COMMENT: Good info towards my TERM PAPER on WW2,,, American and Japanese aircraft 1941- 1945. Thanks
d holness, e-mail, 17.02.2017 14:27
please note as regards the Hawk 74a-4 none reached the Curtiss brochure speed of 323mph. the best was the Mohawk IV tested by the A&AEE @ Farnborough in Jan 41 it reached 302mph. The worst was the Finnish a/c which struggled to reach 280mph. The Finns were particularly scathing in there comments. So to any Gamers out there if the speed of the Hawk 75a-4in the game is 459kph it is correct.
Linda, e-mail, 22.07.2015 18:52
my cousin was killed in a P-36 on 10/30/1941 on a training mission. His plane burst into flames and the plane plummeted into the water. He was out of Paine Field with the 56th Pursuit Squadron. I am searching for information about this accident.
David Wesely, e-mail, 23.01.2015 05:08
richard peters: The .50 and .30 cal MGs have nearly the same muzzle velocities, a little over 2400 f/s. At the lonest range where a pilot could ever hope to score a hit on an enemy plane, (400 yd) the flight time is about 0.5 sec, and the bullet drop for which one has to adjust the sights will be only about 4 feet. Once the guns are aligned to strike the point aimed at 400 yards, the bullets will all be within 2 feet of the line of sight at all closer ranges. So while the .50 cal bullets might strike the target 2 inches below the .30 cal bullets, at, say 200 yards range, which would matter if we were shooting at a beer can, it is a trivial difference compared to the size of an enemy airplane. For practical purposes, the bullets will all go to where the sights are pointed. The problem is pointing the sight to where the enemy plane is going to be a half-second after you hit the trigger. After all, he can be moving at 500 feet per second.
lloyd, e-mail, 31.10.2012 00:02
this for Don Tillery- you might want to check out the U.S.A.F. museum. they have a bare metal bird of one flown by 2nd Lt. phil Rassmussen during Pearl harbor attack.
lloyd, e-mail, 31.10.2012 00:00
this for Don Tillery- you might want to check out the U.S.A.F. museum. they have a bare metal bird of one flown by 2nd Lt. phil Rassmussen during Pearl harbor attack.
Klaatu83, e-mail, 27.07.2012 02:38
One big difference between the P-36 and P-40 was that the P-36 was basically a pre-war fighter which lacked armor and self-sealing fuel tanks. Operational versions of the P-40 Tomahawk, Kittyhawk and Warhawk included those items, all of which added considerable weight. Any comparisons of the performance of the P-36 against that of the P-40 must take that factor into consideration.
Hiroyuki Takeuchi, e-mail, 23.03.2012 11:13
IJAAF pilots who flew in Burma lists the RAF Mohawks as the most formidable enemy in a close in dogfight. The RAF pilots would not "hit and run" but would challenge the Hayabusas in one to one combat and the Mohawks, though a little heavier, were more powerful and better armed, so I think in the same way that Zero pilots respected the Wildcats, the Mohawks were respected by the IJAAF pilots.
James Reed, e-mail, 17.03.2012 17:45
Charles Lindbergh had a P-36 (and for a short while, a P-35), assigned to him for personal transportation in 1938-39 as Colonel in the Army Air Corps doing NACA work and involved in research with the various aircraft manufacturers. He made numerous comments about their shortcomings in his Wartime Journals, compared to German fighters (which he had seen/flown in Germany visits).
Blair, e-mail, 26.02.2011 03:40
If im not mistaken the p-36 could climb faster than the p-40 and had a higher service ceiling. But slower speed. Thats odd you would think they would have just made the p-36 faster.
Don Berliner, e-mail, 25.12.2010 23:58
I need information on the eperimental installation of a contra-rotating propeller on a P-36, as shown in a short film segement on PBS' "History Detectives".
Many thanks, Don Berliner
Keith, e-mail, 17.07.2010 02:22
Looks kinda like an early version of a P-47.
Jim Talbert, e-mail, 06.03.2010 19:12
Was there a "TP-36" (or other designation) trainer model two-seater built?
richard peters, e-mail, 10.06.2009 19:07
This plane had guns of different calibres. Does anyone know if they were fired together or could be fired seprately? Surely they would have had different trajectories - or have I goofed there? Any help appreciated.
Tom Drennan, e-mail, 19.05.2009 04:59
In 1935 Both P&W and Wright were trying to produce a good reliable 1,000 horse power engine to power the DC-3 and several new fighters. From month to month both improvised P&W was producing a bit more power but that caused a higher rate of main bearing failure that kept them a step behind. The problem was most evident in the P-36. Right along Curtiss and people ordering the export models switched back and forth between the engines.
Wright won the contract to provide engines for the first DC-3s but they were not delivering the promised 1,000 horse power so P&W was still in the game. After trying every way anybody could think of to produce a reliable time proven lead-babbit alloy main bearing they tried a silver rich alloy that solved the problem. At about the same time Wright found ways to produce the desired power. I believe it was buyers choice, P&W or Wright engines, as long as DC-3s were built. Pratt and Whitney won the contract to provide engines for USAAC production P-36s. There were overseas customers that preferred the Wright engine. They were used in different YP models as well but the production model P-36s had P&W R-1830 engines.
leo rudnicki, e-mail, 08.04.2009 05:09
there is a slip in the text re: wright R1820 should read cyclone, the 9 cylinder single row as opposed to Pratt & whitney 1830 14 cylinder two row 1830, the twin wasp. ! remember Chennault's personal Hawk 75 being a fixed and faired gear with wright Cyclone and very shiny.
Jack smith, e-mail, 19.04.2008 00:02
The R-1820 was a SINGLE row 9 cylinder engine....The R-1830 was a 14 cyl twin row engine as I remember it.
don tillery, e-mail, 16.01.2007 05:09
I am looking for a photo of the bare metal Hawk 75 or p-36 that was Claire Chennault's person airplane. I have seen this picture in the past and would like to build the model.Any help would be apreciated. DT
