WI: the USN adopts the 'hooked' P-36 instead of Brewster F2A

The P-36 was a decent US fighter from second half of 1930s, that won several export contracts, as well being produced for the USAAC. So let's have the Curtiss 'F14C' (= a mildly navalized P-36, with hook and other Navy-specific items, but not initially with folding wing) winning the contract for the USN monoplane fighter instead the Brewster's proposal. What can be gained, what will be the shortcomings of the design? Realistic development potential?
 

Driftless

Donor
The P-36/Hawk 75's have been one of my favorites. Had the shooting started in 1938, they would have been hot stuff. By 1940, they were past the peak of the technology arc, but were very useful planes wherever they were employed.

I think your basic premise for this P-36/F14C (dare we call it a Tomcat?) is good. What are you thinking for armament here? 1938 intro(ahead of the F4 by a couple of years), so for USN use 6x.30's or 4x.50's? You'd probably want to keep the weight from getting in the way of performance.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
The P-36 was a decent US fighter from second half of 1930s, that won several export contracts, as well being produced for the USAAC. So let's have the Curtiss 'F14C' (= a mildly navalized P-36, with hook and other Navy-specific items, but not initially with folding wing) winning the contract for the USN monoplane fighter instead the Brewster's proposal. What can be gained, what will be the shortcomings of the design? Realistic development potential?
Be close to, if not a total, disaster. You can not "mildly" navalize a carrier capable aircraft. Even without a folding wing, which the Navy was VERY fond of, the SBD being a notable exception, the strengthening of the airframe, landing gear, and swapping out of parts to versions designed to survive constant exposure to sea spray will add 500-600 pounds to the weight of the aircraft, with drastic effects on performance.

The P-36 was already fairly underpowered with a 1,050 hp R-1830-17 engine (this was later increased to 1,100 hp), adding 10-15% to the aircraft's weight, especially when coupled with an armament increase to 2x.50 and 4x.30 flat kills it's performance (a version of the Hawk with modifications that brought the combat weight close to what a properly armed carrier capable version tapped out at 261 mph).
 
This is really going to depend on which version of the Buffalo you compare it to. The F2A-2 was reasonably fast, handy, and a quick turner. It was well liked by the pilots who flew it, including Pappy Boyington of "The Black Sheep" fame. The "improved" F2A-3 was significantly heavier due to increased fuel and ammo capacity and armor for the pilot. It was an absolute turd in a dogfight, sacrificing maneuverability to range and pilot protection.

The XP-36D model would have been the model you were looking for. It had two .50 cals in the cowling and four .30's in the wings. It would have been very comparable to the F2A-2, but would have flown rings around the -3 Buffalo. The drawback would have been it larger size, compared to the Buffalo. This becomes critical for shipboard stowage.

In the end, it would have made very little difference. Both aircraft had approximately the same performance and could be outflown by the Zero, and by a Wildcat in the hands of a good pilot. The Wildcat ultimately proved to be the better aircraft and thus the better choice for the USN/USMC.

By the way, your designation of a navalized P-36 was actually used by Curtiss for a high altitude interceptor that was developed later in the war. It was not put into production.
 
Be close to, if not a total, disaster. You can not "mildly" navalize a carrier capable aircraft. Even without a folding wing, which the Navy was VERY fond of, the SBD being a notable exception, the strengthening of the airframe, landing gear, and swapping out of parts to versions designed to survive constant exposure to sea spray will add 500-600 pounds to the weight of the aircraft, with drastic effects on performance.

The folding wing was not present on the F2A, so there is no change to worse with P-36 here.
I think that your estimate that naval P-36 will gain 500-600 lbs over it's land-based counterpart is a bit over the top. Eg. the Seafire IIC, a version with 4 Hispaons and 4 Browings (not a typo) weighted 7145 lbs vs. Spitfire VC (4 Hispanos, no Browings) at 6965 lbs. The Seafire L IIC was at 6995 lbs (2 Hispaons, 4 Browings).

The P-36 was already fairly underpowered with a 1,050 hp R-1830-17 engine (this was later increased to 1,100 hp), adding 10-15% to the aircraft's weight, especially when coupled with an armament increase to 2x.50 and 4x.30 flat kills it's performance (a version of the Hawk with modifications that brought the combat weight close to what a properly armed carrier capable version tapped out at 261 mph).

