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

[Dilvish]

No US aircraft companies would make the Mosquito after Hap Arnold bought the blueprints back from England in 1940. They considered the design unsafe so good luck with a Sea Hornet design.
Twin engine fighters were too heavy for an Essex class Carrier so it will be a no go for a pre-war Yorktown Class Carrier.
If you did make a working design for a twin engine fighter how much deck space do they eat up?

I also think the size of the pre-war carriers is a problem for twin-engine aircraft like the Mosquito. The USN did field the F7F on carriers postwar.

Pre-war, the USN did have a twin-engine carrier torpedo bomber, a biplane in the late 20's and early 30's I think. I'm searching online for the plane.

 

[Driftless]

The Grumman F5F Skyrocket weighed in about 9,000lbs empty and 10,000+ loaded, so it was comparable to the dive bombers and torpedo planes of the late 30's The wings were designed to be folded, so that would overcome the space issue. The plane had great speed, both straight line and in climbing. I believe a bigger problem was the need to carry a lot more spare engines and engine parts on board the carrier.
(photo from Aviation History.Com)

 

[marathag]

Pre-war, the USN did have a twin-engine carrier torpedo bomber, a biplane in the late 20's and early 30's I think. I'm searching online for the plane.

General characteristics

• Crew: four
• Length: 42 ft
  
• Wingspan: 57 ft
  
• Height: 15 ft 11 in
  
• Wing area: 886 ft²
• Empty weight: 6,011 lb
  
• Max. takeoff weight: 10,523 lb
• Powerplant: 2 × Wright R-1750 Cyclone 9-cylinder single row radial, 525 hp each

Performance

• Maximum speed: 109 kn (125 mph)
• Range: 397 nmi (457 mi)
• Service ceiling: 13,830 ft
  
• Rate of climb: 1,000 ft/min
  
• Wing loading: 12.2 lb/ft²
  
• Power/mass: 0.10 hp/lb

Armament

• 2 × .30 in M1919 Browning machine guns
• 1 ×1,618 lb torpedo or equivalent bombload

A big plane for Langley, esp. with the terrible elevator and hanger setup

 

[Cryhavoc101]

Corsairs on USS Sicily during the Korean War:

Armed with 4 x 20mm cannon

 

[kclcmdr]

Would the 1941 F4F and SBD with OTL 1200 hp engines have to resize the airframe if they went for a 1500 hp radial engine and bigger wings so as to add more fuel, lift and range ??

Not sure about the Devastator, was her engine a 900 hp redial ?? Not sure if a 1200 hp engine would help unless the airframe is made bigger ….

 

[King Augeas]

Interesting that RN air defense was so effective usually in this sirt of discussion its described as ineffective.

I think the perception is contaminated by the experiences off Malaya, Ceylon and Crete, and in some of the earlier Malta convoys, where poorly escorted surface forces lacking air cover were much more vulnerable. But by the later part of 1942, the RN was strong enough in its primary theatres to give convoys such as Pedestal a very effective defence system. While it's well known that Pedestal took heavy losses, it's interesting to see just how few of them came from the heavy air attacks when the carriers were present.

As a summary, the 30-bomber attack on the evening of 11th August did no damage.
The early morning attack on the 12th by 19 bombers also did no damage, being disrupted by fighters 30 miles away.
The noon attacks by about 165 aircraft, in various waves, did nothing more than damage a freighter and killed a couple of men on Victorious.
The evening attacks were more successful and disabled Indomitable, but it was a paltry return for the day's 200-odd bomber sorties and demonstrates the effectiveness of radar-controlled intercepts and a potent AA screen.

 

[Crowbar Six]

Why 20mm guns? The .50 proved ideal for all USN WW2 needs. Even when fighting in the ETO the USAAF never felt the need for a bigger weapon, shooting down heavy bombers never being a US priority in WW2. If the USAAF could do without a 20mm why would the USN need one?

USAAF were still part of the US Army and therefore US Army Ordnance were responsible for development of anything heavier than .50, they completely ignored input from the UK on how to get the Hispano 20mm to work effectively. Admittedly there were good reasons to stick with .50 which were mostly logistical but there was a good reason to go with 20mm+ including the effectiveness of 20mm HE rounds on aircraft.

