Kittyhawk as Seahawk

[KJ_Lesnick]

Logan Hartke

The P-40 did fly off of the USS Chenango, the USS Ranger, the HMS Archer, and the USS Breton in WWII, if not others, as well.  They flew off of more carriers than a few types of carrier planes have!

I assume they did just takeoff's -- not landings...

I think that a navalized carrier-based P-40 is VERY plausible.  I'd say that it would make just as good of a carrier fighter as the Hurricane

Didn't they have trouble with ground-looping tendencies and an inability to do a three point landing (requiring mains first, then the tail-dragger)?

The Hawks were tough little birds, I don't think they'd need much strengthening to be up to carrier landings.

How much extra weight would you say?

[tigercat]

http://www.internetmodeler.com/2003/march/aviation/xf14.htm

http://www.aviastar.org/air/usa/curtiss_f14c.php

Looks like Curtiss did develop a prototype  Carrier fighter which looks a bit like a FW 190 mated to an engine from a B29

[Logan Hartke]

The P-40 did fly off of the USS Chenango, the USS Ranger, the HMS Archer, and the USS Breton in WWII, if not others, as well.  They flew off of more carriers than a few types of carrier planes have!

I assume they did just takeoff's -- not landings...

I think that a navalized carrier-based P-40 is VERY plausible.  I'd say that it would make just as good of a carrier fighter as the Hurricane

Didn't they have trouble with ground-looping tendencies and an inability to do a three point landing (requiring mains first, then the tail-dragger)?

The Hawks were tough little birds, I don't think they'd need much strengthening to be up to carrier landings.

How much extra weight would you say?

That's correct, they just did takeoffs.  I do not think any had arrestor gear.  As for ground-looping, yes, that did happen, but I've not seen that it was a lot worse than the Spitfire or Corsair struggled with.  Both it and the three-point landing issue were largely resolved when testing revealed that a longer tail wheel strut as all that was needed.  This would likely have come up in modifications necessary to make it a carrier fighter.  The US and RN were both understandably particular that way.

Regarding the weight, I have no idea, to be honest.  That's a question for an engineer.

Cheers,

Logan

[kerick]

If I remember correctly, P-40s were flown off carriers during the invasion of North Africa and straight into combat. Of course they landed at newly captured airfields.
I like the Navy P-40 or P-36. Nic whif possibilities.

[KJ_Lesnick]

Logan Hartke

That's correct, they just did takeoffs.

Understood

As for ground-looping, yes, that did happen, but I've not seen that it was a lot worse than the Spitfire or Corsair struggled with.

The F4U wasn't carrier suitable early on due to poor directional control at low-speed which with torque and everything looks conducive to looping.

Both it and the three-point landing issue were largely resolved when testing revealed that a longer tail wheel strut as all that was needed.  This would likely have come up in modifications necessary to make it a carrier fighter.

That's good to know

Regarding the weight, I have no idea, to be honest.  That's a question for an engineer.

I suppose that's fair enough.  Regardless, the reason I asked had largely to do with the fact that the P-40 was starting to get heavy as time went on -- I think they were coming in at like 6,400 pounds early on and 8,800 or something later models.  I'm not sure how much of that was bullet-proof glass, armor and so on.

[Captain Canada]

What a treasure trove of P-40 pics ! Thanks guys ! As for a naval fighter, why not ? The way I see it, there would have been a plethora of them floating around in the latter stages of WWII. And if the war had dragged on......

[KJ_Lesnick]

Logan Hartke

Regarding your statement that the plane would not require much strengthening to operate off a carrier.  I'm wondering if you are talking about the weights of the early P-40's or late P-40's?

[Logan Hartke]

I mean that the airframe and landing gear were, from what I've read, fairly sturdy on the Hawk family.  Curtiss built their planes pretty strong and knew well what stresses were put on planes during carrier operations.  For what I've read by pilots that flew both, the Spitfire was a much better flying, better handling aircraft than any P-40 variant, but it wasn't built to be quite as sturdy as the Curtiss fighters.  One American pilot who flew Spits in the USAAF commented how frankly worried he was about the flimsy nature of the Spitfire compared to the P-39s and P-40s he was used to flying when he first encountered one.  He then went on to say that the aircraft climbed, accelerated, and flew beautifully--better than any American fighter he'd flown up to that time.

My original point was that--if they could turn the Spitfire into a halfway decent carrier plane--I can't imagine the P-40 would give them too much trouble when it came to build quality.

As I understand it, most of the weight they added to the P-40 was combat-related (armor, self-sealing fuel tanks, etc.).  They weren't having to strengthen the airframe to withstand stresses, at least no to my knowledge, but admittedly the P-40 isn't exactly my area of expertise.

