AHC: Your very own USAAC/USAAF

I would like to see an American twin engine bomber that could compete with or keep up with the RAF Mosquitoes and Beaufighters. That's why I advocate keep improving the A-20 and A-26.
The P-61 Black Widow was a bad ass plane. If the AAF would seriously commit to nighttime missions in 1943 with the 8th Air Force then you have the demand for better night fighters.
I just had an idea. How about giving Chennault some light bomber groups (to include night fighters) to keep the Japanese busy and make up for Operation Matterhorn getting butterflies away.
 
Last edited:
I would like to see an American twin engine bomber that could compete with or keep up with the RAF Mosquitoes and Beaufighters.

Beechcraft XA-38 Grizzly

A-38_Grizzly.jpg

75mm cannon plus twin .50s front, two turrets with a pair of .50s.
370mph, 1625 mile range.

Used Wright R-3350s, so lost to B-29 program
 
Mosquito hit the sweet spot of being neither to small (that would hurt payload and low-speed capabilities), neither to big (kills performance and maneuverability), while choosing the best engine for the job. USAAC/AF was offering to the five of US producers (Curtiss, Beech + other 3 companies) to licence produce Mosquito for them, there was no takers. Unfortunately, especially since Packard was to produce Merlins.

It was not a problem to emulate capabilities of Beaufighter when it was about bombing/attack job, though. As for night fighters, and USAF going night bombing - that would not result in removing Luftwaffe fighter arm from the picture in 1944. If USAF wants that badly a night fighter with two R-2800s, up-engine the A-20 or develop something like no-nonsense F7F Tigercat.
 
What about an early and lighter,
Douglas XB-42 Mixmaster?
300px-B-42_Mixmaster.jpg

If you built it without the 6 guns and fit two merlin's?
 
I like the Mixmaster very much. Makes sense even with 1-stage V-1710s.
Carrying with it earlier has perhaps one shortcoming - work on the A-26 would've probably been as slow, if not slower than in OTL.
 
I like the Mixmaster very much. Makes sense even with 1-stage V-1710s.
Carrying with it earlier has perhaps one shortcoming - work on the A-26 would've probably been as slow, if not slower than in OTL.
I was hoping you could swap them to get a 1942 Mixmaster....
To get
55Mph
400mi range
7,000ft hight
and at least 2,000lb (+the 6x.5 guns/turrets weight) of more bombs.
 
Last edited:
I hate it when someone (not you, jsb) states that this aircraft have had eg. Merlin III of 1030 HP or DB-601A of 1175 HP - those values are so darn misleading.
Eg. the Mixmaster that was supposed to carry 6000 lbs of bombs and to make 410 mph was powered by Allison V-1710-125 that have had 1675 HP for take off (yes, Wikipedia article got the power value wrong), and was suppose to hit 1900 HP in war emergency (using water-alcohol injection). With 2 x 1900 HP a good turn of speed is to be expected. Such Allisons were not available before 1945, and we won't have the Merlins to emulate that kind of power before early 1944 and advent of 150 grade fuel.
But, not everything is so bleak. 1st - design the Mixmaster indeed a bit smaller, say 450 sq ft wing instead of 555 sq ft, with Fowler flaps. A bit shorter/smaller/lighter fuselage with 1-stage V12 (either V-1710 or Packard Merlin) on board. Some drag is of course reduced due not having engines/nacelles sticking it the slipstream, so our 'mini Mixmaster' will probably still hit 400 mph mark when it's Merlin or V-1710 makes 1500 HP on war emergency setting.

However - making Mosquitoes in the USA is so straight-forward, no-nonsense solution :)
 
However - making Mosquitoes in the USA is so straight-forward, no-nonsense solution :)

Except that, as stated, Curtiss-Wright, Beech, Fairchild, Fleetwings and Hughes declined the offer. Beech is recorded as saying why. Also, in USAAF service, it was determined that the F.8 version didn't quite cut the mustard, and they were swapped for PR.XVIs which did.

We are also supposing that the XB-42's inherent problems, never solved, were solved. One of the Mossie's problems, longitudinal stability, also remained unsolved.
 
Without turrets, Beechcraft XA-38 could have topped 400 knots. With nothing in the rear-view mirror, there is no need for turrets protecting your tail.
For example, look at later Marks of A-26 Invader (especially On Mark conversions) which deleted rear guns in favour of more ammo or more fuel.

As for the XB-42 Mixmaster, any decent engine would do, even radials. While the primary advantage of in-line engines (Merlin or Allison) was small frontal area = low drag, the biggest bulkhead in Mixmaster was defined by the bomb bay cross-section ..... larger than most radial engines. Mixmaster just needed large displacement engines.
I suspect that Mixmaster would not have been the best interceptor because all that propeller weight - that far from the Center of gravity - would have slowed response to pitch and yaw control inputs. The drive shaft would also have vibrated during high-G maneuvers.

Finally, Mosquitos handled poorly at low airspeeds because the tail was blanketed at high angles of attack. DeHavilland never solved landing difficulties with Mosquito. They solved the problem on its Hornet successor by adding a dorsal fin (aka vertical strake). Hornet proved one of the best-handling naval fighters ..... albeit just after WW2.
Since DH was already installing horizontal and vertical strakes on Tiger Moths, why did they not adapt that aerodynamic "fix" to Mosquitos??????
 
Except that, as stated, Curtiss-Wright, Beech, Fairchild, Fleetwings and Hughes declined the offer. Beech is recorded as saying why. Also, in USAAF service, it was determined that the F.8 version didn't quite cut the mustard, and they were swapped for PR.XVIs which did.

