F5F or F4F. Did the U.S. Navy make the right choice?

[McPherson]

Might want to check on the weights between the different versions.

Then for junk, might want to see what the Finns did with theirs

I did, which is why I said weight added to a fighter is deadlier than drag.

If you also read...

g. The Finns were fighting the Российская фронтовая авиация (Russian frontal aviation). The Russians were brave, courageous pilots supported by patriotic but inept ground crews; but their training and equipment was not the best and the F2A in the hands of pilots/ground crews like the Finns meant that the Buffalo was going to seemingly perform much better than the piece of defective junk it RTL was.

The only way to make the Buffalo viable was to magically conjure up a 535 kg dry-weight radial or inline engine with 1100 kW output in that piece of junk airframe.

The only thing that comes close is the Continental IV-1430-3 (733 kg at 1190 kW or the magic 1/1/1 goal the USAAC tried so desperately to reach.).

 

[Colin Haggett]

I did, which is why I said weight added to a fighter is deadlier than drag.

If you also read...



The only way to make the Buffalo viable was to magically conjure up a 535 kg dry-weight radial or inline engine with 1100 kW output in that piece of junk airframe.

The only thing that comes close is the Continental IV-1430-3 (733 kg at 1190 kW or the magic 1/1/1 goal the USAAC tried so desperately to reach.).

Please explain 1/1/1. I expect it is 1000 Horse Power per ton? but the third 1 stumps me.

 

[McPherson]

Please explain 1/1/1. I expect it is 1000 Horse Power per ton? but the third 1 stumps me.

1 horsepower/1 cubic inch displacement/1 pound of engine dryweight. This was the hyper-engine.

Specifications for Continental (I-1430-1)

Data from Aircraft Engines of the World 1946

General characteristics
-Type: 12-cylinder, liquid-cooled, inverted Vee
-Bore: 5.5 in (139.7 mm)
-Stroke: 5 in (127.0 mm)
-Displacement: 1,425 cu in (23.35 l)
-Dry weight: 1,615 lb (732.6 kg)

Components
-Valvetrain: Overhead cam with 4 valves per cylinder
-Supercharger: Gear driven centrifugal 5.97:1 gear ratio
-Turbocharger: 1 x General Electric turbo-charger with intercooler
-Fuel system: 1 x Bendix-Stromberg PD-12P2 updraught injection type carburetor with automatic mixture control
-Fuel type: 100/130 grade aviation gasoline
-Oil system: Pressure feed at 100 psi (689,475.73 Pa) with dry sump, 100–120 S.U. (20.5–25.1 cs) grade oilCooling system: liquid, 50% Glycol, 50% water
-Reduction gear: 0.385:1 spur reduction gear

Performance
-Power output: *(take-off) 1,600 hp (1,193.1 kW) at 3,300 rpm at 61 in (1,549.4 mm) Hg / +15.5 lb (7.0 kg) boost
--(emergency) 2,100 hp (1,566.0 kW) at 3,400 rpm at 25,000 ft (7,620 m)
--(military) 1,600 hp (1,193.1 kW) at 3,300 rpm at 25,000 ft (7,620 m)
--(normal) 1,150 hp (857.6 kW) at 3,000 rpm at 25,000 ft (7,620 m)
--(cruising) 920 hp (686.0 kW) at 2,780 rpm at 25,000 ft (7,620 m)
-Specific power: 1.47 hp/cu in (67.18 kW/l)
-Compression ratio: 6.5:1
-Specific fuel consumption: 0.47 lb/hp/hr (0.286 kg/kW/hr)
-Oil consumption: 0.025 lb/hp/hr (0.015 kg/kW/hr)
-Power-to-weight ratio: 1.45 hp/lb (2.384 kW/kg)

Compare...

Specifications Allison (V-1710-F30R / -111)

Data from Aircraft Engines of the World 1946 and Jane's Fighting Aircraft of World War II.