Interesting - would you please be so kind to post the deatils of that particularly slow Hawk?
The 1050 HP vs. perhaps 6000-6200 lbs (hook, bigger firepower, extra coats of paint) does not look as an underpowered aircraft for late 1939s. Beats the best Wildcat, for example.
 
It would be different if BuAer hadn't been approached by Curtiss and offered various versions of the P-36, with possibly inflated performance estimates. The Buffalo F2A2 was a great performer with weak ankles in ship-board use. How were the legs on the P-36? I don't know, and cannot assume.
I do know that the F4F scored 15-7 over the Hawk 75 in actual testing, so the P-36 cannot be considered a shoe-in.
I think the Vought V-143 could have been a contender, with the right engine and a few mods never done, but it was never done. Just as well, as it turns out.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
The folding wing was not present on the F2A, so there is no change to worse with P-36 here.
I think that your estimate that naval P-36 will gain 500-600 lbs over it's land-based counterpart is a bit over the top. Eg. the Seafire IIC, a version with 4 Hispaons and 4 Browings (not a typo) weighted 7145 lbs vs. Spitfire VC (4 Hispanos, no Browings) at 6965 lbs. The Seafire L IIC was at 6995 lbs (2 Hispaons, 4 Browings).



Interesting - would you please be so kind to post the deatils of that particularly slow Hawk?
The 1050 HP vs. perhaps 6000-6200 lbs (hook, bigger firepower, extra coats of paint) does not look as an underpowered aircraft for late 1939s. Beats the best Wildcat, for example.

The XP-36F was created by taking P-36A Ser No 38-172 and fitting it with two 23-mm Danish-built Madsen cannon in underwing fairings. The standard P-36A fuselage armament was retained. Unfortunately, this additional armament caused the maximum weight to rise to 6850 pounds and the maximum speed to fall to 265 mph.

http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/p36_6.html

Regarding weight differences: The Curtiss P-6E Hawk ( Curtiss Model 35) empty weight was 2715 pounds. The Curtiss F-11C Goshawk (Curtiss Model 35B) had an empty weight of 3,037 pounds or a weight increase of 18% to come up with a carrier capable design.
 
The P-36 was a decent US fighter from second half of 1930s, that won several export contracts, as well being produced for the USAAC. So let's have the Curtiss 'F14C' (= a mildly navalized P-36, with hook and other Navy-specific items, but not initially with folding wing) winning the contract for the USN monoplane fighter instead the Brewster's proposal. What can be gained, what will be the shortcomings of the design? Realistic development potential?

Don't forget, in 1938 Curtiss proposed a R-2600 powered, mid wing tricycle geared fighter with (2) cowl guns, (2) .50 or (2) 23mm cannon in the wings.
Navy wasn't interested enough for Curtiss to make a prototype.
images.new3b.gif
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Don't forget, in 1938 Curtiss proposed a R-2600 powered, mid wing tricycle geared fighter with (2) cowl guns, (2) .50 or (2) 23mm cannon in the wings.
Navy wasn't interested enough for Curtiss to make a prototype.
images.new3b.gif
Navy wasn't exactly in love with tricycle landing gear. First nose-wheel aircraft to deck qualify was the FR-1 in January of 1945 (and that was probably a mistake, the aircraft demonstrated a regrettable habit of trying to break in half on landing).
 
The XP-36F was created by taking P-36A Ser No 38-172 and fitting it with two 23-mm Danish-built Madsen cannon in underwing fairings. The standard P-36A fuselage armament was retained. Unfortunately, this additional armament caused the maximum weight to rise to 6850 pounds and the maximum speed to fall to 265 mph.

http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/p36_6.html

Regarding weight differences: The Curtiss P-6E Hawk ( Curtiss Model 35) empty weight was 2715 pounds. The Curtiss F-11C Goshawk (Curtiss Model 35B) had an empty weight of 3,037 pounds or a weight increase of 18% to come up with a carrier capable design.
23mm? What was this plane meant to kill?
 
Navy wasn't exactly in love with tricycle landing gear. First nose-wheel aircraft to deck qualify was the FR-1 in January of 1945 (and that was probably a mistake, the aircraft demonstrated a regrettable habit of trying to break in half on landing).

That's only proposal IV of V, I think. BuAer didn't like any.

23mm? What was this plane meant to kill?

Enemies of the USA, with Danish cannons.
 
