Carrier Jets in WWII

[LordVader9090]

POD: October of 1944, US Navy deploys carrier variant of the P-59 Airacomet to Leyte Gulf, making it the first jet aircraft deployed to the Pacific Theater, as well as the first allied jet-powered fighter.

I have no idea what would happen in this timeline, but it could (theoretically) push jet development forward, maybe even to 6th Generation fighters being deployed in the current time.

 

[Crowbar Six]

Except it had pitiful performance. It was more likely that a FAA Sea Meteor would be first.

 

[LordVader9090]

Except it had pitiful performance. It was more likely that a FAA Sea Meteor would be first.

Eh, thats a fair point. I was only referring to the Airacomet since it was the earliest US jet to fly, and I was specifically talking about Leyte, but I agree the Sea Meteor is a far better plane

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

The Vampire, smaller and lighter than either the Meteor or the experimental Aircomet so more suited to carriers. Perhaps the RN and USN take control of the Vampire project early on and provide the funding and technical support to get it to sea in 1944 and a new Essex class is sent to the Pacific equipped with them as an experiment.

 

[iani]

Sea vampire's first landing December 1945, could development have been pushed forward a couple of months?
edit: beaten to the reply!

 

[sloreck]

The problem with early jets was that of endurance/range, they were fuel hogs. If your aircraft are significantly range limited this is a problem because you don't want to have to get carriers any closer to your opponents than you have to. Even now this is a knock on the F/A-18 compared to the A-6. Mid-air refueling helps to solve this problem, although this means space has to be reserved for these aircraft so fewer attack/fighter types. Also, by 1944 the early jets aren't needed the aircraft the USN has in 1944 were better than what the Japanese had and of course by then the pilot quality gap was huge. Maybe the faster speed of the jets allows them to go from the deck to intercepting kamikazes further away, that may or may not make much difference.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Jets just weren't ready for carriers yet. You'd have to push jet development forward, which would mean air forces ha in them even sooner than that.

Remember the very first jets had abysmal range and manoeuvrability, and lousy acceleration.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

First flew in 1943, so with more (or US) money and a higher priority I don't see why not. Perhaps built in Canada alongside their Mosquito production with US built engines.

 

[riggerrob]

First flew in 1943, so with more (or US) money and a higher priority I don't see why not. Perhaps built in Canada alongside their Mosquito production with US built engines.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ATL Power Jets' lab gets bombed once too often, so they re-locate to Montreal. DHC starts making Vampire components in Toronto. Victory Aircraft ties the whole project together.
Meanwhile, Fleet carriers are getting hammered by kamakazies off the coast of Japan and are crying for fast, short-range interceptors.

Meanwhile a race develops between Grumman's Bearcat and Ryan's Fireball. Bearcats reach the fleet first, but the USN tells Ryan to hurry up.

 

[Crowbar Six]

The Vampire, smaller and lighter than either the Meteor or the experimental Aircomet so more suited to carriers. Perhaps the RN and USN take control of the Vampire project early on and provide the funding and technical support to get it to sea in 1944 and a new Essex class is sent to the Pacific equipped with them as an experiment.

Actually, Winkle Brown landed a Meteor on a carrier. So another FAA first - first twin engined jet aircraft flown aboard a carrier.

 

[Peabody-Martini]

The McDonnell FH Phantom, a carrier based jet fighter, first flew in January 1945, it would go one to be developed into the Banshee of the Korean War era. Have it come along a year earlier and there are several possibilities.

 

[J.J.Jameson88]

The Ryan Fireball was a mixed propulsion fighter.

 

[WaterproofPotatoes]

The Ryan Fireball was a mixed propulsion fighter.

The Fireball was also unable to withstand repeat carrier landings.

The structure was too light, and the engine at each end made it very heavy along the centreline, leaving both the structure and undercarriage unable to withstand the repeated shocks.

 

[Mike D]

Actually, Winkle Brown landed a Meteor on a carrier. So another FAA first - first twin engined jet aircraft flown aboard a carrier.

