Long-suffering P-60

Long-suffering P-60



Having told about the P-40 fighter, I think it is worth mentioning the plane, which was supposed to replace the Kittyhock. The heir to the family of the "forties" was to become P-60. History this machine can not be called simple and happy. The plane went through an intricate series of change of engines, equipment, design itself - a development path that can hardly be called direct. The main reason for the failure of the project was a change in army requirements. aviation The United States, as well as the company's attempts to use on its plane all the new ideas in the field of aviation.

Realizing the main shortcomings of the P-40 and its rapid aging, as well as refusing the development of the previous, clearly unsuccessful project XP-46, Curtiss proposed a new project. The new aircraft, bearing the brand name "model 88", was a XP-46 redesigned to the newly developed 12-cylinder liquid-cooled engine Continental XIV-1430-3, take-off power 1 600 hp The “88 Model” was to receive the fuselage and tail from the P-40D and a new wing with the NACA laminar profile. Armament was to consist of eight 12,7-mm wing machine guns. The maximum speed of the aircraft was estimated at 688 km / h.



October 1 1940, the US Army Air Force issued an order for two aircraft "model 88" under the designation XP-53. However, at a meeting after six weeks, the army demanded that Curtiss-Wright use the British-developed Merlin engine on fighters. Curtiss offered to convert one of the copies of XP-53 (41-19508) under the engine "Merlin". This aircraft received the internal designation "model 90". The United States Army Air Force approved the project and assigned it the name XP-60. The plane was supposed to get a Rolls-Royce V-1650-1 "Merlin" hp 1300 engine, produced under the license of Packard. The same engine was planned to be installed on XP-40Р. The second copy of the XP-53 planned to finish with the engine Continental.

While the XP-53 and the XP-60 were on assembly, the army decided to cancel the order for the XP-53 because of the expected delay with the Continental XIV-1430 engine. XP-53 didn’t fly into the air. Engine Continental did not get into mass production, and all projects designed for this engine were discontinued.

In November, the 1941 g glider XP-53 was transferred to static tests as part of the work on the P-60, and the bullet-proof glass, retrofit tanks and weapons from this aircraft were used on the XP-60. During the production of the experienced XP-60, it was decided to replace the landing gear, which were removed according to the model of the Р-40 (with a turn around the axis) with new ones, similarly standing on the experienced XP-46.

The XP-60 with the Merlin-28 engine first flew the 18 September 1941. His flight data was disappointing. The maximum speed at the height of 6710 m was only 620 km / h. The height of 4575 m was typed in 7,3 min. The main reason for the lack of speed was that the surface of the wing did not have enough quality performance, which was especially needed for the laminar profile. Another reason was that the Merlin engine did not deliver the declared power.



The XP-60 crashed twice due to a non-release chassis. During the tests, it became clear that it was necessary to increase the keel area and make some changes to the aircraft. After the necessary improvements, the aircraft received the designation “model 90А”.

In August, the Packard “Merlin” V-1942-60 1650 HP engine was installed on the 3 of the year on the XP-1350. with a two-speed supercharger. On the plane put a four-bladed propeller. The army changed the designation of the machine to XP-60D, and in the company it was called "model 90В". At the time of these modifications, the army designation with the letters "B" and "C" received new models of the aircraft, and the XP-60D was broken 6 May 1943 of the year.



By the end of 1941, it became clear that the supply of licensed Merlin engines would barely cover the needs of already produced aircraft, and it was clear that the production program for the P-60 would probably have difficulty with this. As a result, they decided to install the Allison V-60 motor on the P-1710 - fairly reliable and affordable. October 21 1941 was contracted to supply the X-NUMX fighter P-1950. Allison V-60-1710 with 75 horsepower, HP, should have been used as a power plant for them. at height 1425 m.

However, 17 November 1941 of the year due to the insufficient power of the Allison engine, it was decided to wait for the appearance of a new, more powerful engine model, or to launch another fighter instead of the R-60А.

