AHC: 1941-42, best possible aircraft for USN carriers

From what I understand the big American aircraft companies did not like the wood and glue building materials. They felt it was below standards. This included Beech aircraft who made wooden planes. You are correct though that the 8th Air Force had no problem operating the Mosquito.

That was what I was going to post. The USN operating mostly in the Pacific wasn't confident how well a wooden composite airframe would stand up in a hot and humid climate. Despite the excellence of the DH Sea Hornet and Hornet that was a valid concern. Even a modest airplane like the Fairchild PT-19 trainer developed problems with its wooden wings operating in the Southern U.S.

I think eventually de Havilland developed better glues to withstand the tropics humidity. But post-war the Americans were going to jet aircraft anyway.
 
That was what I was going to post. The USN operating mostly in the Pacific wasn't confident how well a wooden composite airframe would stand up in a hot and humid climate. Despite the excellence of the DH Sea Hornet and Hornet that was a valid concern. Even a modest airplane like the Fairchild PT-19 trainer developed problems with its wooden wings operating in the Southern U.S.

I think eventually de Havilland developed better glues to withstand the tropics humidity. But post-war the Americans were going to jet aircraft anyway.
If DeHavilland had already invented the Hornet/Sea Hornet and had it in production in production in 1941-42 I doubt the British would be trying to sell it/reverse Lend-Lease to the US Navy anyway in that time frame. Britain needs Hornets in the Malta and North Africa. They would also unfortunately waste them on Rhubarbs over France.
 

SwampTiger

Banned
What was the issue with the early P&W R-2180? Was it too late to the dance versus the 1830 and 2800? Too small for expected usage? A combination of issues?

If P&W started with the R-2800 in 1938, rather than 1939, could we see production F4U's in 1941? Yes, I saw the issues above.
 
ut post-war the Americans were going to jet aircraft anyway
You can have both Wood and Turbines

Wood is just an early composite material, where glues were not up to the strength with early protein based glues til replaced by the first formaldehyde resins during the War
 
What was the issue with the early P&W R-2180? Was it too late to the dance versus the 1830 and 2800? Too small for expected usage? A combination of issues?

If P&W started with the R-2800 in 1938, rather than 1939, could we see production F4U's in 1941? Yes, I saw the issues above.

R-2180 might've been a good engine with turbo, the latest pre-war versions were supposed to make 1500 HP. Probably it fell a victim of P&W reducing their portfolio so they can have the Plain Jane R-1830 and New & Great R-2800, both as 1-stage S/Ced and 2-stage supercharged engines. The 2-stage R-2180 was not produced, although it was planed.
The Corsair minus the redesign would've probably give service-worthy examples before Pearl Harbor; by May 1941 the monthly production of R-2800s was in triple digits, almost 1500 were produced in 1941.
 
As much as I love and respect the Corsair, let’s go a different route.
Since it has been discussed here about improving the Wildcat, why not fast track the Hellcat for duty in late 1942?
What if British FAA pilots were invited to give their input to Grumman and the F6F was a joint fighter project? The Hellcat resembles the Wildcat, it’s cheaper to build and easier to learn to fly.
Let Vought and once again the FAA work on getting the Corsair carrier ready and save it for duty with the Essex class in 1943?

Off subject: what if FAA squadrons Flying Martlets had been sent to Malta similar to USMC fighter squadrons?
 
Last edited:
The problem with fast tracking the Hellcat is that in the spring of 1942 changes were made to the aircraft based on the input of pilots like Butch O'Hare on how best to counter the Zero. This led to changes, the most notable of which was swapping out the Twin Cyclone engine for the Double Wasp but also more subtle changes like how the cockpit was mounted and the shape of the engine cowling.

I am also skeptical of the way we sometimes say on this forum, "just fast track the XXXX." These are highly complex machines and trying to rush things can lead to even more problems.
 
The problem with fast tracking the Hellcat is that in the spring of 1942 changes were made to the aircraft based on the input of pilots like Butch O'Hare on how best to counter the Zero. This led to changes, the most notable of which was swapping out the Twin Cyclone engine for the Double Wasp but also more subtle changes like how the cockpit was mounted and the shape of the engine cowling.

I am also skeptical of the way we sometimes say on this forum, "just fast track the XXXX." These are highly complex machines and trying to rush things can lead to even more problems.

look at the incremental (and not so incremental) changes done by Curtiss to the Model 75, to Model 81 and then Model 87, all without much interruption of the assembly line

What is stopping Grumman from doing the initial Hellcat being close to the prototype XF6F, with the F6F-1 haveing the revised fuselage, the F6F-2 having the bigger engine, so on and so forth?

The XF6F is still far better than the F4F-4 Wildcat
 
Top