Britain receives two A6Ms in Oct 1940

[McPherson]

I'm 'FREE because of Lend Lease' aeroplane.

Spending Pounds Sterling to make a foreign design in the UK?

How much do you "know" about the "British" Corsair? The planes were built by Vought, but they had to be "tweaked". The photo actually gives a clue if you look closely at the wing cranked into the folded position, but the FAA birds had to be wing clipped a couple dozen centimeters each port/starboard to operate from British flattops. This improved stall characteristics tremendously and allowed safer, if slightly faster carrier traps. Those were pounds sterling well spent!

 

[Alanith]

How much do you "know" about the "British" Corsair? The planes were built by Vought, but they had to be "tweaked". The photo actually gives a clue if you look closely at the wing cranked into the folded position, but the FAA birds had to be wing clipped a couple dozen centimeters each port/starboard to operate from British flattops. This improved stall characteristics tremendously and allowed safer, if slightly faster carrier traps. Those were pounds sterling well spent!

I'm pretty sure cutting four inches off each wing is vastly cheaper then reverse engineering a foreign design and starting up production of a THIRD monowing fighter plane... One which shares no commonality with any other design in the inventory, and will require extensive redesign to meet requirements, unless you're advocating sending FAA pilots up in an unmodified deathtrap. Now by all means, if you can provide the cost for Corsair conversion, and an estimated cost for reverse engineering and setting up production of the Zero, and they're remotely comparable, I'll gladly admit my error, but I don't think it is.

 

[McPherson]

I'm pretty sure cutting four inches off each wing is vastly cheaper then reverse engineering a foreign design and starting up production of a THIRD monowing fighter plane... One which shares no commonality with any other design in the inventory, and will require extensive redesign to meet requirements, unless you're advocating sending FAA pilots up in an unmodified deathtrap. Now by all means, if you can provide the cost for Corsair conversion, and an estimated cost for reverse engineering and setting up production of the Zero, and they're remotely comparable, I'll gladly admit my error, but I don't think it is.

You don't just "chop" off the tips of a plane's wings without serious wind tunnel and flight test work. That costs money and time and since it has to be done by the user, namely the British, since they are the ones with the aircraft carrier and the pilots who have to use the bird, it will be their testing, training, maintenance and repair establishment that has to do the work. None of that is cheap or easy.

Then there is the use procedures which have to overcome sight line limitations, the creation of an aircraft flight training syllabus for Joe Average Pilot to operate safely from the flattop and then the weapon proof (Tirpitz raid.). The British did that work first. Saved Uncle a lot of dollars and time in the doing.

Yeah it adds quickly up to about the cost of reverse engineering one (count him 1 A6M Zero which is about £2,000,000.00). Your factory floor cost after that? about £25,000 a Zero. Cheap plane. How many Corsairs do you want?

 

[Alanith]

You don't just "chop" off the tips of a plane's wings without serious wind tunnel and flight test work. That costs money and time and since it has to be done by the user, namely the British, since they are the ones with the aircraft carrier and the pilots who have to use the bird, it will be their testing, training, maintenance and repair establishment that has to do the work. None of that is cheap or easy.

Then there is the use procedures which have to overcome sight line limitations, the creation of an aircraft flight training syllabus for Joe Average Pilot to operate safely from the flattop and then the weapon proof (Tirpitz raid.). The British did that work first. Saved Uncle a lot of dollars and time in the doing.

Yeah it adds quickly up to about the cost of reverse engineering one (count him 1 A6M Zero which is about £2,000,000.00). Your factory floor cost after that? about £25,000 a Zero. Cheap plane. How many Corsairs do you want?

And how much does that Zero cost after you add in self sealing fuel tanks, armor, and all the other things that make it not a black widow? Or are you just planning on forcing young English men up in this known deathtrap? What happens when they refuse? Are you going to court martial an entire CAG, or is it more likely you'll be promoted laterally or 'encouraged' to take early retirement? And how much do the bribes to the politicians cost to get the Zero produced, and more importantly, actually headed to the FAA in lieu of more of the Spitfires the RAF is screaming and throwing a hissy fit for? Are you going to sacrifice four engine bomber production to get them? I don't think so. Now if the FAA was smart, they might be able to point at the Zero and make a case for "Well the Japanese have been acting more aggressive in recent years, so we need a better fighter for our carriers if you're expecting the Royal Navy to risk its ships."