General characteristics
-Type: 60° V-12 supercharged four-stroke liquid-cooled piston aircraft engine.
-Bore: 5.5 in (140 mm)
-Stroke: 6.0 in (152 mm)
-Displacement: 1,710 cu in (28.02 l)
-Length: 86 in (2,184 mm)
-Width: 29.3 in (744 mm)
-Height: 37.6 in (955 mm)
-Dry weight: 1,395 lb (633 kg)
-Frontal Area: 6.1 sq ft (0.6 m2)

Components
-Valvetrain: Two inlet and two exhaust valves per cylinder with sodium-cooled exhaust valves, operated by a single gear-driven overhead camshaft per bank of cylinders
-Supercharger: Centrifugal-type, single-stage, 8.1:1 gear ratio, 15-vane, 10.25 in (260 mm) diameter impeller, and General Electric turbo-supercharger with intercooler
-Fuel system: 1 x Stromberg PD-12K8 2-barrel injection[clarification needed] downdraught carburetor with automatic mixture control
-Fuel type: 100/130 octane gasoline
-Oil system: Pressure fed at 60–70 psi (414–483 kPa), dry sump with one pressure and two scavenge pumps.
-Cooling system: Liquid-cooled with a mixture of 70% water and 30% ethylene glycol, pressurized.
-Reduction gear: Spur reduction gear, 0.5:1 ratio, right hand tractor (V-1710-F30L / -113 is the same engine with LH rotation)
-Starter: Jack & Heinz JH-5L electric inertia starter
-Ignition: 1 x R.B. Bendix-Scintilla DFLN-5 dual magneto, 2 x 12 point distributors, 2 x spark plugs per cylinder fed by a shielded ignition harness.

Performance
-Power output:
--Take-off: 1,500 hp (1,119 kW) at 3,000 rpm and 56.5 inHg (190 kPa (28 psi) manifold pressure
--Military: 1,500 hp (1,119 kW) at 3,000 rpm at 30,000 ft (9,144.00 m)
--Normal: 1,100 hp (820 kW) at 2,600 rpm at 30,000 ft (9,144.00 m)
--Cruising: 800 hp (597 kW) at 2,300 rpm at 30,000 ft (9,144.00 m)
-Specific power: 0.88 hp/cu in (39.3 kW/L)
-Compression ratio: 6.65:1
-Oil consumption: 0.025 lb/hp/hr (0.01475 kg/kW/hr)
-Power-to-weight ratio: 1.05 hp/lb (1.76 kW/kg)

So why was the Continental not used?

For the same reason that the Goat Island built WW II torpedoes fell into disfavor. Private Enterprise once they had figured out how to build a competitive engine better than the government designed piece of crap were allowed to build their non-hyper engine version and sell it to the government.

More information here.

=======================================================

In contemporary terms, it is like the incompetents at NASA, for this past decade, puttering around with their government designed rocket, not even out of the test stands, yet, while Elon Musk runs circles around them with his Falcons.

Sometimes, all you have to do is point and say; "I am your customer. I want this."

McP.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

I'm no fan of the Buffalo, but this is very wrong. The F2A, at the time it was accepted for service, was one of, if not the, highest performing aircraft then flying. The problems came when the Navy drastically increased the weight of the aircraft by adding hundreds of pounds of armor, self-sealing tanks, a liferaft and several additional modifications, and then completely failed to increase the engine horsepower to compensate the substantially higher weight.

You left out that no one working for Brewster had ever heard the words quality control.

 

[nbcman]

You left out that no one working for Brewster had ever heard the words quality control.

But they had heard the words "sabotage" and "lawsuit"

Production stalled, however. Some blamed labor issues, including wartime strikes. Others insisted “aliens” were running the company.

“What’s the matter with Brewster; why are they not producing?” editorialized the Hatboro Spirit newspaper. When the company failed to deliver a single new Buccaneer in 1942, the Navy seized Brewster, declaring it “essential to the war effort.” Congressional hearings revealed sabotage and loafing in the factory, derisively termed “The Bucks County Playhouse” for allegations of sexual trysts in plane fuselages. Missing tools and sloppy quality control were a constant problem.

With $100 million in orders on file, Work remained silent. Things only got worse. The Philadelphia Record revealed a profit-skimming operation had crippled Brewster. Alfred and Ignacio Miranda, Mexican-born immigrants, and associate F. William Zelcher were behind the scheme. Work had hired them as company salesmen. What he perhaps didn’t know was the Mirandas had spent two years in prison for smuggling weapons to Bolivia in violation of a U.S. arms embargo.

