Talk:Curtiss P-36 Hawk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


An example is still flying in the UK I believe, see vid clip on YT:

Royzee 10:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

"This video has been removed due to terms of use violation." :-( Drutt 19:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Lack of supercharger probably wrong![edit]

"Its extremely low wing loading of just 23.9 lb/ft² gave it outstanding turning performance, [N 1] and its high power-to-weight ratio of 0.186 hp/lb gave it superb climbing performance as well, especially for the time, although its lack of an engine supercharger handicapped it at high altitudes. Compared to the Allison-engined P-40, the P-36 shared the later P-40's traits of excellent high-speed handling, of roll rate that improved at high speed and of relatively light controls at high speed. However, it was underpowered affecting its acceleration and top speed and it did not accelerate in a dive as well as the P-40."

But some people misunderstand what the problem about lack of supercharging was about, it wasn't that these engines weren't supercharged. They were.

The matter was that, they lacked the more advanced "two stage supercharging" or alternatively "geared supercharging" or a second alternative "turbo supercharging" of later engines.

In a twin stage setting, there are two superchargers a second adding additional boost hence power especially when extra is needed. A geared supercharger should explain itself, that it has two settings i.e. so boost can be adjusted, generally low altitude setting and mid to high altitude setting. A turbo supercharger adds turbo as a second stage in boosting the power, instead of a second supercharger.

Indian (HAL) Hawks?[edit]

The article currently states that 5 Mohawk IVz were built by HAL, plus the Chinese aircraft when Chinese production was moved to India - Both the Shores Air Enthusiast article and March state that the original HAL licenced production didn't amount to anything, while HAL assembled 5 of the ex-Chinese A-5s. Could these two orders be confused? In addition forces in India received 10 Hawk 75A-9s captured during the Anglo-Iranian invasion of Iran in 1941.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Reverting updates made to his article is plainly ignorant ![edit]

Reverting updates made to his article is plainly ignorant, especially when it gets to changing things like "the 1930s and 40s" back to "the 1940s". The P-36 was clearly an airplane of the 1940s, especially since the French Air Force and the Chinese Air Force were flying them in 1940 - 41. Can't you count?
Also, providing hyperlinks to things like the Seversky Aircraft Company for the P - 35 is clearly advantageous. Have you ever stopped to think that lots of people don't know anything about the Seversky Aircraft Company, and they have never heard of it.
Furthermore, the term fighter plane is an article in the Wikipedia, and the airplanes in this article should be called "fighter planes" and linked to that article. Stop this ignorant reversion process! (talk) 22:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The Northrop Aircraft Company[edit]

Furthermore, most people who will read this article have no idea who or what "Northrop" was, and thus, it is far better to write the the Northrop Aircraft Company. Likewise for "Boeing". (talk) 22:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Much superior Hawker Hurricane?????[edit]

Somebody should eliminate that phrase! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

full agree, the hawk 75 go best of hurricane both over france and over birmania —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:40, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

more british bias[edit]

Hawker hurricane was fabric coated and built a full two years after this ground breaking aircraft was developed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

You dont explain which bit is bias towards the British, I assume you dont like the mention of Hurricane in the lead. The Bf 109 is also mentioned which I dont think was built by the British. MilborneOne (talk) 11:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I think he's objecting to the claim "much superior" in the phrase "A contemporary of the much superior Hawker Hurricane and Messerschmitt Bf 109". It's a bit unusual to make a blanket statement like that in the Lead with no explanation or attribution. Is the phrase only talking about performance? - BilCat (talk) 11:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Agree Bill I dont think we need superior as you say it is not qualified they are contemporary as having all first flown within a few months of each other. Still dont understand the British bias in calling both the Hurricane and Bf 109 superior! MilborneOne (talk) 12:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I have tweaked the sentence to remove the superior, although we could be accused of American bias now! MilborneOne (talk) 12:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I've often noted that neutral statements about American-related topics are seen by British/Europeans as slights against the inherent superiority of all things British/European. :) - BilCat (talk) 12:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
The early Hurricane I had fabric-covered wings and a two-bladed Watts fixed-pitch propeller, so the P-36 probably was superior, however the 1940 Hurricane Mark Ia with Rotol or de Havilland propeller and metal-covered wings was almost certainly better than the P-36. No RAF Battle of Britain pilot would have swapped his Hurricane for a P-36/Mohawk, or even for a P-40. Not even an Eagle Squadron pilot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:52, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Number of Kills in French Service[edit]

I edited the number of confirmed kills in French service from 330 to 230. I believe the 330 figure was a typo, either by the person who posted it, or in the source he was citing. French Fighters of World War Two, by John F. Brindley, gives the figure for the Hawk 75 as "230 confirmed and 81 probable victories between the outbreak of World War Two and June 14, 1940." Robert Jackson, in Air War Over France 1939-40, notes of the units using Hawk 75s that "Between them the five groups claimed no fewer than 311 victories." (Jackson, by using the word "claimed", is combining the 230 confirmed and 81 probable into one figure, which totals 311.) Baclightning (talk) 03:25, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I understand the reason for the edit, but it falls into the category of WP:OR and / or WP:SYN, basically you cant really extrapolate figures based on material which isnt in the source cited. You would have to find a new published source and add your own cite to the page. Irondome (talk) 03:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
The Brindley book specifically gives the figure for confirmed kills as 230. I'm not good at the technical aspects of editing a wiki page. Once I feel secure in my ability to do so, I will edit the page and cite the Brindley book as my source. Baclightning (talk) 03:45, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
I have removed "confirmed" anyhow. Claimed fits more comfortably with the existing sources given at the mo Irondome (talk) 03:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
I am not seeing evidence of your accusation of original research and synthesis, only a desire for accuracy. If Robert Jackson says 230 confirmed and 81 probable, we should stick with those figures. (Baclightning, what page is that?) Note that history professor Robin Higham says 233 confirmed and 84 probable on page 46 of his book Unflinching Zeal. USMC fighter pilot Jay A. Stout says "claimed approximately 230" on page 20 of The Men Who Killed the Luftwaffe. Binksternet (talk) 04:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
I was not "accusing" anybody of anything. I was giving what appears to be a realatively new editor some ideas on what may or may not be acceptable. Ok? Irondome (talk) 04:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
The figures are on page 52 of the Brindley book, and on page 144 of the Jackson book. BTW, I certainly took no offense - I was grateful for the guidance.Baclightning (talk) 04:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)