 

[The Wooksta!]

Can we cut out this "lend lease is free" shit? The US didn't give the UK anything for free, it was all to be paid for and the UK taxpayer was still being bled white well into the 1990s paying for lease lend stuff.

 

[McPherson]

And how much does that Zero cost after you add in self sealing fuel tanks, armor, and all the other things that make it not a black widow? Or are you just planning on forcing young English men up in this known deathtrap? What happens when they refuse? Are you going to court martial an entire CAG, or is it more likely you'll be promoted laterally or 'encouraged' to take early retirement? And how much do the bribes to the politicians cost to get the Zero produced, and more importantly, actually headed to the FAA in lieu of more of the Spitfires the RAF is screaming and throwing a hissy fit for? Are you going to sacrifice four engine bomber production to get them? I don't think so. Now if the FAA was smart, they might be able to point at the Zero and make a case for "Well the Japanese have been acting more aggressive in recent years, so we need a better fighter for our carriers if you're expecting the Royal Navy to risk its ships."

Well, you don't add in those things. That is not a Zero. It, as is, is an all offense design philosophy Japanese choice to get maximum performance in a turning dogfighter of long range and good altitude band performance with a 750 kWatt aero-engine. You want self-sealing fuel tanks, armor, and the other jazz you buy or beg for a Wildcat and teach your pilots the USN way of how to fight. Then when you have the option and the proper pilot training, you get a Corsair and spend the money to make it "British".

Fleet air arm was happy to get it and the training.

The RAF could have learned a lot from the boys who taught the USN, by the way. Deflection shooting, pairs tactics, slash in and out, all of it was invented by an outfit called the Republic of China Air Force in their unequal battles with the Japanese to even the odds. Flying Tigers learned it and sent it on and the USN adopted it.

Just thought I throw that in to give due credit to people who never get it.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

If, and it's a big if, a new British carrier fighter came out of having early access to Zeros for testing it's likely to be a Sea Typhoon built under licence by one of the smaller British firms. More likely they just develop the Hurricane into a fully navalised fighter with folding wings, increased range and higher powered engine.

 

[The Wooksta!]

The Sea Typhoon ITTL better look better than the one designed OTL. If you thought the RAF Typhoon clunky, then the navalised one looks like a right bag of shite. It looks even worse than the early Firebrands...

I've commented on it in this thread:
https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/no-spitfire.459378/page-9#post-18244558

 

[marathag]

Can we cut out this "lend lease is free" shit? The US didn't give the UK anything for free, it was all to be paid for and the UK taxpayer was still being bled white well into the 1990s paying for lease lend stuff.

It was FREE as along as it was pushed off the deck in 1946. Or returned to the USA
They only cost money when retained after the War

 

[marathag]

Well, you don't add in those things. That is not a Zero. It, as is, is an all offense design philosophy Japanese choice to get maximum performance in a turning dogfighter of long range and good altitude band performance with a 750 kWatt aero-engine. You want self-sealing fuel tanks, armor, and the other jazz you buy or beg for a Wildcat and teach your pilots the USN way of how to fight. Then when you have the option and the proper pilot training, you get a Corsair and spend the money to make it "British".

Oh, it's still a Zero, just farther down the development chain

A6M2 Navy Type 0 Carrier Fighter Model 21 - with folding wing tips
Engine: 1x Nakajima Sakae 12 engine w/ single-stage supercharger [940hp at take-off, 950hp at 13,780ft] w/ 3-bladed constant-speed metal propeller
Speed: 331.5mph at 14,930ft (maximum)
Climb Rate: 5min55sec to 16,400ft; 7min27sec to 19,685ft
Ceiling: 32,810ft
Fuel: 518liters internal + 330liter ventral drop tank
Range: 1,160miles (normal); 1,930miles (maximum)
Weight: 3,704lb empty; 5,313lb loaded
Armament: 2x 7.7mm Type 97 machine guns w/500rpg
2x 20mm Type 99 Model 1 Mark 3 cannon w/60rpg 2x 132lb bombs