After Pearl Harbor, serious doubts arose as to whether it was necessary to interrupt the mass production of the P-40 fighter at such a critical moment, in anticipation of the launch of a completely new aircraft. 20 December 1941 r decided to stop all work on Р-60А, and 2 on January 1942, the order for 1950 Р-60А was replaced with the supply of a larger number of Р-40К and L fighters, as well as the P-47С "Thunderbolts" should have been built under license at Curtiss.

However, the P-60 program did not end there. The army decided to order three more experimental machines: one XP-60A, one XP-60В and one XP-60С. On the XP-60, they planned to install an Allison V-1710-75 engine and a General Electric B-14 turbocharger. The XP-60B with the same engine was supposed to get a Wright turbocharger 511-504-2. XP-60С was built under the experimental 16-cylinder engine Chrysler XIV-2220. Usually, a change of engine led to a change in the name of the aircraft, but in this case, the army decided to limit the change of letters to the modification designation.

The first of the new batch of experienced P-60 was the XP-60. Installing the Allison engine meant using the XP-60A wing from the XP-60 and the new fuselage. XP-60A received another brand designation "model 95A". The bow and fuselage contours of this vehicle have been modified, the armament has been reduced to six 12,7-mm wing machine guns. The plane got a four-bladed propeller.



XP-60A began to make jogs on the airfield at the end of October 1942. During the tests, a small engine fire broke out due to poor cooling of the exhaust pipe leading to the turbocharger. As a result, the turbocharger and exhaust pipe were removed from the aircraft and replaced with a conventional exhaust manifold. His first flight of the XP-60A made 11 November 1942 g. The take-off weight of the aircraft was - 4366 kg. The maximum speed was expected (but in reality it was never attained in tests) in 672 km / h at an altitude of 8845 m and 520 km / h on the ground. The ceiling was estimated at 10700 m. The real speed and rate of climb of the aircraft turned out to be much less than the calculated ones. As a result, the XP-60A was disassembled for parts for the assembly of the following XP-60С and XP-60Е.

Poor flight data XP-60A led to a decrease in interest in the entire program of the fighter P-60. Above it, the threat of complete termination. However, Curtiss offered the army the XP-60 version for the Pratt & Whitney P-2800 air-cooled engine with coaxial three-bladed propellers as a radical means of saving the project.

The significant increase in flight performance expected on this aircraft spurred the army’s interest in the car and, in November 1942, the company received an order for X-NUMX fighters Р-500А-60-СU for engines Р-1. The first 2800 aircraft of this series were to be delivered as an installation batch under the designation YР-26А.

The XP-60C should have received a glider similar to the XP-60 and XP-60В, but under the Chrysler XIV-2220 engine, the take-off power of the 2300 hp. Since the work on the engine was going through great difficulties, in September 1942 G the order for the aircraft was re-arranged, taking into account the use of the Pratt & Whitney engine R-2800-53 2000 hp. Armament has been reduced to four 12,7-mm machine guns. The first flight of the XP-60C made 27 January 1943 year. Except for the heavy load on the steering wheels, the flight data of the new car was quite satisfactory.



The XP-60B variant was similar to the XP-60A and differed only in replacing the General-Electric turbocharger with the Wright turbocharger. But in this version the plane was never completed. 2 December 1942 r Army decided to install on it the Pratt & Whitney R-2800 engine, instead of the originally planned V-1710. Unlike the XP-60C, which had three-blade coaxial screws, the aircraft received one four-blade propeller. The name of the car has changed to XP-60. Since the new screw weighed less than the coaxial screws on the XP-60C, the engine had to be moved to 25 cm to keep the alignment forward. Because of the engine failure during the test days, the first flight of the XP-60 took place only 26, my 1943goda.