The brothers and Zelcher marketed Brewster products to allied nations through their Brewster Export Corp. The trio over-promised delivery of planes while siphoning off $5.5 million in commissions. When news broke, angry stockholders filed a $10 million lawsuit against Work, who resigned. The Navy tried to rectify the situation but eventually cancelled all orders and closed the plant.

https://www.theintell.com/news/20190520/lavo-brewster-scandal

The company had put its commitment to the United States on a back burner, Navy brass charged, and instead built planes for European nations that paid more.

On April 20, 1942, the Navy suddenly seized control of Brewster from its chairman, James Work, a Philadelphia-born blimp designer, and recruited shipping magnate Henry Kaiser to fix what ailed the company.

But the trouble at Brewster had barely begun.

On Aug. 23, 1943, despite having taken a wartime "no-strike pledge," United Auto Workers Local 365 struck the plant for four days, at a cost of 240,000 man-hours -- the time it would have taken to build 20 planes.

'Most disgusting strike'

Worse, the Johnsville action seemed trivial: Guards had not been allowed to choose their posts -- front gate or bathrooms -- by seniority. Even a pro-Brewster newspaper dubbed it "the most disgusting strike in the history of this country."

The union local's flamboyant president, Thomas V. DeLorenzo, fanned the fire. "If I had brothers at the front line who needed the 10 or 12 planes that were sacrificed [in the strike], I'd let them die, if necessary, to preserve our way of life ," he told a reporter.

To readers -- including many in Congress -- the Brewster plant was a portrait of trade-unionism gone insane.

For three months in 1943, the House held hearings, and what lawmakers learned about the factory astounded them:

Apparent sabotage by workers led to Buccaneers that would lose rudder control, or that had engines that could not be turned off.

Workers spent hours loafing in the factory -- known as the "Bucks County Playhouse" -- and some allegedly had sex in the planes. Rival shifts hid parts from each other.

Each year, $50,000 worth of tools and materials were stolen, carried right past guards.

But the chaos was not limited to the work force. Strange tales of inept management abounded. When supervisors discovered tools left in finished planes, for instance, they ordered disbelieving engineers to build a giant device to flip planes and shake out loose bolts and tools.

Before the hearings even ended, the Navy canned the Buccaneer, hauling more than 300 of them out of the plant as scrap. By then, the Buccaneer already was a joke among U.S. pilots. Though some of the bombers were in Navy combat units, not one saw battle. Most were used for training; others were launched into the sea to test catapults on aircraft carriers.

Production at Johnsville switched to the Corsair fighter, designed by Vaught. But in early 1944, the Navy canceled that contract and closed the plant. In protest, workers staged a "stay-in," producing a record eight planes in one day.

The Navy ignored them.

https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-2001-08-05-0108050007-story.html

Criminal level of malfeasance by all levels of management / union leadership at that company

 

[eltf177]

[snip]I'm no fan of the Buffalo, but this is very wrong...

I must agree. The Finns did very well with them, but they did remove a lot of excess weight. Even the RAF and RAAF had some pilots make ace in them. But nobody could dogfight a Zero and survive, even Spitfire pilots who tried learned the hard way you couldn't do it.

 

[Vanguard45]

But they had heard the words "sabotage" and "lawsuit"



https://www.theintell.com/news/20190520/lavo-brewster-scandal



https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-2001-08-05-0108050007-story.html

Criminal level of malfeasance by all levels of management / union leadership at that company

I hope Johnsville never gets back their bucaneer. What they did during the war is disgusting and should not be rewarded

 

[McPherson]

All of which I knew when I wrote that the F2A was a piece of crap. (^^^) Thanks for the evidence posted.

 

[Draconis]

But they had heard the words "sabotage" and "lawsuit"

https://www.theintell.com/news/20190520/lavo-brewster-scandal

https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-2001-08-05-0108050007-story.html

Criminal level of malfeasance by all levels of management / union leadership at that company

They should have been hearing the words "prison term."

 

[Spencersj345.346]

They should have been hearing the words "prison term."