 

[terv]

F4U Corsair being a carrier bird was because the royal navy proved that you can land the bird on a carrier. the American had a case of that bulk of the early landing ended up as crashes or waveoffs aka the navy banned carrier usage and sent it to the marines instead

 

[viperjock]

Ok, I had a couple of off the wall ideas for this AHC, and because they were kinda "way out there" I've posted them in their own threads. For this thread, I like to ask would making twin engined versions of carrier based aircraft be a workable thing? We had the F5F up thread, and the F7F existed/served, but could the kind of POD I posted in the first breakout thread actually get the USN some good two engined carrier planes, in the 1941042 time frame?

Would having two engines allow for the use of contra-rotating propellers to be useful? Keep in mind that not all 2 engined aircraft had their engines wing mounted. I've mentioned this before, but purely for the engine layout, would either of the designs Heinkel HE-119 or Dornier Do 335 find any traction here? The 119 had two engined mounted side by side within the fuselage, while the 335 had them one behind the other. Could these layouts have been made workable for early war USN aircraft. NOTE, I'm not talking about an aircraft like the German planes except with respect to where they had their engines.

The breakout threads are here, and here. Please, do not post in this thread replies to the ideas posted there, but rather just aircraft proposals. If you want to discuss the ideas in those threads, please do so in those threads.

Can side by side engine layout aircraft be used on a carrier? Would an aircraft that had two engines one behind the other make for a more powerful carrier based aircraft?

I have my own off the wall idea now based on your idea for a twin engine fighter in Naval service. It doesn't have to do with carrier aircraft but has to do with Marine Corps Aviation.

Twin engine "heavy" fighters were a popular idea at the beginning of the war. You have the ME-110, Westland Whirlwind, the Beaufighter and Moosquito nightfighters. In the United States you have the upcoming P-38 Lightning. What if the Marine Corps acquired the P-38 has a heavy fighter for shore based use 1941-42? Why would the Marine Corps go with the P-38? The US Navy decides it wants a heavy fighter for convoy escort duty and harbor defense. While the carriers are out with the fleet protecting the battleships ( I am using before Pearl Harbor thinking), The Marines would intercept enemy bombers attacking a sea going convoy. The Marine P-38s would also provide a CAP over Pearl Harbor for example. The USAAF would not have to be bothered protecting the Navy's ships.
The main problem with the P-38 is that it is not a carrier aircraft. It would have to be broken down and loaded/offloaded shipboard or ferried over water. The F4U Corsair originally failed carrier qualification and was passed down to the Marines OTL. So I guess no one worried about the Corsair being carrier capable, however it could at least be delivered to some island by aircraft carrier. The Marines used B-25s (PBJ) so I think in this ATL a few squadrons of P-38s could work at least until 1943. Marine aviation could convert those few squadrons to Corsairs or go with a land based F7F Tigercat day fighter.

 

[viperjock]

F4U Corsair being a carrier bird was because the royal navy proved that you can land the bird on a carrier. the American had a case of that bulk of the early landing ended up as crashes or waveoffs aka the navy banned carrier usage and sent it to the marines instead

The first Corsair flew in May 1940. If the US Navy worked out the landing problem on their own or the Royal Navy became interested in the fighter and worked out the problem earlier the Corsair could be in combat on December 7.

 

[Zheng He]

F4U Corsair being a carrier bird was because the royal navy proved that you can land the bird on a carrier. the American had a case of that bulk of the early landing ended up as crashes or waveoffs aka the navy banned carrier usage and sent it to the marines instead

To a large extent it made sense for the US to take this approach because the Hellcat was an easier bird to fly and easier to land on a ship and when a country is massively expanding its pool of carrier pilots in a short period of time like the US was it is understandable why they went with the plane they did at the time.

 

[Zheng He]

The first Corsair flew in May 1940. If the US Navy worked out the landing problem on their own or the Royal Navy became interested in the fighter and worked out the problem earlier the Corsair could be in combat on December 7.

