MIL/f22/f22_tu95bear.jpg)
was somehow related to the B-29:
(http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bomber/b29-2_300.jpg)
I can only assume because both have four engines and are silver.
:headscratch:
wrongway
I think there's also some confusion with the Tu-4 which was literally a carbon copy of the B-29.
-
They look like radial engined P-40s to me. Below is a P-36 and P-40 with the engines removed from the image... Which is which?
(http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/8508/halfhawks.png)
-
They look like radial engined P-40s to me. Below is a P-36 and P-40 with the engines removed from the image... Which is which?
(http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/8508/halfhawks.png)
wow, that's interesting.
personally i think radial-engine aircraft look stunning. and, they were reliable (for the most part)
-
bottom one is p-36... :neener:
-
say wasnt the TU-95 basicly an updated slimmed B-29, if im not mistaken the russians took what they learned about aircraft manufacturing and apllied it to the B-29 design. and dun dudu dun the bear was born and yes it still flys up to the border of the US airspace even today. the sad part about it though was US submarines could track the bear with their sub hunting sonars, sad sad sad.
-
wow, that's interesting.
personally i think radial-engine aircraft look stunning. and, they were reliable (for the most part)
It's the Curtis family resemblance. ;) How many pictures did you look at in this thread before answering Gyrene? :D
(http://img837.imageshack.us/img837/2497/hawksm.png)
Heck to me the tail and wings on the Curtis SB2C Helldiver remind me of the P-40 and seems to scream Curtis.
(http://www.daveswarbirds.com/navalwar/morepics/2viewsbc.jpg)
-
Heck to me the tail and wings on the Curtis SB2C Helldiver remind me of the P-40 and seems to scream Curtis.
(http://www.daveswarbirds.com/navalwar/morepics/2viewsbc.jpg)
i can kinda see that.
one big ugly duck that plane is, tho
-
say wasnt the TU-95 basicly an updated slimmed B-29, if im not mistaken the russians took what they learned about aircraft manufacturing and apllied it to the B-29 design. and dun dudu dun the bear was born and yes it still flys up to the border of the US airspace even today. the sad part about it though was US submarines could track the bear with their sub hunting sonars, sad sad sad.
:bhead
wrongway
-
Gyrene, the radials were "reliable" yes, but slow as hell. They were underpowered, and almost instantly approved for export (meaning the US would have little need for them, and would not feel threatened if anybody else had them either). It really was revolutionary to stick the inline engine onto that airframe. All of a sudden the US wanted it. Lots of it. As much as it could get.
Performance trumps reliability when you have an arms race going on. Look at how reliable some planes were, really... And yet if they got the job done it didn't matter how much maintenance it took to repair! (SB2C got its nickname from being wholly unreliable, yet played a fairly big role in CV dive bombers).
-
Does anyone know why they would arm it with 1 x 30 cal and 1 x 50 cal? That seems so obscure to me...
-
Gyrene, the radials were "reliable" yes, but slow as hell. They were underpowered, and almost instantly approved for export (meaning the US would have little need for them, and would not feel threatened if anybody else had them either). It really was revolutionary to stick the inline engine onto that airframe. All of a sudden the US wanted it. Lots of it. As much as it could get.
There were both military and civillian versions of both Wright's Cyclone 9 and P&W's Twin Wasp. Civillian versions were cleared to export while the variants under military designation were not. Cyclone's nor Twin Wasps were underpowered compared to the initial power plants of the P-40 -series. Hawk's Cyclone produced 1200hp and Twin Wasp produced 1050-1065hp (depending on the source) or 1200hp with higher octane fuel. At the same time, P-40B's Allison produced 1040hp. Also, P-40B was ~1000lb heavier than the Hawk.
-
+1 to P-36
-
to me, the P-40 looks like they took a P-36 and put a liquid cooled inline engine into it and slimmed it a bit, idk though.
-
It's the Curtis family resemblance. ;) How many pictures did you look at in this thread before answering Gyrene? :D
LOL...i looked at the pics that were already posted and there are 2 distinct features on the p-36 from the cockpit back...
canopy slope and most obvious is the tailwheel cover... :D
Gyrene, the radials were "reliable" yes, but slow as hell. They were underpowered, and almost instantly approved for export (meaning the US would have little need for them, and would not feel threatened if anybody else had them either). It really was revolutionary to stick the inline engine onto that airframe. All of a sudden the US wanted it. Lots of it. As much as it could get.