Cheers,

Logan

[rickshaw]

Logan, if anything, the P-40 suffered from an overly strong airframe.  Throughout its service life, successive versions attempted to improve its manoeuvrability by lightening the aircraft through the removal of guns, ammunition and other ancillary equipment, such as fuel tanks, only to see it often returned when it was realised the plane lacked firepower and range.

[KJ_Lesnick]

I mean that the airframe and landing gear were, from what I've read, fairly sturdy on the Hawk family.  Curtiss built their planes pretty strong and knew well what stresses were put on planes during carrier operations.

True enough

My original point was that--if they could turn the Spitfire into a halfway decent carrier plane--I can't imagine the P-40 would give them too much trouble when it came to build quality.

How much extra weight was added to the Hurricane and Spitfire to make them carrier suitable?

As I understand it, most of the weight they added to the P-40 was combat-related (armor, self-sealing fuel tanks, etc.).  They weren't having to strengthen the airframe to withstand stresses, at least no to my knowledge, but admittedly the P-40 isn't exactly my area of expertise.

So assuming your knowledge is correct, the P-40 needed the armor and all that stuff to simply withstand getting shot at, but the basic strength wasn't significantly altered and the basic airframe was tough enough?

[Logan Hartke]

I don't know about the weights.  I'd check out a Spitfire and a Seafire or a Hurricane and a Sea Hurricane of similar marks and see what the empty weights were.

As for the P-40's strength, that's my basic understanding, but since there were no serious studies of a naval Kittyhawk that I'm aware of (and certainly no trials), it's not something that we could ever really know for certain.

Cheers,

Logan

[Old Wombat]

Specifications (Spitfire Mk Vb)
General characteristics
    Crew: one pilot
    Length: 29 ft 11 in (9.12 m)
    Wingspan: 36 ft 10 in (11.23 m)
    Height: 11 ft 5 in (3.86 m)
    Wing area: 242.1 ft² (22.48 m²)
    Empty weight: 5,090 lb (2,309 kg)
    Max. takeoff weight: 6,770 lb (3,071 kg)
    Powerplant: 1 × Rolls-Royce Merlin 45 supercharged V12 engine, 1,470 hp (1,096 kW) at 9,250 ft (2,820 m)

Performance
    Maximum speed: 378 mph, (330 kn, 605 km/h)
    Combat radius: 410 nmi (470 mi, 760 km)
    Ferry range: 991 nmi (1,140 mi, 1,840 km)
    Service ceiling: 35,000 ft (11,300 m)
    Rate of climb: 3,240 ft/min (13.5 m/s)

Specifications (LF Mk III)
General characteristics
    Crew: one
    Length: 30 ft 2½ in (9.21 m)
    Wingspan: 36 ft 10 in (11.22 m)
    Height: 11 ft 5 in (3.48 m)
    Wing area: 242.1 ft² (22.5 m²)
    Empty weight: 6,204 lb (2,814 kg)
    Max. takeoff weight: 7,640 lb (3,466 kg)
    Powerplant: 1 × Rolls-Royce Merlin 55M liquid-cooled V-12, 1,585 hp (1,182 kW)

Performance
    Maximum speed: 359 mph (578 km/h) at 5,100 ft (1,554 m)
    Cruise speed: 218 mph (351 km/h)
    Range: 513 mi (825 km)
    Service ceiling: 32,000 ft (9,754 m)
    Rate of climb: 1.9 min to 5,000 ft (1,525 m)

Not direct 1-to-1 models but indicative. Seafire is approx 1,200lb heavier than a (very generally) comparative Spitfire.

Specifications (P-40E)
General characteristics
    Crew: 1
    Length: 31.67 ft (9.66 m)
    Wingspan: 37.33 ft (11.38 m)
    Height: 12.33 ft (3.76 m)
    Wing area: 235.94 ft² (21.92 m²)
    Empty weight: 6,350 lb (2,880 kg)
    Loaded weight: 8,280 lb (3,760 kg)
    Max. takeoff weight: 8,810 lb (4,000 kg)
    Powerplant: 1 × Allison V-1710-39 liquid-cooled V12 engine, 1,150 hp (858 kW)

Performance
    Maximum speed: 360 mph (310 kn, 580 km/h)
    Cruise speed: 270 mph (235 kn, 435 km/h)
    Range: 650 mi (560 nmi, 1,100 km)
    Service ceiling: 29,000 ft (8,800 m)
    Rate of climb: 2,100 ft/min (11 m/s)

Engine power may have been the biggest issue with the P-40 as a carrier plane.

[KJ_Lesnick]

Old Wombat,

Engine power may have been the biggest issue with the P-40 as a carrier plane.

I'm not so sure about that.  The F4F had a horsepower figure of around 1,200.  It was powered by an R-1830 with a twin-stage (allegedly twin-speed) supercharger (I think it might have been one of the first).

As for weights, that is a rather massive gain in weight for the Spitfires -- 1114 pounds if I did my math right. 

Do you have the weight of the early P-40 models in addition to the E?