The prototype first flew in May 1940, the contract was awarded in April 1941, and the first production aircraft was not received until June 1942 and the problems with carrier suitability were not known until later that year. You can speed things up some but I doubt you can speed it up to the point where the plane is operational and in squadron service in time for Pearl Harbor.

I would argue the fastest way to get the Corsair into action is to recognize from the start that it may be a little too hot for Navy Reserve nuggets just out of training and make the decision to send it to the Marines from the start and therefore don't waste time with carrier qualifications in 1942 on USS Wolverine and USS Charger. This could get Corsairs to Henderson Field at the beginning of the campaign. That would be a nasty shock for the Japanese.

 

[marathag]

Would the 1941 F4F and SBD with OTL 1200 hp engines have to resize the airframe if they went for a 1500 hp radial engine and bigger wings so as to add more fuel, lift and range ??

Not sure about the Devastator, was her engine a 900 hp redial ?? Not sure if a 1200 hp engine would help unless the airframe is made bigger ….

The Devastator was a huge aircraft for its day, similar wingspan to the Skyraider

See the area just above the Torpedo? that was for the Bombardier.

The fuselage was deep enough to have fit anything smaller than a Wasp Major

 

[marathag]

The prototype first flew in May 1940, the contract was awarded in April 1941, and the first production aircraft was not received until June 1942 and the problems with carrier suitability were not known until later that year. You can speed things up some but I doubt you can speed it up to the point where the plane is operational and in squadron service in time for Pearl Harbor.

There was a lot of redesigning in that, look at the XF4U

Cowl guns, tiny bomb bays and fuel tanks in the wings, and Pilot in a better position

It could have been in service, but would have been a different plane

 

[Shadow Master]

The prototype first flew in May 1940, the contract was awarded in April 1941, and the first production aircraft was not received until June 1942 and the problems with carrier suitability were not known until later that year. You can speed things up some but I doubt you can speed it up to the point where the plane is operational and in squadron service in time for Pearl Harbor.

I would argue the fastest way to get the Corsair into action is to recognize from the start that it may be a little too hot for Navy Reserve nuggets just out of training and make the decision to send it to the Marines from the start and therefore don't waste time with carrier qualifications in 1942 on USS Wolverine and USS Charger. This could get Corsairs to Henderson Field at the beginning of the campaign. That would be a nasty shock for the Japanese.

I like, but what if sped up by 3 months or so, and in service June 1st, 1942? Either carrier qualifications done by most experienced pilots, and on shipboard, or based upon Midway itself, perhaps the USAAF acquits itself better, is recognized as a threat in and of itself, and so when the USN strikes finally arrive, the IJN has already launched a second strike at midway, and cannot get a strike off in time to hit Yorktown with two air attacks, and so she survives the battle of midway.

For me, if the ideas in breakaway thread one were initiated, {And please, keep posts about those ideas out of this thread}, what effect would this have had on aircraft manufacturing companies efforts to produce better USN aircraft? As I understand it, the F5F was developed by Grumman as a private venture, at their own expense and risk, and it and the F4F were both considered, along with many other, oh heck, I'll just quote wiki:

In 1941, Navy pilots tested the XF5F-1 in a fly-off against the Supermarine Spitfire, Hawker Hurricane, Curtiss P-40 Warhawk, Bell P-39 Airacobra, Bell XFL Airabonita, Vought XF4U Corsair, Grumman F4F Wildcat, and Brewster F2A Buffalo.[4] LCDR Crommelin, in charge of the test, stated in a 1985 letter to George Skurla, Grumman president:

"for instance, I remember testing the XF5F against the XF4U on climb to the 10,000 foot level. I pulled away from the Corsair so fast I thought he was having engine trouble. The F5F was a carrier pilot's dream, as opposite rotating propellers eliminated all torque and you had no large engine up front to look around to see the LSO (landing signal officer) ... The analysis of all the data definitely favored the F5F, and the Spitfire came in a distant second. ... ADM Towers told me that securing spare parts ... and other particulars which compounded the difficulty of building the twin-engine fighter, had ruled out the Skyrocket and that the Bureau had settled on the Wildcat for mass production."[4]

Additional changes were needed after further flight tests that were not completed until 15 January 1942. In the meantime, Grumman began work on a more advanced twin-engine shipboard fighter, the XF7F-1, and further testing with the XF5F-1 supported the development of the newer design. The prototype continued to be used in various tests, although plagued by various landing gear problems, until it was struck from the list of active aircraft after it made a belly landing on 11 December 1944.