Performance trumps reliability when you have an arms race going on. Look at how reliable some planes were, really... And yet if they got the job done it didn't matter how much maintenance it took to repair! (SB2C got its nickname from being wholly unreliable, yet played a fairly big role in CV dive bombers).
sorry krusty, i don't remember saying anything one way or the other about the engines... :headscratch:
-
EDIT: stupid lame duck forums crapping out again EVERY DAY.... :furious
-
EDIT: stupid lame duck forums crapping out again EVERY DAY.... :furious
-
Oops, sorry, that was for Wildcat. My bad.
Wmaker: Underpowered in the final configuration, yes. You may make the claim that the engine itself was fine (and you'd be able to make that argument) but stick said engine into an airframe and all of a sudden the drag that comes with it, the large frontal surface, etc, means the aircraft doesn't have enough power for its given shape to perform as well as contemporary in-line airframes.
Keep up with me here. You're nitpicking about horsepower and weight. The final configuration was slow. It was obsolete right out of the door. It was recognized that it would have no impact against the US Defense or War effort if they were sold around the world. That's not debatable. It earned export status VERY quickly. No slight against Curtiss for wanting to recoup money on it, but nobody saw it as a major threat to anything else in the US arsenal. Higher, faster, quicker. That was the mantra. The radial Hawk fell short.
-
most obvious is the tailwheel cover... :D
yeah to me that's the biggest give away. Still a strong family resemblence. ;)
-
Seems its being compared unfairly to a/c that came along later. It was delivered to the USAAC in 1938. I would like to know what fighter was in service at the time that was so much better. Hurricane I (not the IA), Bf 109D, Ki-27, A5M, MB-152, Cr 42, C. 200, I-16?
You guys want to compare it to later designs well go ahead but thats apples and oranges isn't it? The USA was in the war 4 years after...1942, no surprise it was being replaced by that time. Hardly a fair criticism? The fact it was sold overseas is also has nothing to do with its effectiveness as a fighter. The USA had plans to sell (and did) the P-40 and F4F series to European customers as well prior to its entry into the war.
It was what it was. A 1930's era fighter. <shrug>.
-
Wmaker: Underpowered in the final configuration, yes. You may make the claim that the engine itself was fine (and you'd be able to make that argument) but stick said engine into an airframe and all of a sudden the drag that comes with it, the large frontal surface, etc, means the aircraft doesn't have enough power for its given shape to perform as well as contemporary in-line airframes.
Heh, ok. I should have remembered that underpowered means the same as "more air resistance" to you. :rolleyes: I think we've been here before. What comes to the performance, it is an incorrect generalisation to say that Hawk performed worse than the "comtempory in-line airframes". For example when comparing to the P-40B, the Hawk climbs at a faster rate than P-40B until it reaches its FTH. Also due to the basic same wing the significantly lighter Hawk will turn in a smaller radius. Pretty much the only performance edge the P-40B has is its clear speed advantage. So if we think AH, given equal pilots and 1 vs 1 situation at low altitude, the P-40B's pretty much only option against the Hawk is to stay fast and very very causious. In "many vs many" situation the advantage that speeds gives will be more significant obviously.
Keep up with me here. You're nitpicking about horsepower and weight. The final configuration was slow. It was obsolete right out of the door. It was recognized that it would have no impact against the US Defense or War effort if they were sold around the world. That's not debatable. It earned export status VERY quickly. No slight against Curtiss for wanting to recoup money on it, but nobody saw it as a major threat to anything else in the US arsenal. Higher, faster, quicker. That was the mantra. The radial Hawk fell short.
I'm not nitpicking anything, just stating the facts. It's you who's making gross generalisations. And yes, your arguments are very debatable. Hawk was the first monoplane fighter of the USAAC. It can't be said that it was obsolete out of the door. P-36 entered service in May '38. If you look at fighters in service at the time, it was no more "obsolete out of the door" than a Hurricane for example. Technological development drove past both the Hawk and the Hurricane but neither of them were considered obsolete in 1938. Regarding the exports, it's good to notice to which countries it was exported to. They didn't sell them to Germany but to country that was likely going to need to defend itself against Germany. It was rather unlikely that France would have tried to jump across the pond and try to invade US you know...
