Breakout thread #1 for: Best aircraft for USN Carriers.

Would making the prototyping process include many engine layouts get more/better aircraft?

  • Yes, because making more prototypes will mean more effective aircraft will end up in production.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    2
This thread is a breakout thread for @tomo pauk thread HERE.

I had some ideas along the lines of getting better carrier planes for USN aircraft carriers by changing the way new aircraft were being developed at the time, and so made this thread for ideas specific to this process. For posts dealing with this concept, please keep them in this thread, and for aircraft posts, make them in his thread.

So, here is my entry in the AHC...

The Prototype acquisitions and development act of Jan 1, 1937.
The US Congress today enacted legislation requiring the following conditions must be added to any future development effort for all military aircraft R&D programs.

1. In future, whenever a new single engine aircraft is to be sought for the armed forces, at least two different kinds prototypes of the new aircraft are required, the first kind, which uses the best of existing, proven engines and a second kind, that is designed to make use of engines that are still in the process of development, such that, either way, a new aircraft is ready, with or without the new engine.

2. Additionally, at the sole discretion of the manufacturer, they are free to develop additional prototypes in the following three twin engine configurations, wing mounted, fuselage mounted side by side, or fuselage mounted front and back. This is done to make possible the development of aircraft more powerful than any single engine aircraft. In the case of space/weight restricted aircraft {Carrier aircraft}, the dimensions need special attention paid to ensure that the resulting aircraft fit our carriers.

3. Such additional prototypes, should they be elected to be attempted, and all costs associated with such, must be paid for by the government, by law, to enforce and ensure that the very best effort is made to equip the US armed forces with the best possible future aircraft.

4. Because of the legal requirement imposed upon the R&D process, that of paying for the work on additional prototype aircraft, a new, civilian department is created for the sole purpose of paying for future aircraft development programs, thus freeing up the military budgets for actual combat worthy planes.

Ok, so the above is to set the stage for the development of multiple entries, some single and some multi-engined aircraft, where the requirements specified a single engined aircraft, and as the law forces the payment of these notional additional single-engined and twin-engined aircraft’s development costs, it guarantees the developer that their costs are recovered, even if their single engined entry is not picked up, thus making sure that the aircraft company is going to get paid for all the work they did, on however many {up to eight} differing prototypes they choose to pursue for the contract. If they just submitted a single single-engined prototype, and their work was not purchased, as happened in OTL all the time, then they eat the cost of the R&D, and knowing that, seek to keep their costs down, and so don’t gamble on multiple different prototypes, but under this notional new law, every aircraft manufacturer is going to at least go with the two kinds in #1 above, as that way they get paid for all the effort, for both prototypes, guaranteed. And if they start building all three additional configurations, with both the existing/experimental engines, to provide both kinds of possible prototypes, in all four configurations, they still get paid for them all, so no risk, and some otherwise risky investments become a payday, and even if they don’t land a specific contract, they now own a working prototype that may lead to some other contract, so a win-win for the aircraft developers.

So, that would be the first of three parts of my ideas for getting the USN the best possible aircraft, mandate that the whole process rewards the innovation and risk taking of trying something that, absent such, would pose to much of a financial risk to the manufacturer.
 
For me, when I read up on the problems that the Boeing aircraft company had, what with almost going bankrupt prior to WWII because the B-17 didn't get the contract because the USAAF pilot went and crashed the prototype on the final qualification flight in the competition, I knew then and there that something should have been done to take the financial burden off the aircraft industry, and at the same time find a way to actually encourage and reward innovation by going above and beyond the minimum requirements of an aircraft specification, and this is my first effort along these lines.

For example, when the Grumman company was building the F4F, they also hedged their bets and built an additional prototype for something called the XF5F, which was a twin engined carrier fighter. They did this on their own, at their own expense, and with no assurance that any monies spent would ever have seen any return. Had something like my notional law been passed in Jan 1937, would such efforts become the norm rather than the exception?

Basically, I've laid out 4 different engine layouts for prototypes, and stipulated that two versions be developed, one using existing existing, proven engined and the second version using the best of the experimental engines under development. This could lead to 8 prototypes being built for each contract being offered, as the legislation would require the government to pay for all of them, so the financial burden is lifter from the manufacturer and they will not go broke trying to build the better plane.
 
Top