Next American Fighter

[fullmetalbullet]

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.

[Shifty]

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? 



Heck to me the tail and wings on the Curtis SB2C Helldiver remind me of the P-40 and seems to  scream Curtis.

[Wildcat1]

Heck to me the tail and wings on the Curtis SB2C Helldiver remind me of the P-40 and seems to  scream Curtis.

(Image removed from quote.)

i can kinda see that.

one big ugly duck that plane is, tho

[AWwrgwy]

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.

 

wrongway

[Krusty]

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).

[SectorNine50]

Does anyone know why they would arm it with 1 x 30 cal and 1 x 50 cal?  That seems so obscure to me...

[Wmaker]

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.

[waystin2]

+1 to P-36

[fullmetalbullet]

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.

[gyrene81]

It's the Curtis family resemblance. How many pictures did you look at in this thread before answering Gyrene? 

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... 

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... 

[Krusty]

EDIT: stupid lame duck forums crapping out again EVERY DAY.... 

[Krusty]

EDIT: stupid lame duck forums crapping out again EVERY DAY.... 

[Krusty]

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.

[Shifty]

most obvious is the tailwheel cover... 

yeah to me that's the biggest give away. Still a strong family resemblence. 

[Squire]

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>.