One USAAF fighter?

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
P-38 carried a heavier load than the P-39, P-40, or P-47. It also was capable of range equal to the P-51.

P-38 was faster, faster-climbing, & more heavily armed than the P-39 "interceptor". IIRC, both the P-47 & P-51 were faster & faster-climbing, too.

P-38, P-47 & P-51 were used for LR escort.

P-38, P-47, & P-51 (or A-36...) were used for close air support or interdiction.

Tell me again there's no overlap...

I would hope for this ASAP. That suggests converting P-39 & P-40 production to P-38s. (IDK if that butterflies away the NA-73; I'd guess not, since IIRC NAA wasn't building fighters then. That might make building it in the U.S. problematic, however...)

My thinking is, the approach is akin to the one for the M1911 or M-1 Garand: licence production by all other airframe makers.

That is an issue I hadn't considered.:eek: However, in the event, DoW has quite a bit of clout... In effect, it'd be, "Build under licence or go out of business.";) (The "outlier" might, just, get Brit contracts...)

True. I imagine much the same happening: standardizing on the V1710 or R2800.

Which raises another question: is there, as a result, pressure to convert (say) the P-38 to two R2800s?:eek:
German fighters ate the P-38 for breakfast. The early combat version (models F-H) were especially weak at anything over 25K. It also had dreadful internal fuel range. It wasn't until the new radiators were installed in the "J" model that the high latitude, high speed Lightning was born.

The P-39 was probably the best mid altitude, high latitude, fighter the U.S. produced. At 10-15K it would take every other aircraft in the world and roll them up and stick them in a pocket. Unfortunately the high latitude fights were at 25K+ and the aircraft was helpless at that altitude. It was also unable to make reasonable power in high heat environments, so the South Pacific was a lousy theater for it. The one place it made sense what the one place the U.S. never fought, the Eastern Front. The fighting there tended to be below 15K, often below 10K as the two sides competed for control of the battlefield, in that situation the Airacobra was in its glory.

The P-40 was another excellent mid altitude performer (which made it a reasonable aircraft in the Pacific and in North Africa) but it was meat on the table over 15K for any Luftwaffe single engine fighter. It could outturn just about anything at "high speed" (at the time 300 knots) but at lower speed it couldn't keep up with the lightweight IJA/IJA fighters.

The P-47 used the R-2800. It was not ready for wide-spread installation until mid 1940.

The P-51 is one of the great accidents of all time. It was a so-so ground attack aircraft (in A-36 guise) and decent mid altitude fighter (noticing a trend here?) until someone in the UK (actually at Rolls-Royce) decided to see what might happen with a better engine. That turned it into one of true great aircraft of all time. Problem here is that the aircraft isn't ready until 1943.

As I noted in the parent thread, you fight with what is in hand, not what will be in hand after a couple years of war and plenty of hard knocks along the way.

Different missions require different aircraft (the P-51 was LOUSY ground attack aircraft, despite its designed role thanks to the radiator hanging right dead center of the fuselage).
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Yep; all this material is on-line for free...

Great links.

Also on that Hyperwar site: AAF Aircraft of WW2 (covers some of the why's & what's for specific aircraft)

Yep; all this material is on-line for free... The Army's military history center pretty much has anything anyone would want. The Navy and USAF sites have some interesting material, but the MHC is phenomenal.

The C&GS site at Leavenworth has some great on-line libraries as well.

Best,
 
Let's not hamstring the navy. They have enough problems because they only use a single aerial torpedo and a single sub-launched torpedo. Wouldn't it have been nice if somebody built a better one?

Technically the Navy did use one fighter. In 1943 the Hellcats went to the new Essex carrier air wings while the Corsairs went ashore with the Marines. Were there any mixed Hellcat/Wildcat air wings on the big deck carriers in the US Navy? Also was there a mixed mixed Corsair/Hellcat air wing with all Navy pilots no Marine VMF squadrons?
 
If it's got to be in productiion by Jan 1 1940, P-40? They could be adapted to fly off carriers as well, correct? That decision probably isn't looking as good by Dec 1941, though.
Add folding wings and a supercharger and the P-40 may do okay for the USN.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_s3xm2azMs

A naval P-40 may see a naval P-51 later on.

naval4.jpg
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Technically the Navy did use one fighter. In 1943 the Hellcats went to the new Essex carrier air wings while the Corsairs went ashore with the Marines. Were there any mixed Hellcat/Wildcat air wings on the big deck carriers in the US Navy? Also was there a mixed mixed Corsair/Hellcat air wing with all Navy pilots no Marine VMF squadrons?

