alternatehistory.com

Since the previous alt-USAAC/AAF thread is too old to continue, and some people can't take a hint, here is another go. Starting with this with XP-39 supposed performance:

...
Not true. The prototype performance speed was 390 mph at operational altitude of 20,000 feet which was 10 mph slower than initial target. The NACA target (Arnold's direct interference here) was 430 mph and was never achieved because the scoop arrangement precluded it. In an attempt to remove boundary turbulence and drag, the scoop was eliminated. Goodbye turbocharger and goodbye HA performance. Kelsey and Saville, the two AAC officers working with Bell objected to that idiocy. Kelsey was transferred to England and Saville shut up and soldiered. Bell was unable to modify the already cramped fuselage interior to wind-tunnel the Allison, so....

340 mph @ 20000 ft for the XP-39 as-is. Thus shipped immediately to NACA, when they did thier job and came out with a host of recomendations to lower the drag, in order to bring the aircraft to either 390 mph at 20000 ft (turbo in conjunction with V-1710) or 400 mph at 13500 ft (gear-driven S/C only). Without guns, protection, radios.

93px.jpg

Whole doc can be accessed here.
So with option a) let's have simple P-39 already in 1941 in production, or option b) wait for Bell to modify the turbo version and have fighters in 1942 in production, Army picked option a.

Lundstrom wrote about EVERY US fighter existent in use in the Pacific up to Midway and into Guadalcanal. That actually includes every active bird in the US fighter line. It also includes many shoddy or outclassed British fighters the Japanese tore to bits like the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Of the fighters in that theater, the best available was the F4F at the time. Slower and not as agile as the Spitfire; it had the virtue of being able to climb and dive well enough and with team tactics was just tough enough to survive Zeros in the hands of an average pilot, which is not true of the other allied planes offered; including the P-40 and the Spitfire. Additionally, while the British used P-40s (and whatever else they could get.) it was not because they did not want the F4F; it was because the USN and Marine Corps had first call on every Grumman made bird during those months. Production was not ramped up to miracle levels until Guadalcanal.

Spitfire was not shoddy nor out-classed in Asia/Pacific.
F4F delivery was 1/7th of P-40 delivered in 1940 and 1941 - 430 vs. 3026. Includes the hopeless versions with 1-stage engines. There was no F4F in 1939 in any unit. P-40 was much faster than Oscar, and barely slower than Zero, while the F4F was slower by 30 mph than Zero and barely faster than Oscar.
F4F did not killed IJN,, let alone IJA on it's own. USA have had Allies with their equipment, radars, exccellent dive bombers in SBD, better multi-engined A/C, teamwork, longer bench, far better & more numerous AAA, damage control, and there were also P-40s and P-38s around. All of those combined killed the Japanese.

This from a gentleman who misstates the development of the P-39? Okay, whatever you wish. But the history of the bird is as I stated, not as you claimed.

Matthews, Birch. Cobra! Bell Aircraft Corporation 1934–1946. Atglen, Pennsylvania: Schiffer Publishing, 1996 pp. 85-87

Post a facsimile of a real test of XP-39 so we can see how actually it was fast.

So explain why it, the Skua is replaced by the Dauntless as soon as the FAA could get some?

From P-36 to Dauntless? Neither SBD, nor Skua, nor Roc, or god forbid Airacuda were capable to solve the USAAC problem of outdated fighters in mid/late 1930s. The P-36 and P-40 solved it in 1939-41.

First; why not teach something as an aside, so that the mistake is not repeated. Second; considering that it takes 6-10 years from aerial concept to flying metal (B-17, an example was designed in 1933, but not op-evaled as ready until 1940-41) what is untrue? The P-51 is the 100 day exception that already was based off the North American and NACA previous research and still took 3 years to finally evolve inti the P-51D

I like the P-51 very much, actually I think it was a mistake that it was not embraced by AAC in a more swift manner. That still does not make it a choice for the Army units in 1939-41 because of non availability.

About how the P-40 was regarded by USN in mid-1942:

...Another aspect of
the attack that proved inadequate was fighter escort. To Fletcher the folding wing F4F-4s
represented no improvement over the fixed-wing F4F-3s, except more F4F-4s could be
carried. He echoed the call of Halsey and others of the urgent necessity'' for detachable fuel
tanks to increase their effective attack radius beyond 175 miles. Spruance and Browning
rated the Grumman Wildcat "greatly inferior'' in comparison with the nimble Japanese
Zero. On 20 June Nimitz relayed their fears to King, noting the "extreme and apparently
increased superiority performance of 0 fighters'' was mitigated only by the vulnerability
of Japanese planes and the superior tactics of the U.S. Navy fighter pilots. "Overall results
have been bad and will be serious and potentially decisive with improvement that must
be expected in enemy tactics.'' Remarkably he called for army Curtiss P-4OF Warhawk
fighters to replace navy F4F Wildcats and Brewster F2A Buffaloes in all marine fighting
squadrons defending forward bases and even asked that the P-4OF "or comparable type"
be tested for carrier suitability
; In the meantime the F4F-4s must be lightened, and their
ammunition supply increased even should that require reverting to four guns in place ofsix.
The swift introduction ofthe Vought F4U-1 Corsair fighter was an"absolute priority.'' Thus
after Midway the top fleet commanders experienced a serious crisis of confidence over the
effectiveness of the basic U.S. carrier fighter, a worry that would soon influence Fletcher's
most controversial command decision...

Lundstrom, Black Shoe carrier Admiral, p.200
Top