A6M5c (Navy Type 0 Carrier Fighter Model 52c)
engine: 1x Nakajima Sakae 21 engine w/two-stage supercharger [1,130hp at take-off, 1,100hp at 9,350ft, 980hp at 19,685ft] w/ 3-bladed constant speed Sumitomo propeller
speed: 348mph at 19,685ft (maximum) (maximum diving speed: 410mph?)
climb rate: 5min50sec to 16,405ft
ceiling: 36,255ft
fuel: 610liter internal + 330liter ventral drop tank
range: 1,314miles at 230mph
weight: 4,751lb empty; 6,945lb loaded
armament: 3x 13.2mm Type 3 machine guns, 2x 20mm Type 99 Model 2 Mark 4 cannon w/125rpg, 4x 30kg air-to-air rockets
number built: 93 by Mitsubishi (in 1944)
heavier engine, but now had Radio, armorglass and seatback armor and some tanks(and more of them too) had basic self sealing, coated with unvulcanized rubber.

But in 1944, was bait to Hellcats and Corsairs.

But there isn't anything there(besides the 13mm guns and engine) that couldn't have been done in 1940, if the IJN would have wanted some pilot survivability at the cost of range, maneuverability and a bit off top speed

 

[Spencersj345.346]

I'd add the Avenger torpedo bomber to the priority stack for the USN since a USN CV had to approach entirely too close to a IJN CV to get in range of a Devastator. Not to mention Devastators were death traps in 1941/2. Hopefully the USN would beach the Devastators and beef up the numbers of SBDs and whatever fighters they had for the CV groups until Avengers were available.

In all fairness the Devastator was a better plane than the Swordfish it just had the bad luck of having a terrible torpedo and going up against heavy fighter opposition which when combined with only 130 ever being built meant that it literally needed to be replaced following the loss of 41 of them at Midway

 

[McPherson]

But there isn't anything there(besides the 13mm guns and engine) that couldn't have been done in 1940, if the IJN would have wanted some pilot survivability at the cost of range, maneuverability and a bit off top speed

They didn't have the kWatts and they didn't have the guns in 1940. Plus there were only 93 built. Hardly a blip in the overall Pacific war.

 

[marathag]

They didn't have the kWatts and they didn't have the guns in 1940. Plus there were only 93 built. Hardly a blip in the overall Pacific war.

In 1944, there were other options.

But four years earlier in 1940, the only thing keeping out thicker wink skinf for better G ratings, armor plate and radio from each aircraft, was policy, not lack of technology or knowhow, to go for minimum possible weight

 

[McPherson]

In 1944, there were other options.

Agreed.

But four years earlier in 1940, the only thing keeping out thicker wink skinf for better G ratings, armor plate and radio from each aircraft, was policy, not lack of technology or knowhow, to go for minimum possible weight

I refer you to this work. It would be hard for Jiro Horikoshi to improve on what he did, given Japanese state of the art in 1937. He needed the added kilowatts^1 and there weren't any to be had (1939). In fact if not for a Japanese metallurgical breakthrough, later duplicated independently by the United States, the Zeke would STILL have been impossible. Shaved off about 200-300 kgs in the airframe. Not insignificant.

^1 Nakagawa, Ryōichi (1985). Engine History of Nakajima Aircraft. Tōkyō: Kantōsha. pp. 76–85.

 

[marathag]

I refer you to this work. It would be hard for Jiro Horikoshi to improve on what he did, given Japanese state of the art in 1937. He needed the added kilowatts^1 and there weren't any to be had (1939). In fact if not for a Japanese metallurgical breakthrough, later duplicated independently by the United States, the Zeke would STILL have been impossible. Shaved off about 200-300 kgs in the airframe. Not insignificant.

Problem was, they were not stupid. they knew that going with extra thin skins would save weight(Maneuverability!!), but then they found that pilots could wrinkle the wings at high speed just by trying for a full aileron roll, s0 they 'fixed' it by allowing the control cables to stretch.
Viola! Roll rate went to shit, but no more wrinkles.

Until they tried diving away from Wildcats, anyway. Solution was with thicker skin, more weight. and more rivets

So original lightweight naval fighter, per the Specs the Government set, got changed. It picked up weight.

Same thing happened with the change form the P-40C, that still was pretty much a P-36 with a radial engine.