There was, but not quite the way you are asking the question.

VF(N)-101 (orginally VF(N)-75) operating F4U night fighter variants was parceled out in four aircraft sections, starting with Enterprise in February of 1944. The remainder of the VF on-board were F6F.
 
I'll admit bias in favor of the P-38, but I wonder how much of the trouble was inexperience with twins, & with lack of the dive flaps (thanks to the wreck of the prototype:mad: & the loss of conversion kits about a C-54 shot down:().

If I thought I could get AAF to accept the F4U, & get it in service before 1943, I'd say, "Build the best, screw the rest.";) As said, that's another thread...;)
 
Let's try it this way. It's September 1939, and it looks like war. We're the War Department. What fighter are we going to build for our boys to fight a war with?

Honestly, at that point? Stick with P-36Ds for now, and move on to similarly armed P-40s (because twin fifties in the nose is probably the most effective cost-effective armament available and doesn't put too much weight in places where it'll hurt turning and roll performance,) while using the (properly engined) P-39 as an interceptor and developing a good replacement design for those two lines, probably derived from the Republic Lancer and the P-38 respectively since they're the most promising designs on the table at the time.

That's cutting it down to two designs per generation plus whatever the Navy is doing (which means worst comes to worst, getting in on the Corsair. Which is probably the best you can really hope to get out of that without sacrificing too much.
 
Honestly, at that point? Stick with P-36Ds for now, and move on to similarly armed P-40s (because twin fifties in the nose is probably the most effective cost-effective armament available and doesn't put too much weight in places where it'll hurt turning and roll performance,) while using the (properly engined) P-39 as an interceptor and developing a good replacement design for those two lines, probably derived from the Republic Lancer and the P-38 respectively since they're the most promising designs on the table at the time.

That's cutting it down to two designs per generation plus whatever the Navy is doing (which means worst comes to worst, getting in on the Corsair. Which is probably the best you can really hope to get out of that without sacrificing too much.

You're choosing too many fighters at a time. You've got one pick only, and then all the factories change tooling for the next pick when the time comes, unless that time never comes.
 
I'll admit bias in favor of the P-38, but I wonder how much of the trouble was inexperience with twins, & with lack of the dive flaps (thanks to the wreck of the prototype:mad: & the loss of conversion kits about a C-54 shot down:().

If I thought I could get AAF to accept the F4U, & get it in service before 1943, I'd say, "Build the best, screw the rest.";) As said, that's another thread...;)

You've picked the two fighters that were the most expensive, hardest and longest to build, which are the hardest and longest to train pilots for, them that survives that training. The Mustang and F6F were quick and cheap to build, and easy to train novice pilots on, with fewer casualties.
 
You're choosing too many fighters at a time. You've got one pick only, and then all the factories change tooling for the next pick when the time comes, unless that time never comes.

As you? said you pick the p-40, and then hope that the Allison can have a development program like the Merlin - and it also gets the Merlin like the Kittyhawk (and then hopefully it gets more powerful Merlins as well)

Could it take a griffon, or would the airframe be the limiting factor?

But at the same time you're working on the next gen fighter

(this probably butterflies the Mustang / Merlin combo as the RAF would probably be picking up p-40's instead in this TL but you never know, you might get an NA-73 analogue which gets a griffon to make it sing at some point)
 
The Navy really did not like liquid cooled engines for shipborne aircraft for a number of reasons, some valid some maybe not so much. As almost everything since WWII has shown taking a naval aircraft and using for land operations (F-4 and A-7 are some examples, F-18 use by places like Finland) is pretty easy. Taking an aircraft designed for land use and adapting it for naval use rarely works well (see F-111, seafire, etc).

One reason the USA went with multiple aircraft types within a category was because there were different requirements. Some of these meant a fighter bomber primarily for ground support would not do well as an escort or interceptor, and vice-versa. Another was that it was not obvious in advance which designs would be the best. You started out with a lot of prototypes, narrowed it down to a small number of designs that seemed to work and went from there.
 