Would there have been an F4F prototype variation that had room for the more powerful engines of the times? How about, not just a two engined prototype with wing mounted engines, but another pair that went with the side by side, mounted within an extra wide fuselage, and turning a pair of ring mounted, contra-rotating propellers variants, one using the best existing engines, and the other built to use the newer, more powerful engines under development at the time? What would such an XF4F variation look like, in terms of power/range/deck/hanger space? Could the engine layout used in the He 119, where two engines, within the fuselage, using an extension shaft to turn the propellers from their location behind the pilot, have worked for a variation in opposition to the wing mounted XF5F?

How would the dive and torpedo bomber development have worked if such a variety of prototypes had been financially doable, could a two engined Devastator have been a viable/superior aircraft, with twice the power?

 

[Dilvish]

General characteristics

• Crew: four
• Length: 42 ft
  
• Wingspan: 57 ft
  
• Height: 15 ft 11 in
  
• Wing area: 886 ft²
• Empty weight: 6,011 lb
  
• Max. takeoff weight: 10,523 lb
• Powerplant: 2 × Wright R-1750 Cyclone 9-cylinder single row radial, 525 hp each

Performance

• Maximum speed: 109 kn (125 mph)
• Range: 397 nmi (457 mi)
• Service ceiling: 13,830 ft
  
• Rate of climb: 1,000 ft/min
  
• Wing loading: 12.2 lb/ft²
  
• Power/mass: 0.10 hp/lb

Armament

• 2 × .30 in M1919 Browning machine guns
• 1 ×1,618 lb torpedo or equivalent bombload

A big plane for Langley, esp. with the terrible elevator and hanger setup

Thanks for finding the plane!

The late 20's and early 30's would have been interesting times for a naval war in the Pacific.

 

[edgeworthy]

No US aircraft companies would make the Mosquito after Hap Arnold bought the blueprints back from England in 1940. They considered the design unsafe so good luck with a Sea Hornet design.
Twin engine fighters were too heavy for an Essex class Carrier so it will be a no go for a pre-war Yorktown Class Carrier.
If you did make a working design for a twin engine fighter how much deck space do they eat up?

Which is a bit strange when you consider that this opinion on a potential use of the Sea Hornet would contradict that of Eric "Winkle" Brown.
The world's greatest test pilot considered the de Havilland Hornet to be the best plane he ever flew, and he had no problems either landing on taking off from an RN carrier with one (He was also the Chief test pilot for the Sea Mosquito, and that worked as well!?)
The Hornet is also lighter than the F7F, and dimensionally smaller than the TBF Avenger.

Does anyone know why an aircraft noted for its excellent handling characteristics and low loss rate would be considered unsafe by US aircraft companies?
(Especially since the USAAF did fly the type operationally)

 

[viperjock]

Which is a bit strange when you consider that this opinion on a potential use of the Sea Hornet would contradict that of Eric "Winkle" Brown.
The world's greatest test pilot considered the de Havilland Hornet to be the best plane he ever flew, and he had no problems either landing on taking off from an RN carrier with one (He was also the Chief test pilot for the Sea Mosquito, and that worked as well!?)
The Hornet is also lighter than the F7F, and dimensionally smaller than the TBF Avenger.

Does anyone know why an aircraft noted for its excellent handling characteristics and low loss rate would be considered unsafe by US aircraft companies?
(Especially since the USAAF did fly the type operationally)

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.

 

[Driftless]

By that point in time, Grumman and Vought(and its descendants) largely had a lock on USN new business.

 

[jsb]

The late 20's and early 30's would have been interesting times for a naval war in the Pacific.

Without distractions in Europe I think its more than a little one sided and no long build up for the war in China would disadvantage Japan even more.