Kyleb wrote:
Mark Sampson wrote:
Some decision-maker looked at the XP-60 and asked... just how is this better than the P-47?
Agreed, it's no fun when a big project gets cancelled.
The amazing thing, and something I genuinely don't understand, is how Curtiss went from producing a very modern aircraft (for its day) in the P-36, updating it into the P-40, and then repetitively stubbing its toe for the duration of the war. With available HP more than doubling over that timeframe, North American figuring out laminar flow, and a thousand other improvements coming down the pike, Curtiss couldn't stack up a few of those learning to make a better airplane? Theymade a brand new airplane 3 years after the first flight of the P-47 and the "new" airplane wasn't enough better to warrant even a sniff?
In a way, Curtiss was a victim of it's own success with the P-40. Like the B-17 (and the Bf109 FTM) they were no longer cutting edge - verging on obsolescent - but servicable, upgradeable and most importantly
in production. Curtiss tried to develop modernized follow-ups - the XP-46, drawing on reports from Europe and actually ordered by the UK (The original "Kittyhawk") before pressure from the USAAC led the order to be cancelled in favor of continued P-40 production, explicitly to avoid the turnover time on the line.