American jets in '44
- Thread starter KyleB
- Start date
The P-59 was a dog, to be perfectly honest. There was really very little point in wasting pilots by putting it in combat rather than the (superior) P-51. It was well-armed, but the attempts to improve it failed.
The FR-1 was an interesting, but flawed concept- and came too late to be of use in the war.
A better WI would be if the US had a comparable aircraft to the Meteor/Me-262.
The FR-1 was an interesting, but flawed concept- and came too late to be of use in the war.
A better WI would be if the US had a comparable aircraft to the Meteor/Me-262.
It did. It was the P-80. Had the need been present the P-80 could have been in service considerably earlier than IOTL. The lack of any pressing need is best demonstrated by the RAF decision to keep the Meteor out of combat over the continent.
To go to the core of the issue, not much changes, jet or no jet. Early jets lacked the range to do the tasks that the USAAF needed done. What would have been interesting is if a couple of the late war piston engine aircraft had made it into service. The F8B was a very interesting design that missed the war by an eyelash, and the F7F also had exceptional potential as a fighter (not to mention the oddly wondeful XP-67). The AM Mauler carrier attack bomber and XB-42 also had some great potential.
Unfortunately for those who like one-off designs, the Allies were winning the war and had no need to get radical since regular was doing quite nicely.
The P-59 served a purpose. The limited number that were built allowed the USAAF to build up experience operating and maintaining jet aircraft without the pressure of putting them into combat service right away.
Hyperion
Banned
Calbear is correct, the P-80 could have been ready at least in limited numbers by 1944. Only thing was it simply didn't have the range that the piston engined aircraft did at the time, the Germans and Japanese didn't have any serious counterparts deployed at the time, and a couple of prototypes suffered mechanical failures that delayed the deployment.
If it had been deployed, it would have most likely been used for the European theater.
The biggest issue that deploying the P-80 in 1944 through the end of WW2 would not necessarily result in any noteable differences in how the war plays out.
The big difference would be what potential changes might be introduced to later variants of the P-80 and future jet aircraft, which may or may not have an effect on aircraft tactics in Korea. At the very least, some ground combat tactics against real targets might help to develop some more effective tactics sooner.
If it had been deployed, it would have most likely been used for the European theater.
The biggest issue that deploying the P-80 in 1944 through the end of WW2 would not necessarily result in any noteable differences in how the war plays out.
The big difference would be what potential changes might be introduced to later variants of the P-80 and future jet aircraft, which may or may not have an effect on aircraft tactics in Korea. At the very least, some ground combat tactics against real targets might help to develop some more effective tactics sooner.
Those planes look weird.
I assume you meant F8F, right?
Anyway I wonder what a Japanese jet fighter would look like.
Why the fuck would we need to do that? We were just as far or more advanced than Germany. Oh and we did give all of our research to our ally.
No, the F8B (for Boeing). Long range shipboard fighter bomber. 1.300 milies range ON INTERNAL FUEL, capable of carrying TWO torpedoes, 432 MPH top speed. As much as I LOVE the A-1 Skyraider, the USN might have been better served with the F8B.
Lockheeds could have, and should have been allowed to, get the P 80 in service by '44 just as De-Havillands were with the Venom. Both companies were ordered to hold back on their development of jets and concentrate on their piston engined machines that were busy winning the war for the Allies.
British engine design was more advanced but German aerodynamic knowledge was more advanced than anyone, oh and yes you did give everything from radar to jet engines to supersonic research to the US for little or nothing in return. But on second thought we did let you in on the Manhatten Project and then your agents let the Russians in, so I guess you could say we're even.
Depends on the aircraft. It was faster at altitude than almost anything short of a jet at 432 MPH and the U.S. had some fairly big, but very agile fighters, but it was big.
I would venture to guess that you wouldn't want to get into a medium speed turning fight with a Spitfire or P-51, maybe even a Fw-190, but in a zoom & boom, similar to how the USN used the Corsair or the USAAF the P-47. Nothing the Japanese had, except the A7M and maybe the N1K2, would be able to stay with it, and even those two aircraft would have been hard pressed to hang with the F8B.
Overall it was a true multi-mission aircraft, probably best suited with combine with the F8F in a distant/close in CAP against kamikazi or in the "penetration fighter" role.