Curtiss XP-42 ...

[Mark Allen M]

From the NASA/Langley Research Center archives.

Per Wiki: The fourth production P-36 (serial 38-004) became a development platform for a direct successor, designated XP-42 by the USAAC. The XP-42 was powered by a Pratt & Whitney R-1830-31 engine fitted with a longer, streamlined cowling and a large propeller spinner. These features attempted to improve the aerodynamics of the air-cooled radial engine. Because of this feature, the XP-42 superficially resembled aircraft equipped with in-line liquid-cooled engines (such as the P-40, another development of the P-36).

When the XP-42 first flew in March 1939, it proved to be faster than the P-36. However, the P-40 was faster still and the new nose cowling caused engine cooling problems that proved to be unresolvable, despite at least 12 sets of modifications. The XP-42 project was canceled. However, the XP-42 prototype was retained as a test-bed and was later fitted with an all-moving tail (stabilator), for research purposes. This aircraft was scrapped on July 15, 1947.

General characteristics

Crew: 1
Length: 28 ft 6 in (8.69 m)
Wingspan: 37 ft 3.5 in (11.367 m)
Height: 11 ft 1 in (3.38 m) top of propeller disc
Wing area: 235.9 sq ft (21.92 m2)
Airfoil: root: NACA 2215; tip: NACA 2209[3]
Empty weight: 4,818 lb (2,185 kg)
Gross weight: 5,650 lb (2,563 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 6,260 lb (2,839 kg)
Powerplant: 1 × Pratt & Whitney R-1830-31 14-cylinder air-cooled radial piston engine, 1,050 hp (780 kW)
Propellers: 3-bladed constant-speed propeller

Performance

Maximum speed: 315 mph (507 km/h, 274 kn) at 15,000 ft (4,600 m)
Cruise speed: 270 mph (430 km/h, 230 kn)
Range: 730 mi (1,170 km, 630 nmi)
Armament
Guns: provision for 1 × 0.30 in (7.6 mm) M1919 Browning machine gun + 1 × 0.50 in (13 mm) M2 Browning machine gun, but not fitted

[MacHarvard]

An excellent package, Mark. The '36' has always been a favourite. Thank you!

Doug

[aerovin]

I've not seen this documented anywhere but I am guessing that the wing and tail markings "10 MD" are indicative of the aircraft number (10) as assigned to the Materiel Division at Wright Field where the engineering tests were done.

Similar markings on this first-delivered B-17B (38-211) that was used as a prototype for B-17C upgrades with "105 MD" marked on tail and left wing. I wonder if the "105" is a sequential number. One of the XP-42 photos had an early B-17 in the background...possibly "105 MD" on the Wright Field line. Those B-17C upgrades were being worked out probably in the fall of 1939.

[bomberfan]

Interesting. Curtiss really seemed to want to put a radial on that airframe lineage. I was going through P-40 drawings a while ago and found some for installing a R-2800 onto a P-40. It was designated the XP-60. It never went into production. Photo from the Ray Wagner collection.

Attachments

FB_IMG_1650482034170.jpg (18.45 KiB) Viewed 2261 times

[Mark Sampson]

I think that Curtiss was determined to get the most possible out of the P-36 airframe. As seen here, they tried really hard, but newer designs from other companies were superior. Can't argue with the success of the P-40 though!

[Kyleb]

Interesting. Curtiss really seemed to want to put a radial on that airframe lineage. I was going through P-40 drawings a while ago and found some for installing a R-2800 onto a P-40.

It kind of makes sense in that the basic airframe started out with a radial in the P-36. Sadly, Curtiss never really moved on from that mid-30's design, and obsoleted themselves out of the fighter business.

[Scott Rose]

Reminds me of the Mitsubishi J2M Raiden

[shrike]

It kind of makes sense in that the basic airframe started out with a radial in the P-36. Sadly, Curtiss never really moved on from that mid-30's design, and obsoleted themselves out of the fighter business.

Wasn't so much that they obsoleted themselves, but were obsoleted by the USAAF.

The P-40 was adequate, but importantly >In Production<. Curtiss made any number of attempted to produce updated and improved prototypes, like the XP-46, and the aforementioned P-60 variations, but the risk of disrupting steady series production of an airplane that was 'good enough' was deemed too high.