-
Seems its being compared unfairly to a/c that came along later. It was delivered to the USAAC in 1938. I would like to know what fighter was in service at the time that was so much better. Hurricane I (not the IA), Bf 109D, Ki-27, A5M, MB-152, Cr 42, C. 200, I-16?
You guys want to compare it to later designs well go ahead but thats apples and oranges isn't it? The USA was in the war 4 years after...1942, no surprise it was being replaced by that time. Hardly a fair criticism? The fact it was sold overseas is also has nothing to do with its effectiveness as a fighter. The USA had plans to sell (and did) the P-40 and F4F series to European customers as well prior to its entry into the war.
It was what it was. A 1930's era fighter. <shrug>.
And still in use into 44-45. Not many 109Ds still in the shooting war...er.. .wait.. They finished up in Spain :)
-
This picture amazes me. December 1943 and the Mohawk is about to set off on a mission. Note the bomb racks under the wings, late SEAC camo and markings etc. At the same time in the ETO and MTO, Spit VII, VIII IX and XIIs are front line fighters along with Tiffies. USAAF has the first Merlin Mustangs along with Jugs and 38s. And this guy is headed out in a Mohawk to fight.
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/Mohawk.jpg)
-
This picture amazes me. December 1943 and the Mohawk is about to set off on a mission. Note the bomb racks under the wings, late SEAC camo and markings etc. At the same time in the ETO and MTO, Spit VII, VIII IX and XIIs are front line fighters along with Tiffies. USAAF has the first Merlin Mustangs along with Jugs and 38s. And this guy is headed out in a Mohawk to fight.
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/Mohawk.jpg)
\
He's grinning like a man with brass balls too. :lol
-
Not surprising at all Guppy... All manner of obsolete craft were pressed into combat on all sides long after they were replaced by better ones. The SEA seemed worse off than most, suffering with late-model Brewsters for many years as well as Boomerangs (so obsolete they were used only for ground strafing and marking things for corsairs to come in and blow up).
Given the size of the bombs he's probably strafing Japanese troops or dropping smoke bombs to mark for "better" planes.
As for WMaker's troll, ignore him. He's openly expressed he has a bug up his butt about me and that he plans to follow me around and poke at anything I post.
Radial hawks were obsolete. It's a fact. Their service doesn't come into it. They were nothing compared to British or German designs. They were nothing compared to the Japanese designs (although we severely under estimated these). However you want to play with words, spin facts, twist things around, the plane was obsolete as soon as it was made. It was a disappointment. The US had no interest in it, and if we didn't have such a need all over the world (mind you most countries cannot produce their own aircraft during this time with the required performance/capabilities) it would never have been produced.
He alone should especially know that some countries rely on outside sources of air frames no matter what the performance. More the power to the folks that use them. Doesn't change the facts.
Do I want it in-game? Yes. I simply take exception to WMaker's comments (and some others') that this would be a super plane. I'm not arguing how fun it would be to fly it. I'm not saying I wouldn't enjoy killing stuff in it. (in a GAME...) I'm saying WMaker's attempts to nit-pick the hell out of my comments stem from another reason and have nothing to do with the subject at hand nor the content of my post. He would have taken a contrary stance had I said the sky is blue. He would start debating and nitpicking "what blue?" "Are we talking the blue light spectrum?" "What time of day?" etc...
P.S. Guppy part of what amazes you is that the plane is obsolete, yes? And still in use so much later? There's no debate on the obsolete part, right?
-
It amazes me that depending on which theater of the war you were in, that what would be a second line or retired bird could be a front line one instead. It's a bit like the guys that trained in 38Js and then went to the MTO and were assigned F and G models since they were kept in action so much longer there. A Spit VIII, XII or IX driver might get sent to the CBI and a Spit Vc Trop or Hurri IIc would be top of the line, which would be a heckuva step down.
It was a real surprise to find out that the 350th FG guys had P39s in the MTO until August 44 when they finally got Jugs.