Or firing squad

 

[RanulfC]

Smaller engines just to get it approved and flying by 1940, where it wins over the F2A.
OTL Grumman changed to the Wright, as P&W said they had no plans for a two stage supercharger for the R-1535

The XF2A-1 won out over the XF4F-1 in 1935 which was already equiped with the Wright R-1820-22 engine. While Grumman knew the XF4F-1 biplane was inferior to the XF2A-1 (the Navy did too) but it was ordered for development as a backup to the Brewster design. It was only AFTER this that Grumman decided to totally redesign the XF4F-1 into the monoplane XF4F-2 which was a proposed POD in that Grumman goes all out with the XF5F instead. If we assume something causes Grumman to go all-in then they would have to leap from the F3F (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_F3F) straight to the XF5F in 1935 and has it ready to go against the XF2A.

c. Ready now explains the Wildcat RTL. Politics (Congress) explains the Buffalo. The New York delegation pressured the USN. The USN knew the F2A was junk from the get-go, but they bought it anyway and intended it for the Marines.

Eh, not from the 'get-go' and franklly it was quite obviousy superior to the other offerings which was the reason it was choosen for production. The biplane XF4F-1 and monoplane XF4F-2 were judged to be slightly faster but less manuverable than the XF2A-1 and the Navalized version of the Seversky P-35 (XFNF-1, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seversky_P-35) due to being too slow. Again it was the "ready now" more than the poltics that pushed the deployment of the Buffalo. The Navy needed a "modern" aircraft and from the choices they had the Buffalo was the best at the time. Of course even a couple of years would change this but they weren't sure they HAD a couple of years.

I'm no fan of the Buffalo, but this is very wrong. The F2A, at the time it was accepted for service, was one of, if not the, highest performing aircraft then flying. The problems came when the Navy drastically increased the weight of the aircraft by adding hundreds of pounds of armor, self-sealing tanks, a liferaft and several additional modifications, and then completely failed to increase the engine horsepower to compensate for the substantially higher weight.

Well actually the Navy DID request more powerful engines with the initial production run of 54 using the more powerful Wright R-1820-34 engines, (most of which went to Finland) and eventually the F2A-2 with the even more powerful Wright R-1820-40 engine. Not that it helped all that much but both the Navy and Brewster were aware of the issues but the design was by that point pretty much maxed out. This was not unusual either as both the F4F and F6F had different performance than that of the prototype and were constantly improved over time. The problem with the Buffalo was the design was marginal itself and the company wasn't very well run.

When it was put into production and first put into service the Navy and pilots actually DID like it but it was rapidly overtaken by progress and an inability to keep up with changes.

Randy

 

[marathag]

I must agree. The Finns did very well with them, but they did remove a lot of excess weight. Even the RAF and RAAF had some pilots make ace in them. But nobody could dogfight a Zero and survive, even Spitfire pilots who tried learned the hard way you couldn't do it.

IMO, about the only aircraft that could almost dogfight an A6M2 would be a Hawk 75, most from the higher roll rate and stronger structure that could pull more Gs. French Hawks were found to easily out maneuver Spitfires

 

[eltf177]

IMO, about the only aircraft that could almost dogfight an A6M2 would be a Hawk 75, most from the higher roll rate and stronger structure that could pull more Gs. French Hawks were found to easily out maneuver Spitfires

I'd never heard about this. I know the RAF took over some of the French order, I guess these were test-flown against the Hurricane and Spitfire?

 

[McPherson]

I'd never heard about this. I know the RAF took over some of the French order, I guess these were test-flown against the Hurricane and Spitfire?

Hawk 75... pfui.

It is not fast enough, does not have the service ceiling or firepower to meet an A6M on anywhere near equal terms. It does not even have corner turn to stay with a Zeke in the horizontal. Don't let the light wing loading fool you.

 

[RanulfC]

a. My take is that by 1938 that Bu-Air (RADM Arthur B. Cook, a non-entity^1) should notice that the Europeans are up to no-good and should be alarmed accordingly, with special emphasis on aircraft, their "alleged" specialty. Getting something competitive... was more important than the numbers game.