The P-40D was nearly a whole new aircraft. Thinker skin, thicker frames and stringers, Airframe was far more durable, and more guns

But Curtiss went overboard, and made a dog on the available powerplants. What had been nimble by european standards no longer was.
It's all a balancing act. A6M2 Zero went too far on the light side. the A6M5c happened too late for a medium solution that was needed in 1942

 

[AdA]

Having zeros to test fly in 1940 will mostly just lead to a better understanding of how to fight them with existing aircraft and with aircraft being developed.
But it must be remembered that knowing very well how the Bf109 worked still did not lead to the RAF sending better aircraft or working out better tacticts for north africa.
The pilots manning defences in the Pacific would probably be told:"Well chaps, turns out the japanese fighters are way better than what we thought, so you'll have to fight harder. Best of luck and will be sending some extra cans of tea and some biscuits for morale".

 

[nbcman]

Avenger and Sea Wolf run into developmental troubles. I don't see them serial ready before September 1942, even if the plane crashes and landing gear problems are taken away. OTOH, the N3PB is ready for prime time if somebody will kick Jack Northrop, the flying wing nut, awake in 1940 and tell him to adapt an SBD's landing gear to it. Gives a viable interim torpedo bomber/scout better than the Devastator in early 1941 to operate from flattops. Of course none of it means a damn if the Mark XIII doesn't work and is not discovered not to work. It was the torpedo that was the reason the Devastators failed at Midway. Enough of them survived to reach their launch points to kill two, maybe three IJN carriers IF the damn torpedoes had worked. I go through that scenario in the ATL "Those Marvelous Tin Fish" during the Midway treatment.

If there were no Devastators at Midway, Fletcher / Browning could have launched the strike earlier in the day than 0750 due to the longer legs of SBDs and been able to hit the Japanese CVs far earlier than OTL since Dauntless' cruise speed is far faster than a Devastators'. Of course, the earlier launched SBDs could entirely miss the KB as they almost did IOTL unless they received sighting info from the Midway based planes which attacked around 0800 - or simply followed those planes in. EDIT: So the US Carriers were forced to come closer to the IJN CVs due to the Devastators - and they could have swapped them out with a mix of Wildcats and Dauntlesses which were far more useful at Midway and Coral Sea.

 

[CalBear]

Considerable interest in the Hawk had been aroused in Britain as a result of a test flight carried out with an Armee de l'Air Hawk by an RAF pilot in France. The Hawk 75A possessed remarkably good controls and the ailerons were fairly light at high speeds in contrast with the early Spitfire which had ailerons which were almost immobile at speeds over 300 mph. At the end of 1939, the Royal Aircraft Establishment arranged for a loan of a Curtiss Hawk from France (the 88th production Hawk 75A-2) for comparative trials against a Spitfire I (K9944). In many respects, the Hawk turned out to be superior to the Spitfire. The RAE found that the Hawk did indeed have exceptional handling characteristics and beautifully harmonized controls. In a diving attack at 400 mph, the Hawk was far superior to the Spitfire I owing to its lighter ailerons. In a dogfight at 250 mph, the Hawk was again superior, because its elevator control was not over-sensitive and all-round view was better. However, the Spitfire could break off combat at will because of its much higher speed. When the Spitfire dived on the Hawk, the Curtiss could avoid its opponent by banking and turning rapidly. The Spitfire could not follow the Hawk around and would overshoot the target. The Hawk 75A displayed appreciably superior take-off and climb characteristics. The swing on takeoff was smaller and more easily corrected than on the Spitfire, and during the climb the Hawk's controls were more effective. However, the Hawk tended to be rather slow in picking up speed in a dive.

Based on these trials, the British government briefly toyed with the idea of ordering the Hawk for the RAF. For whatever reason, these plans were never carried out. However, the fall of France in June 1940 caused quite a few Hawks to fall into British hands.
...
The RAF decided that its Mohawks were not suitable for the European theater, and sent 72 of them to the South African Air Force (where they were flown by the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th Squadrons which operated in East Africa), while others were flown by the 5 and 155th RAF squadrons based in India. At one time, eight Mohawks provided the sole fighter defense of North-East India, and the fighter remained operational on the Burma front until finally replaced by more modern types in December 1943

LINK

Per the Curtiss manual, had a loadout of (1) 500GP pounder on centerline, and (1) 100GP pounder and (3) 25 pounder chemical bombs under each wing and two fuselage guns, or delete 166 pounds of wing bombs for wing guns and full ammo. Listed with 163 gallons of fuel, would have a cruising range of 915 miles, with Oxygen and Radio
Pg21 from _Detail Specifications for Curtiss Hawk 75-A Airplane_ Curtiss Wright corporation 1939 document# 6895-A

Armor for the Pilot was an available, that manual doesn't list how many pounds it was. At this time, no self sealing tanks.