USAAC was looking at that for a lot of things, used to have a scan for a test for waist gunners beside for fighters.
Then 1940, 'poof' back to .50s
The .50s had enough punch for then. 23mm cannons seem slow given the slow firing rate of the 20mm's of the time
 
The .50s had enough punch for then. 23mm cannons seem slow given the slow firing rate of the 20mm's of the time

.50s didn't go 'boom' when they hit something. Note everyone was going to cannons by end of WWII. One boom was worth five or six hits with a .50
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
The .50s had enough punch for then. 23mm cannons seem slow given the slow firing rate of the 20mm's of the time
It was part of the "bomber killer" mindset that was very popular in the mid 1930s. Compared to the .30, which was increasingly under powered against modern designs, a 23mm cannon was like Zeus' thunderbolt.

The .50 cal came back into popularity when the AAF decided that fighters were mainly going to fight other fighters and the higher rate of fire of the M2 (about 80% higher) would increase the chance of getting damaging hits (the U.S. was sort of the odd man out on this idea, but late in WW II the USN and AAF were both pushing more to the 20mm, which was close to the standard of the world by then).
 
The XP-36F was created by taking P-36A Ser No 38-172 and fitting it with two 23-mm Danish-built Madsen cannon in underwing fairings. The standard P-36A fuselage armament was retained. Unfortunately, this additional armament caused the maximum weight to rise to 6850 pounds and the maximum speed to fall to 265 mph.

http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/p36_6.html

Thanks fo the feedback.
However, some things don't add up. Eg. speed - the XP-36F looks to be slower than the fixed U/C Hawk models, that also have less engine power and a more draggy Cyclone engine; that is despite the 23mm gondolas.
Another thing is the weight, that is more than thousand pound greater than the usual P-36A. The Madsen cannon was supposedly at around 120 lbs - that might be 500 lbs extra for two cannons, ammo and fairing?

Regarding weight differences: The Curtiss P-6E Hawk ( Curtiss Model 35) empty weight was 2715 pounds. The Curtiss F-11C Goshawk (Curtiss Model 35B) had an empty weight of 3,037 pounds or a weight increase of 18% to come up with a carrier capable design.

Thanks again.
The Sea Hurricane I went 300 lbs heavier then the mostly equivalent (same fuel, firepower, engine) Hurricane I; data for mid-1941 for both. Part of the weight increase for the Sea Hurri was that it was plumbed for drop tanks.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Thanks fo the feedback.
However, some things don't add up. Eg. speed - the XP-36F looks to be slower than the fixed U/C Hawk models, that also have less engine power and a more draggy Cyclone engine; that is despite the 23mm gondolas.
Another thing is the weight, that is more than thousand pound greater than the usual P-36A. The Madsen cannon was supposedly at around 120 lbs - that might be 500 lbs extra for two cannons, ammo and fairing?



Thanks again.
The Sea Hurricane I went 300 lbs heavier then the mostly equivalent (same fuel, firepower, engine) Hurricane I; data for mid-1941 for both. Part of the weight increase for the Sea Hurri was that it was plumbed for drop tanks.
The XP-36F was also a later production model of the P-36A. The early production P-36A had structural weakness issues, especially on the wings near the landing gear, but also on the fuselage. The company had to rework the internal bracing on the wings and parts of the forward part of the main airframe as well as add a thicker skin, all of which added weight.

The same site I attached earlier has details if you are interested.

The structural issues make the chances of the aircraft getting deck qualified even less likely.
 
The XP-36F was also a later production model of the P-36A. The early production P-36A had structural weakness issues, especially on the wings near the landing gear, but also on the fuselage. The company had to rework the internal bracing on the wings and parts of the forward part of the main airframe as well as add a thicker skin, all of which added weight.

The -F vs. the early -A weigth difference looks to be at 1400 lbs.

The same site I attached earlier has details if you are interested.

Looks like I can't find any more details, apart the layout of new armament, weight and speed figures. Plus the sources, two (both books by P. Boweres) of whom don't state any weight or speed figures themselves.

The structural issues make the chances of the aircraft getting deck qualified even less likely.

Of course.
 
The P-36 was a decent US fighter from second half of 1930s, that won several export contracts, as well being produced for the USAAC. So let's have the Curtiss 'F14C' (= a mildly navalized P-36, with hook and other Navy-specific items, but not initially with folding wing) winning the contract for the USN monoplane fighter instead the Brewster's proposal. What can be gained, what will be the shortcomings of the design? Realistic development potential?
if you want to compare the brewster and the p-36, just look at the dutch east indies, the dutch airforce used both planes there
 
Top