At the end of April 1943, the United States Army Air Forces decided to conduct a series of comparative tests of various fighters at Patterson Field, in order to determine the direction of the continuation of work and select the best fighter. The army offered Curtiss-Wright to set up the XP-60E for these tests for four days. Since the XP-60E was not even flown over, Curtiss-Wright introduced the XP-60C instead.

During tests at Patterson-Field, the XP-60С engine could not deliver full power. In addition, the experienced wing coating peeled off at the leading edge, which significantly reduced the advantages of the laminar profile. As a result, the plane lost visibly in speed, making a bad impression on the army, since Ripablik P-470 and North American P-51В gave way to the army. As a result, there could be no question of any order for mass production for the P-60. In June 1943, the army reduced the order for the Р-60А-1-С11 from 500 to two cars.

After the return of the XP-60 to the company, the tests of the aircraft were continued, but the forced landing led to an accident and the cessation of flights. By this time, the continuation of work on the P-60 has lost all meaning, since the P-47 and P-51 fully complied with the requirements of the army. However, the army agreed to test the XP-60, which did not have time to fly to Patterson Field in May of 1943.



In January, the 1944 of the XP-60E ("950 model") was overtaken by Elgin Field for official trials. Army pilots found that the XP-60E is not particularly superior to the fighters already produced in horizontal speed, but has a better rate of climb. The plane was too sensitive to the controls. Stability on the course and during climb was low.

By May, 1944-th Curtiss-Wright finally realized the futility of continuing work on the P-60 and invited the army to curtail the project. However, the US Air Force insisted on the execution of contracts and, at least, put one of the two YP-60A - all that was left of the order for P-60-1-СU. This aircraft received the designation YP-60E - the same designation modification, that of XP-60E.

Thus, the only one of YP-60A took to the air already under the designation UR-60Е. Actually it was the second copy of the YP-60A. The first flight took place on July 15 1944. From the previous P-60, the aircraft was distinguished by a drop-shaped cockpit lantern and a new keel, which made it look like the Thunderbolt P-47D-25.

A total of two YP-60E flights were made at Curtiss Wright, after which the aircraft was transferred to Wright Field. By that time, the army no longer saw any need for P-60, and no tests were carried out. After the war, YP-60E was put up for sale and purchased by James Landing. In 1947, the aircraft was exhibited at the National Air Racing under the number 80, but crashed during the qualifying flight.





Sources:
Ivanov S. Curtiss P-40 // War in the air. No.53. C.46-48.
Firsov A. US Fighters // Aviation Collection. No.14. C. 62-64.
Kotelnikov V., Leiko O. Fighter Р-40 // Digest "Wings". No.2. C. 30-31.
Donald D. US military aircraft of World War II. M: AST, Astrel, 2002. C. 72-73.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

13 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. qwert 14 October 2015 07: 42 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    The 4 machine gun, even the heavy ones for the 44 year, is already not enough. The Americans did the right thing to kill him.
  2. cth; fyn 14 October 2015 08: 24 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Urya! The series will continue! Revered.
    1. cth; fyn 14 October 2015 11: 55 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Chet is not Urya, Chet is all sad (((.
  3. evil partisan 14 October 2015 08: 51 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    Eh ... Our designers, but their engines ...
    1. Cap.Morgan 14 October 2015 09: 16 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      So we had their engines. Only the previous generation.
      From an article about Klimov:
      "In 1924 he was sent to Germany to purchase and receive a BMW-4 engine (in the licensed production of M-17).