Just too bad for the five listed companies, while also a hit for the Allied war effort and the civilians under the Axis boot.

We are also supposing that the XB-42's inherent problems, never solved, were solved. One of the Mossie's problems, longitudinal stability, also remained unsolved.

Major part of the XB-42s problems was due the V-1710 being pushed beyond 1800-1850 HP mark, on just 100/130 grade fuel, without using intercoolers and backfire screens, and on 6.65:1 compressio ratio. Same saga was repeated with P-82 that was supposed to have 2200 HP V-1710s, but never did.
 

Driftless

Donor
Except that, as stated, Curtiss-Wright, Beech, Fairchild, Fleetwings and Hughes declined the offer. Beech is recorded as saying why. Also, in USAAF service, it was determined that the F.8 version didn't quite cut the mustard, and they were swapped for PR.XVIs which did.

We are also supposing that the XB-42's inherent problems, never solved, were solved. One of the Mossie's problems, longitudinal stability, also remained unsolved.

How practical/impractical would it have been for non-aircraft manufacturers to bid on US based Mosquito airframe business? Anybody with manufacturing capacity and workforce who could work with wood?
 
How practical/impractical would it have been for non-aircraft manufacturers to bid on US based Mosquito airframe business? Anybody with manufacturing capacity and workforce who could work with wood?
Considering the sheer amount of wood working companies and the immense amount of wood in the US, the bottleneck will be engines.
 

Driftless

Donor
How practical/impractical would it have been for non-aircraft manufacturers to bid on US based Mosquito airframe business? Anybody with manufacturing capacity and workforce who could work with wood?

Considering the sheer amount of wood working companies and the immense amount of wood in the US, the bottleneck will be engines.

A Mosquito built by Steinway might be kind of nifty....
 
Considering the sheer amount of wood working companies and the immense amount of wood in the US, the bottleneck will be engines.

That would've depend on when the mass production of US-produced Mosquitoes hits the stride. Eg. in 1942, Packard delivered 7251 of V-1650s, 15000+ in 1943, almost 23000 in 1944. Early shipments were going 2/3rds to British needs (my guess is that covers what went to Canada) and 1/3rd to the USA itself. By 1943, I'm not sure what was the partition.
Leaves 2400+ for the USA in 1942. So let's say P-40 does not get any of the Merlins, while P-51 gets them to the tune of, say 1000 pcs? Leaves enough Merlins for 1200 Mossies. By late 1942, the V-1710 is competitive enough, 1325 HP for take off or 1600 HP war emergency power - useful for under-10000 ft work. By early 1943 both Merlin and V-1710 are plentiful, especailly since, unlike the UK, USA does not produce 4-engined aircraft Powered by V12 engines.
 
How practical/impractical would it have been for non-aircraft manufacturers to bid on US based Mosquito airframe business? Anybody with manufacturing capacity and workforce who could work with wood?
For Canadian production, final assembly was done at DHC, while wings came from Massey-Ferguson and fuselages from General Motors. A boat company made the flaps. They might have worked with wood boats, but the tractor and car company didn't. In the US, the Navy had their own factory. They called it the Naval Aircraft Factory.

One problem with established American aircraft companies was their insistence on stress testing all parts to a standard. Edgar Schmued went to Supermarine to find out what kind of stress testing standards the British were using, for the purpose of building the light-weight Mustang. He was disappointed to find that the small British design offices didn't bother with such trivia. It's possible that Walter Beech had similar concerns about stress.

Speaking of trivia, it's funny that the company bearing the Beech name did become associated with a DH product known as the DH-125. Walter beech is gone, and Raytheon lingers on, but the de Havilland name on the model 125 became Hawker for marketing purposes. Also, the BAe 146, designed at Hatfield, became the Avro RJ. Maybe nobody wants to call a jet de Havilland.
 
Just too bad for the five listed companies, while also a hit for the Allied war effort and the civilians under the Axis boot.
Major part of the XB-42s problems was due the V-1710 being pushed beyond 1800-1850 HP mark, on just 100/130 grade fuel, without using intercoolers and backfire screens, and on 6.65:1 compressio ratio. Same saga was repeated with P-82 that was supposed to have 2200 HP V-1710s, but never did.
Minor problems were overheating and vibration, U/C malfunction, poor landing characteristics, severe instability with bomb bay doors open and inadequate yaw stability. The cockpit canopy situation was rectified before the crash.
 
Except that, as stated, Curtiss-Wright, Beech, Fairchild, Fleetwings and Hughes declined the offer

And Fairchild owned the rights for making Duramold, an early plywood/resin composite laminate used with the AT-21
Fairchild_AT-21.jpg

If a US company was to have made a Mosquito, Fairchild was the place to do it. Duramold allowed fast production
 
And Fairchild owned the rights for making Duramold, an early plywood/resin composite laminate used with the AT-21
If a US company was to have made a Mosquito, Fairchild was the place to do it. Duramold allowed fast production

Beechcraft built large numbers of a twin-engine training aircraft called the AT-10 Witchita, as the Beech Model 26, employing the Duramold process. Globe Aircraft, formerly Bennet Aircraft, had manufactured Duramold aircraft and assisted with Wichita production with 600 units. Howard Hughes was too busy building a duramold flying boat of some considerable fame. Timm Aircraft used a rival Aeromold process.
 
Well with five aircraft companies passing on building a Mosquito we are back to square one. I can think of two options:

1. Go back to Northrop and put fire under them to get a P-61 variant up and running.
2. Could Grumman come through with an earlier F-7 Tigercat?
 
Top