navalized P-40

[airman]

navalized P-40 : only on game " Attack on Pearl Harbour" of Legendo or also in other speculative project ?

 

[_Del_]

Well they were flown OFF carriers. I don't know that any plans for navalization occurred. It's one thing to launch them on a one-way trip to shore and another to trap them and service them for prolonged periods at sea.

 

[_Del_]

http://www.criticalpast.com/video/65675071272_Curtiss-P-40_aircraft-carrier_army-pilots_P-40s-take-off_World-War-II

Footage, even!

 

[airman]

Oh Thanks : good video !

 

[CostasTT]

Interestingly enough, the video most likely wasn't shot in the Pacific as claimed. The P-40Fs wear desert camouflage, so in all probability they belonged to the 57th FG, flown off the USS Ranger (CV4) on July 19th 1942. The Pacific part is either erroneous or deliberate misinformation.
http://modelstories.free.fr/profils/Pink_P/
http://www.usmilitariaforum.com/forums/index.php?/topic/14319-curtiss-p-40-warhawk/page-2

 

[Piper106]

I think that with the addition of an arrestor hook and folding wings, the P-40E / K / M would have been a decent carrier based figher from late 1941 through the end of 1943. Better performance than a Sea Hurricane. Close in performance to the Merlin engine Seafires. With its wide track landing gear and greater durablity it would have had significantly more combat effectiveness than the Seafire (a flying P-40 is worth a lot more than a wrecked Seafire). And dare I say, better performance at low altitude than the F4F.

 

[KJ_Lesnick]

I wonder how much it'd weigh extra to put in the stronger gears, hooks, strengthened lower rear fuselage, folding wings and so on. Especially when you consider much of the extra weight which came onto the P-40 was armor, bullet-proof glass, self-sealing fuel-tanks, extra guns, provision for an extra 1500 pounds of bombs. The aircraft was pretty much built like a tank otherwise.


What I'd be conserned about is whether the P-40 would meet over the nose visibility requirements which is very important for carrier ops. However, the F4U had a pretty long nose and it did okay

 

[Jemiba]

...However, the F4U had a pretty long nose and it did okay

AFAIK, bad visibility durig carrier approach was the reason, that the USN didn't use their Corsairs from
carriers for quite a long time ! With regards to Eric "Winkle" Brown, it was the Royal Navy, who pioneered
the ship use of this type.

 

[KJ_Lesnick]

How would a P-36 fair against an F4F especially if fitted with armor, self-sealing tanks, carrier mods, 4 x 12.7mm instead of 1 x 12.7 and 1 x 7.62 and the same supercharging equipment the Wildcat was fitted with (twin-stage twin-speed supercharger IIRC)