      From 1928 to 1930 he is on a business trip in France, where he is also engaged in the purchase of the Gnome-Ron Jupiter-7 engine (in the licensed production of M-22).
      From 1931 to 1935, Vladimir Yakovlevich headed the department of gasoline engines of the newly created IAM (later VIAM) and led the department of engine design at MAI. In 1935, as the chief designer of the factory number 26 in Rybinsk, sent to France to negotiate the acquisition of a license to manufacture a 12-cylinder, V-shaped engine of Spanish-Suiz 12 Ybrs, which in the USSR received the designation M-100. The development of this engine - VK-103, VK-105PF and VK-107A engines were installed on all Yakovlev fighters and on the Petlyakov Pe-2 bomber during the war years. At the end of the war, Klimov developed the VK-108 engine, but he never entered serial production. "
      Seriously, we did not pay due attention to the development of engines. That was a big mistake. It was the engines that made Mustang Mustang, and Spitfire Spitfire. The Americans, having good engines, could pay less attention to aerodynamics. Many planes look rather clumsy.
  4. evil partisan 14 October 2015 09: 17 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Quote: Cap.Morgan
    so we had their own engines.

    Yes in the know.
    Quote: Cap.Morgan
    Only the previous generation.

    This is it ...
  5. Technologist 14 October 2015 10: 34 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    They are not beautiful.
    1. jjj
      jjj 14 October 2015 11: 01 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      The fuselage on the midship is almost the size of a person. Yes, the Americans have their own way in building fighter jets
  6. _KM_ 14 October 2015 10: 53 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Quote: Cap.Morgan
    Seriously, we did not pay due attention to the development of engines.


    Unfortunately yes. Motor industry has always been an unloved child of our industry and government. And before the war, and after, and now.
  7. qwert 14 October 2015 11: 12 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Quote: Cap.Morgan
    It was the engines that made Mustang a Mustang, and Spitfire a Spitfire.


    Well, yes, the English Merlin made a Mustang from a Mustang. A German cannon and English abuse from the tank Abrams Abrams.
    1. cth; fyn 14 October 2015 11: 59 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      They know how to adapt, the devils.
  8. _KM_ 14 October 2015 11: 57 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    The motor is the heart of the car. It is impossible to create an airplane without it. wink
  9. mvg
    mvg 14 October 2015 12: 32 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Yak - 2 tons with something .. Amerikosy from 4 onwards ... Therefore, it is noticeably larger. The Japanese didn’t have an engine at all .. Look at Zero .. At best, in the last modifications - 1200, at Thunderbolt - 2300. But they flew and fought. In general, if, yes, as it were .. We would face the war with the Aero Cobras, Spits IX, and even the first to attack .. :-) The Germans would stop us in the Balkans .. But this is an alternative story
    1. evil partisan 14 October 2015 17: 42 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: mvg
      Yak - 2

      Actually, it was a light bomber + scout ...
  10. uncle 14 October 2015 13: 39 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    The P-60 is one of many curtiss aircraft. There are also good North American p-51 Mustangs. Bell's P-63 kingcobra came under Lend-Lease in the USSR.
  11. qwert 14 October 2015 15: 59 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    Quote: mvg
    We will fight the war with Aero Cobra, Spits IX, and even attack first .. :-)

    I read an interesting article comparing the MiG-3 with Spitfire. In general, at high altitudes the MiG-3 was not inferior to Spitfire, and at low altitudes the Spitfire was not better than the MiG. In short, both were not suitable for the Soviet front. hi
    1. kara61 1 May 2016 14: 50 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      If the MiG-3 also had normal engines, and machine guns always fired.
  12. Denimax 14 October 2015 21: 35 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: wicked partisan
    Eh ... Our designers, but their engines ...

    At least duralumin in the right amount. Identity would be welcome.
    1. goose 19 October 2015 15: 23 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Denimax
      At least duralumin in the right amount. Identity would be welcome.

      If DneproGES had not been given away with aluminum production, a land lease would not have been needed.
    2. kara61 1 May 2016 14: 51 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      We always had problems with engines.
  13. The comment was deleted.
  14. uncle 14 October 2015 22: 50 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    The Finns fought very well on the Brewster F-2a Biffalo fighter. The company previously produced wagons and was not a professional aircraft designer.
  15. rohl 21 October 2015 01: 37 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    And ours at that time made quantity, not quality. Machine guns 7.62 instead of 12.7. Sadness is sadness.