Can't argue the US wasn't paying attention but the US aviation industry was behind too and even before you get into service bias' on things (Navy wanted radials, Army wanted liquid cooled, manufactureres tended to offer them what they knew the customer prefered) they had gotten rather used to low number buys and waiting to see specifications before prototyping. It wasn't till the mid-30 everyone got nervous enough to really push the advances. Actually it was a repeat of pre-WWI US aviation research and development for government aircraft.

b. Granted that Grumman is about the profits, but the USNAS has to have a minimum of aircraft for fleet air defense and whether that is a 1 engine or 2 engine is a problem but the numbers game does not change. A flattop needs at least 1 fighter squadron of 12-16 birds for CAP and strike escort.

This is an important point since the F5F takes up more room than the F4F. As noted "Saratoga" was aimed at going into the battle for Wake with only 13 fighters which while 'technically' only three aircraft short but is still operationally disadvantaged. Operationally during WWII the Sara fluctuated with an offical complement of 78 aircraft her totals tended towards 90 during the war. The usual mix seems to be 36 fighters in two squadrons, 36 SBDs in two squadrons and a single squadron of TBFs with 18 aircraft. So if there are two squadrons of F5F fighters with a total of 24 aircraft, (12 per squadron) that meets the minimum stated for CAP and escort. There's another way to bolster the numbers if we can get the F5F used in a dive bombing role along the line but that's for later.

c. Ready now explains the Wildcat RTL. Politics (Congress) explains the Buffalo. The New York delegation pressured the USN. The USN knew the F2A was junk from the get-go, but they bought it anyway and intended it for the Marines.

As I noted it wasn't that clear for the Buffalo and no the Navy specifically originally wanted it for carrier operations. Once Grumman offered the F4F they jumped on it, but that wasn't the case in 1935 so the went with what they could get at the time.

d. Big change indeed. 2 engines means 4x the pilot workload instead of 2x as expected. At sea this would be a nightmare. Aircraft maintenance ditto.

Yes but it's doable if you choose to go that route. Leaps of a similar nature happen all the time and were in fact rather constant during the time period. It's a trade off.

e. Same as d.
f. Refer to c.

Tradeoffs and requirments, everything else feeds into those of course but sometimes the "needs" can outweight the outside factors. As I noted the requirements for the quoted Army Air Corps circular were pretty fantastic, (on purpose mind you) and industry stepped up to the challenge. But that was the late-30s and everyone KNEW war was around the corner when in the early-30s it wasn't so clear and the budget limits meant being conservative was safer.

g. The Finns were fighting the Российская фронтовая авиация (Russian frontal aviation). The Russians were brave, courageous pilots supported by patriotic but inept ground crews; but their training and equipment was not the best and the F2A in the hands of pilots/ground crews like the Finns meant that the Buffalo was going to seemingly perform much better than the piece of defective junk it RTL was.

Note the Finns also ripped out a bunch of the armor THEY had specifically required to be built into the airframe in order to improve the performance and also replaced the 'standard' .30 cal machine gun, (again something they'd specifically requested) in favor of another .50 cal for more punch. The Navy and Marines never did anything like that so of course their performance was worse. Against the Japanese the difference would have been marginal at best but it would have been something.

h. The USAAC and the USNAS were very "Japanese". Best hope is a just in case production contract for the XF5F as modified in its long nose variant. Give it to the Marines, as it is realized that the Buffalo is a death trap and Brewster Aeronautical Corporation is being run like a Mafia front operation.

Not sure how you mean that first part as only ONE small segment of the USAAC was responsible for the circular note and it was specifically to get a long-range, high performance heavy fighter which the main (bomber mafia) part of the USAAC were dead set against seeing developed. If on the other hand you mean they were both fighting their own services and well as each other... Well yes that was a thing too though the US was clearly less bloody about it in reality
The USNAS had a bunch of conflicting requirements, (especially when you added in the Marine needs) which oddly enough were also very gray in areas that had only been gamed and not really operationally developed. (Dive bombers were seen as the carriers 'guns' while torpedo planes were, well the torpedo launchers and then the fighters were needed to not only prevent the enemy from "doing unto me" but also needed to escort the DBs and torpedo planes. And since it wasn't clear yet how effectvie either DB's or Torpedo planes were going to be some effort was aimed at making them third-line fighters if need be which worked about as well as you'd think that would. It wasn't till very late in the war that the idea of combining jobs into a single airframe began to coalesce and in fact that's still not really the optimum but does make efficent use of the available space.

i. You have a wing load limit that is severe. I believe it is 200 kg dead load per wing port/starboard.