The problem with the 'Sea Meteor' is that not every FAA pilot has a claim on being the greatest pilot who's ever sat in a cockpit. They were killers, especially to inexperienced pilots. The RAF lost literally hundreds of them just to accidents. Apparently they were virtually uncontrollable on one engine, especially if you lost it during the landing - bad enough if a plane slams into the airfield on land and you lose one plane and one pilot, even worse if your airfield is only a few hundred metres long, all the fuel, aircraft, crew quarters and ammunition are stored pretty much directly underneath the runway, the runway moves almost totally at random and the nearest supply of spare aircraft and crew is potentially thousands of miles away if the airfield survives the resulting fires.

I know all early jets had issues but from what I've read the Meteor had a bad reputation even for RAF pilots well used to going to funerals.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Jets just weren't ready for carriers yet. You'd have to push jet development forward, which would mean air forces ha in them even sooner than that.

Remember the very first jets had abysmal range and manoeuvrability, and lousy acceleration.

Lets assume the USN had a workable jet to the level of a Gloster Meteor.
Impact: Negligible.
By Leyte the IJN air arm was nonexistent. the remainder would be Kamikaze runs off Okinawa. High speed low drag jets would arguably be substantially worse than hellcats/corsairs/mustangs for bringing them down, based on difficulties the Comets/262s had with Wallied bombers.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

The problem with the 'Sea Meteor' is that not every FAA pilot has a claim on being the greatest pilot who's ever sat in a cockpit. They were killers, especially to inexperienced pilots. The RAF lost literally hundreds of them just to accidents. Apparently they were virtually uncontrollable on one engine, especially if you lost it during the landing - bad enough if a plane slams into the airfield on land and you lose one plane and one pilot, even worse if your airfield is only a few hundred metres long, all the fuel, aircraft, crew quarters and ammunition are stored pretty much directly underneath the runway, the runway moves almost totally at random and the nearest supply of spare aircraft and crew is potentially thousands of miles away if the airfield survives the resulting fires.

I know all early jets had issues but from what I've read the Meteor had a bad reputation even for RAF pilots well used to going to funerals.

Major Gen Julian Thompson before joining the Royal Marines had entertained a desire to become an FAA Pilot but was glad of his eventual choice of career as everyone he knew that did become a jet pilot in the FAA - were killed in accidents.

It was Murder.

 

[Crowbar Six]

The problem with the 'Sea Meteor' is that not every FAA pilot has a claim on being the greatest pilot who's ever sat in a cockpit. They were killers, especially to inexperienced pilots. The RAF lost literally hundreds of them just to accidents. Apparently they were virtually uncontrollable on one engine, especially if you lost it during the landing - bad enough if a plane slams into the airfield on land and you lose one plane and one pilot, even worse if your airfield is only a few hundred metres long, all the fuel, aircraft, crew quarters and ammunition are stored pretty much directly underneath the runway, the runway moves almost totally at random and the nearest supply of spare aircraft and crew is potentially thousands of miles away if the airfield survives the resulting fires.

I know all early jets had issues but from what I've read the Meteor had a bad reputation even for RAF pilots well used to going to funerals.

I never said the Meatbox was a good idea, just that it could have happened if the FAA and MoS had wanted it to. They had miserable single engine issues in the same way that the Canberra with a similar layout had.

 

[MatthewB]

I have no idea what would happen in this timeline, but it could (theoretically) push jet development forward,

Here's how. Frank Whittle gets pissed off by the British Air Ministry putting off his ideas, and Frank moves to the US to offer his ideas to Pratt & Whitney.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Whittle#Development_of_the_turbojet_engine

"in late 1929 Whittle sent his concept to the Air Ministry to see if it would be of any interest to them...appears to have been convinced that Whittle's "simple" design could never achieve the sort of efficiencies needed for a practical engine."

And forget about the Sea Meteor. The USN will develop catapults, arrestor gear, landing techniques and low-speed flight abilities that will address the early issues with jet engines. Perhaps the first USN jet fighter is a hybrid, like the Curtiss XF15C. First thing to go will need to be the wooden flight decks!

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

I never said the Meatbox was a good idea, just that it could have happened if the FAA and MoS had wanted it to. They had miserable single engine issues in the same way that the Canberra with a similar layout had.

Which is one of the reasons the Admiralty snapped up the Vampire to gain jet experience. They should have stuck with it and forgotten all about the Attacker though.

 

[PMN1]

Talking of the Meteor and its one engine out problems, how did the Canberra fare with one engine out?