That's what I mean. Some pilots had to make due with birds that were hardly first class.
I often think of that when the ENY whines start. Be thankful it's just a cartoon. For real you might not have had any choice and gone up against far better machines in a lesser bird.
No worries about WMaker. Don't see him trolling. He seems to know his stuff, and the Finns considered the Hawk a very effective bird, right behind the 109G and Buffalo in terms of kills too.
-
So... I'm safe in assuming the P-40 was obsolete out-of-the-gate as well then, correct?
-
Some photos of finnish hawks. Sorry, I couldnt find ay bigger versions..
(http://www.sodatkuvina.cjb.net/images/Jatkosota/Rintama/4310V%E4riCurtissHawk75A.jpg)
(http://www.sodatkuvina.cjb.net/images/Jatkosota/Rintama/43V%E4riPartioLennolla.jpg)
-
As for WMaker's troll, ignore him. He's openly expressed he has a bug up his butt about me and that he plans to follow me around and poke at anything I post.
Correcting statements that are factually incorrect is not trolling.
Radial hawks were obsolete. It's a fact.
They eventually became obsolete just like all fighters do but they certainly weren't obsolete "right out of the door".
- It's May 1938, P-36 enters service with the USAAC. In the US, Navy is still flying F3F biplane fighters as US Navy's first monoplane fighter the Brewster hasn't yet entered service. P-36 is the most modern fighter in the USAAC's arsenal.
- In Japan both air services are still flying fixed gear monoplanes (A5M, Ki-27) neither A6M nor Ki-43 has yet entered service.
- In Soviet Union I-15Bis and I-16 Type 17 enter service on the same year. None of the later inline engined fighters are yet in service.
- In Italy more than a year after P-36 has entered service, in November 1st 1939 Italian airforce has 146 Cr.42s and only 48 G.50s and 32 Macchi C.200s in service.
- In France first MS.406s enter service in the summer of 1938. First French Hawks are delivered in December 1938. Nor Bloch 152 or Dewoitine D.520 are in service in 1938.
- In Britain Hurricane Mk.I and Gladiator Mk.II are in service. Spitfire isn't in service in May 1938 but enters service in August of the same year.
- In Germany the first DB-engined 109s are built in the end of 1938 and in May only Jumo engined Cs and Ds are in service. Jumo 210D produces only 680hp at take off.
So in this context, saying that Hawk was "obsolete out of the door" is complete nonsense. It was actually fairly modern fighter at the point of its introduction.
I simply take exception to WMaker's comments (and some others') that this would be a super plane. .
Never have said anything that would suggest this.
-
It will climb like E, turn better than Warhawk because of light weight, and roll just as well. I say if HTC adds this I forgive them for B-29.
Oh, and adding it *would* be fleshing out the French planeset.
-
It will climb like E, turn better than Warhawk because of light weight, and roll just as well. I say if HTC adds this I forgive them for B-29.
It all depends to what Hawk data Warhawk's performance is compared to.
From French/Curtiss "testing" the initial climb rate with 1065hp setting is given at ~3940ft/min! This is obviously physically impossible. Maybe with 1200hp, with small amount of fuel and no guns it could have been achieved. In AH the initial climb rate of the E with WEP is ~3100ft/min. In Finnish testing P&W engined Hawk with lower octane fuel (1065hp) had 2755ft/min initial climb rate at best. Unfortunately these report don't mention the weight this figure was achieved with. So slightly worse climbrate than P-40E is expected when modelled with lower octane fuel.
Hawk got big praises for its handling characteristics from basically everyone who flew it. Its control harmony was simply excellent and it was very maneuverable.
The question is did the Hawk units recieve 100-octane fuel during the Battle of France. That would have given possibility to use 1200hp WEP setting which would basically make it very comparable to Brewster in practically all respects except its biggest achilles heel, the poor armament. Although I haven't seen any primary source material that would confirm it either way I have heard that the higher octane fuel wasn't available. With 1065hp, it just lacks the raw performance to fight the late war fighters on their terms. It would be even slower than Brewster.