Yes but most of the load is 'center-line' loading shared between fuselage and wing which COULD take a heavier loading. The numbers are based on that from the F7F with a mix of the F6F and other standard WWII fighter load outs as assumed. As I understand it the loading limit you're quoting is, (in this case) outside the engine nacelle loading. I'd be VERY surprised if the F5F couldn't carry at least the load of the P-38 on the center-line.

j. Refer to i. The lofting capacity is 400 kg? Torpedo is 1,000 kg.

See above

k. CG issues. You cannot hang that garbage into the nose and not do a redesign of the whole plane.

Same was done with the P-38 as the quote is pretty much a direct rip-off from wiki. It is redesigned and rebuilt much as the P-38 was over time.

l. As in the ...Those Marvelous Tin Fish: The Great Torpedo Scandal Avoided. As soon as the Hellcat becomes available, P-51 logic prevails. Cheap attrition unit logic that is. Pilots and planes are attrition units in an air campaign. The USAAF never understood that fact. A bomber, for example, that can unload 2 tonnes of bombs per mission sortie deep inside Germany is more efficient economically using 7 men, than 1 that unloads 1 tonne assuming equal loss rates of 38% per quarter year cycle.

Here. BLTN. In that case, never.

So using Mixmasters would have been more efficent than using B-29s or B-17s?

It's kind of a given that as the F8F, (should be F6F Hellcat) arrived the F5F was taken out of front line service and that's what I note in the piece. It takes a bit because they are doing is replacing it as a fighter but using it for other duties which I don't go into detail about but considering it can carry bombs and torpedoes I thought was obvious.

m. Uhm; did the USAF learn?

Nope.

You could actually argue the did and then ignored it After all they built the B-47 in large numbers but wanted bigger and more bombs so built the B-52. Here's where further development of in-flight refueling during the war would have changed quite a bit but as it was aircraft like the B-36 were driven by the idea that ONE bomber would have to carry both a large payload a great distance but also all the fuel needed to do the entire mission.

P.S. @RanulfC is correct that despite the USNAS trying to pound it into their aviators, to follow the Rene' Fonck Dictum; "get in, shoot, get out"; it is the natural tendency of a human pilot to try to get into a turning fight. It takes war and a 2 x 4 to the head to teach pilots to do what Fonck teaches. Ambush them then hunt for clear sky and altitude to set up your next dive. He LIVED. Red Baron, Boelcke and a lot of those others who stressed dogfighting and the turning fight... didn't.

More colorful, live fast, die young and leave a beutiful corpse and all that compared to quitely getting the actual job done. On the other hand there's a reason fighter pilots today still learn how to turn-n-burn and pay attention to your energy state so its not clear cut.

Randy

 

[RanulfC]

It was either do this or install a periscope. At least the American got to ride.

This poor Aussie had to trot alongside in the tropical heat.

Actually the spotter would usually sit, (or lay) on the wing over the wheel to guide the pilot. All factors considered I suspect the fact he's wearing shorts is the reason he's walking

Randy

 

[RanulfC]

There is a 45 kg difference in the engine setups with the Pratts being heavier. Weight in a fighter is a no-no, bigger than drag.

Also from a mechanic's perspective, 9 cylinder single bank into an orbit gear crank arrangement is a lot simpler and less prone to fail than a 14 cylinder 2 bank into an orbit gear crank arrangement. Also less cost in parts and maintenance time and complexity. But aside from that, given my druthers, I take the Pratt with the downsides because the Wrights were oil burners, fuel hogs and just poorly made. Garbage may be alright over Germany because you have 3 spares, but if you are over the SLOT, you want a PRATT.

Likely the Navy would have requested the Pratt's instead of the Wright's for some or all of those reasons.