Could the Spitfire carry that for a bombload, flying that 900 mile distance?

No they did not.

So they sent these to the ends of the Earth.

RAF would also find the A6M not suitable, even with the cannons and still longer range over the H-75.

And they would do this, with having the FAA flying Sea Gladiators.

Just a quick note - The Hawk 75 was not a deck qualified design. Add a minimum of 400, more likely 500, pounds to the aircraft before looking at it as a CATOBAR design (and, yes the FAA used catapults from the beginning of the war, not steam cats, but cats none the less). That would have a noteworthy impact on the performance of the aircraft.

 

[McPherson]

If there were no Devastators at Midway, Fletcher / Browning could have launched the strike earlier in the day than 0750 due to the longer legs of SBDs and been able to hit the Japanese CVs far earlier than OTL since Dauntless' cruise speed is far faster than a Devastators'. Of course, the earlier launched SBDs could entirely miss the KB as they almost did IOTL unless they received sighting info from the Midway based planes which attacked around 0800 - or simply followed those planes in. EDIT: So the US Carriers were forced to come closer to the IJN CVs due to the Devastators - and they could have swapped them out with a mix of Wildcats and Dauntlesses which were far more useful at Midway and Coral Sea.

1. Browning was not fit to staff a latrine cleaning detail.
2. The Devastators had the effect of drawing the First Air Fleet CAP off in the wrong direction... I know the myth about the torpedo planes pulling the Zeros down to the deck, but that is not what happened. Most American attacks to that point had been to the east and south as threat vectors. That is where the CAP milled around looking for more American attacks from that direction. The Japanese fighter directors aboard the flattops had not brought the Zeros up to their mid-band patrol altitudes and stacked them in their mandated patrol sectors as per doctrine and let that situation fester overlong. This was not the Devastators doing, that was all Japanese GOOFERY. Plus the harem scarem torpedo attacks in sequence had broken IJN fleet formation discipline to Murphy and gone. The cycling up and down of the CAP fighters kept the flight decks from being spotted and the US dive bombers showed up from a totally unexpected direction. Perfect dive bomber targets and clear skies.
3. Dive bombing can dedeck a flattop and poor damage control will allow fire to burn it down, and render it useless in rebuild; but to kill it, it has to be scuttled or torpedoed.
At Midway, with no way to tow the burned hulks home, the Japanese scuttled.

 

[nbcman]

1. Browning was not fit to staff a latrine cleaning detail.
2. The Devastators had the effect of drawing the First Air Fleet CAP off in the wrong direction... I know the myth about the torpedo planes pulling the Zeros down to the deck, but that is not what happened. Most American attacks to that point had been to the east and south as threat vectors. That is where the CAP milled around looking for more American attacks from that direction. The Japanese fighter directors aboard the flattops had not brought the Zeros up to their mid-band patrol altitudes and stacked them in their mandated patrol sectors as per doctrine and let that situation fester overlong. This was not the Devastators doing, that was all Japanese GOOFERY. Plus the harem scarem torpedo attacks in sequence had broken IJN fleet formation discipline to Murphy and gone. The cycling up and down of the CAP fighters kept the flight decks from being spotted and the US dive bombers showed up from a totally unexpected direction. Perfect dive bomber targets and clear skies.
3. Dive bombing can dedeck a flattop and poor damage control will allow fire to burn it down, and render it useless in rebuild; but to kill it, it has to be scuttled or torpedoed.
At Midway, with no way to tow the burned hulks home, the Japanese scuttled.

1. OK, Nagumo dithered for hours during Midway when he should have kept his reserve A/C armed to attack the USN as ordered. So there are two ID10Ts engaged at Midway. But what does that have to do with the ranges and speeds of the A/C?
2. Lucky happenstance for the crews of the SBDs - at the cost of the crews of the TBDs who were flying obsolete planes who should have been beached.
3. IJN deemed it unsafe to tow the hulks home, not that they had no way to tow them back to Japan.