-
Some stuff regarding Hawk's performance from couple year old thread:
About the performance of the Hawk75A,
In French testing with Twin Wasp SC-G they achieved top speeds of 490km/h at 4000m and 415km/h on the deck. In Finland the best level speed on the deck achieved in testing was 429km/h (CUw-551). With CUw-557 the top speed at 1500m was 425km/h. With CU-572 (still Twin Wasp powered) the deck speed was even less at around 415km/h and top speed was found from 3000m being slightly under 440km/h.
These values were flown with 87-octane fuel.
In Finland there was lot of discussion about how far from the manufacture specifications the performance was. Even though the Curtiss' own numbers were flown with S3C3-G -engine and with 100-octane fuel, 520km/h at 4650m still sounds very optimistic.
In England A & AEE tested A-4 subtype and it achieved 486km/h at 4300m. The peak climb with 2870kg weight was 13.2m/s.
English pilots did mock combats with the Hawk against the Spitfire (presumably Mk.I) changing pilots back and fourth between fights. When Spitfire attacked a diving Hawk (speed of aboth around 500-650km/h) the Hawk pilot could evade very effectively by rolling. At sppeds above 600km/h Hawk pilot could still fully deflect the ailerons. In Spitfire the same pilots could only make 1/4 - 1/5 of the deflection. When Spitfire attacked the Hawk the Hawk could turn inside the Spitfire and stay there until Spitfire chose to use its speed to disengage. In turning combat at 400km/h speeds Hawk was clearly better. The visibility from the Hawks cockpit was also considered better.
Source: Jukka Raunio's LENTÄJÄN NÄKÖKULMA II (Pilots Viewpoint II)
And a cool pic of the Hawk:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/fi/c/c2/Curtiss-hawk-cu-58x.jpg)
-
Brewster II
-
Do I want it in-game? Yes. I simply take exception to WMaker's comments (and some others') that this would be a super plane.
What is it with you and making baseless claims that people think whatever non-late war aircraft they are advocating be added is a superplane? You made the same wild accusation in the A6M3 thread despite the only claims in the thread being that it would be slightly faster than the A6M2 and have more ammo.
Just because somebody wants something that became obsolete at some point in the war does not mean they think it will be wiping the floors with P-51s, Spitfire XVIs, Me262s and La-7s. You read way to much into some people's enthusiasm for these older aircraft.
-
No worries about WMaker. Don't see him trolling.
Agreed... he is a bit biased in regards to the Brew, but he knows his stuff generally.
-
:noid
(http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f385/xxREXxx_01/84_Boeing_P26_Peashooter_110.jpg)
-
Agreed... he is a bit biased in regards to the Brew,
I would appriciate that if you call me biased towards something that you'd specifically show where I've been biased instead of a vague sweeping statement.
...and in general I hope this thread can remain to be about its topic, the Curtiss Hawk.
(http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f385/xxREXxx_01/84_Boeing_P26_Peashooter_110.jpg)
Boeing P-26 Peashooter. That was the fighter Curtiss Hawk was designed to replace.
-
I would appriciate that if you call me biased towards something that you'd specifically show where I've been biased instead of a vague sweeping statement.
...and in general I hope this thread can remain to be about its topic, the Curtiss Hawk.
Boeing P-26 Peashooter. That was the fighter Curtiss Hawk was designed to replace.
correct.
hey Wmaker ive been meaning to ask you something.
did the japanese ever use brewsters?
because i found these two photos....
(http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f385/xxREXxx_01/brewster-buffalo2.jpg)
(http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f385/xxREXxx_01/91-01.jpg)
-
correct.
hey Wmaker ive been meaning to ask you something.
did the japanese ever use brewsters?
because i found these two photos....
(http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f385/xxREXxx_01/brewster-buffalo2.jpg)
(http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f385/xxREXxx_01/91-01.jpg)
Don't just look at the pictures. Read.
wrongway
-
Don't just look at the pictures. Read.
wrongway
thats what im doing....
im going to a brewster expert and asking him a question about the brew.
and i plan to READ his responce.
:D
-
correct.
hey Wmaker ive been meaning to ask you something.
did the japanese ever use brewsters?
http://www.j-aircraft.com/captured/capturedby/f2abuffalo/captured_buffalo.htm (http://www.j-aircraft.com/captured/capturedby/f2abuffalo/captured_buffalo.htm)
Now please....lets try to keep this thread on topic.