It would not have been ready. There were significant issues with stability to begin with, and that was landing on a runway with all the space on God's Green Earth to play with. AFTER that had been corrected, then they would have needed to deck qualify an ARMED version of the aircraft (keep in mind that the "X" versions of almost all aircraft are demonstrators initially tested without weapons mounted, and in the case of 1939-early 1940 U.S. aircraft without self sealing tanks or pilot armor). The later, fully dressed version of the F5F was, understandably, considerably lower on the performance scale.

http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/XF5F-1_and_XFL-1_PD_-_26_December_1942.pdf

Could have been worse, I mean look at the XFL-1 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_XFL_Airabonita) side of the sheet

And this is one reason I suggest an earlier POD so they have more development time AND they go all-in on the design. They had the stability issue pretty much figured out and much like the early Corsair I think the landing problems could have been solved.

As can be seen in the attached USN performance write-up the actual testing prototype was 71MPH slower than the oft quoted 383MPH at sea level (which is probably an error, since that would have made it the fasted aircraft operational) and never approached 383mph at any altitude (top was 352mph at 17,300') and the recorded rate of climb, rather than the 4,000ft/min generally seen was actually a much more mundane 2,381 Ft/min (inferior to even the later, heftier F2A-2's 2,600 Ft/min).

Would changing engines help as suggested? Say a pair of Continental IV-1430s?
Grumman F5F-3 Skyrocket

The F5F, once you really get into the weeds, wasn't really that special compared to the F4F (a much maligned aircraft deserving of a better reputation).

I agree the F4F deserves better but so does the F5F and had it recieved similar treatment I'm sure it would have been more than it was. (And probably treated with more actual respect than miss-placed awe )

Randy

 

[Draconis]

But what about the Grumman F6F Hellcat?

I regard the F6F Hellcat as the nearly perfect plane for its time and place in the Pacific War. That why I'm advocating the F5F with its near F6F performance. Well OK, maybe if it had the long nose and is powered by PW R-1830s like its F4F sibling. Because the U.S. Navy needed the Hellcat in 1942 but it couldn't have happened until the R-2800s were ready for service.

So after the F6F Hellcat goes into service then farm off the F5F to the CVEs and the land based fighter bomber squadrons.

 

[nbcman]

The F5F made its best contribution here:

The Grumman XF5F Skyrocket is the twin-engine fighter most identified with the Blackhawks. The team is nearly always shown flying modified versions of the plane during their World War II adventures and for some time thereafter. As Will Eisner remembered:

So we came up with the idea of using a certain model Grumman airplane, which had a very strange configuration. It had tailfins coming out from under a wing. It also apparently had the capacity to make a rapid takeoff from the deck of an aircraft carrier. It was a Navy plane, as I remember, not an Army Air Force plane. Actually, in real life, it turned out not to be as good a plane as everybody thought it would be, but it sure looked sexy!

Otherwise, the F5F would have used two engines that were better used in other aircraft.

 

[Workable Goblin]

So using Mixmasters would have been more efficent than using B-29s or B-17s?

It's kind of a given that as the F8F, (should be F6F Hellcat) arrived the F5F was taken out of front line service and that's what I note in the piece. It takes a bit because they are doing is replacing it as a fighter but using it for other duties which I don't go into detail about but considering it can carry bombs and torpedoes I thought was obvious.

You could actually argue the did and then ignored it After all they built the B-47 in large numbers but wanted bigger and more bombs so built the B-52. Here's where further development of in-flight refueling during the war would have changed quite a bit but as it was aircraft like the B-36 were driven by the idea that ONE bomber would have to carry both a large payload a great distance but also all the fuel needed to do the entire mission.

Also, by the time the XB-36 was actually flying (much less by the time the B-36 entered service), the primary weapon type was nuclear weapons, which were at the time and for a while afterwards very large and heavy and so needed a very large and heavy aircraft to carry them. Building a ton of Mixmasters may just have ended up with the United States not really having a nuclear delivery mechanism (especially given how big and heavy the first-generation hydrogen bombs were). Nuclear weapons were also (not necessarily accurately) perceived to change the logic of strategic bombing to focus on an apocalyptic assault that destroys the enemy in a single blow rather than a series of attacks to gradually wear them down. Under this logic, attrition simply doesn't matter, because the first attack ends the war, and you just have to optimize for dealing the heaviest blow possible on the first strike. You can say that this is bad logic, but it's not really crazy logic.