Just Leo said:
You've picked the two fighters that were the most expensive, hardest and longest to build, which are the hardest and longest to train pilots for, them that survives that training. The Mustang and F6F were quick and cheap to build, and easy to train novice pilots on, with fewer casualties.
That argues against either being the standard, doesn't it?;) So pick the P-47, instead. (I can live with the F6F being standard & the F4U never entering service. {I don't like it...:eek:})
 
You're choosing too many fighters at a time. You've got one pick only, and then all the factories change tooling for the next pick when the time comes, unless that time never comes.

Yeah, see, That's legitimately impossible to do.

Or rather, it's possible to do, but there's a good reason why noone ever did it. Namely that it's really fucking high risk. If you hit any hard limits on the design, or if the replacement fails to pan out, you're stuck with that piece of shit.

Two designs in production at a time is legitimately the best you can hope for in practice, since it's the only way you can cover the whole range of expected activities while still having some redundancy if something doesn't pan out.
 
Yeah, see, That's legitimately impossible to do.

Or rather, it's possible to do, but there's a good reason why noone ever did it. Namely that it's really fucking high risk.

I totally agree. There's no reason to do it unless your fighters cost $187 mil a pop., take 20 years to enter service, and they're going to be in service for the next 50 years.
 
Bear in mind that the AAF or Air Corps of whatever they were called at the time had also decided that high performance at high altitude would have no solution other than the turbocharger. And the handful of turbos they could get were either terrible, or needed a vast airframe, or both. Supercharged aircraft only got accepted as interim make-dos or as low altitude fighters.
If you force them into 'there can be only one' choices they will probably end up trying to fight the first year with supercharged fighter that can only fight on the deck or, more likely, a fleet of vastly expensive turbocharged aircraft that are mostly either stuck on the ground waiting for parts or in flight and on fire.

Also, I've seen several references to different roles - as far as I am aware in the early stages there were no such different taskings envisioned. The requirements were all for "pursuit" aircraft which differed only in required speed, altitude, climb, range etc and the allowed weight, engines, etc. They all ended up doing a measure of ground attack, recon etc, because they were on hand and adequate to the task, not through any kind of plan.
 
Bear in mind that the AAF or Air Corps of whatever they were called at the time had also decided that high performance at high altitude would have no solution other than the turbocharger. And the handful of turbos they could get were either terrible, or needed a vast airframe, or both. Supercharged aircraft only got accepted as interim make-dos or as low altitude fighters.
If you force them into 'there can be only one' choices they will probably end up trying to fight the first year with supercharged fighter that can only fight on the deck or, more likely, a fleet of vastly expensive turbocharged aircraft that are mostly either stuck on the ground waiting for parts or in flight and on fire.

Also, I've seen several references to different roles - as far as I am aware in the early stages there were no such different taskings envisioned. The requirements were all for "pursuit" aircraft which differed only in required speed, altitude, climb, range etc and the allowed weight, engines, etc. They all ended up doing a measure of ground attack, recon etc, because they were on hand and adequate to the task, not through any kind of plan.
With the exception of the P-51/A-36, none of the AAF's fighters had bomb pylons as part of the original specification. They all acquired ground attack in later variants. So yeah, you're correct that multi-role was never part of the original plan, something that got thrown in later.
 
Another interesting premise - one fighter to rule them all :)

One way - V-12 power, at least initially. Use the wing 14 to 14.5% (give or take a fraction of a %) thick at the root, ie. roughly between Spitfire and Fw 190, the NACA 23XXX series will do, it is available in the time of interest (eg. the P-39 used 23015 at root). 220-230 sq ft area, folding wing version for carriers perhaps up to 250. Fowler flaps are known technology, might be good to use it.
Four HMGs, in the wing. Layout generaly similar to the Ki 61, start with un-protected 180-200 US gals of fuel in the wings and under the pilot, the protection will bring that to ~140-150.
The V-1710 C15, single stage single speed supercharged, will provide a bit more altitude power than initial DB 601A, though a bit less than Merlin III. Install two racks for drop tanks/bombs once tanks receive self-sealing lining. Once Packard Merlin V-1650-1 is available, install it. When 2-stage engines are around to try, go for it, obviously 1st Merlin, then V-1710, this might also be the time to stick more internal fuel on the fighter.
 
Another way - 'big radial' idea (initially)
Wing of 230-250 sq ft (bigger for CV bird), NACA 23015 at root, initially with 4 HMGs in wings, 250 gals of fuel in un-protected tanks. Use the R-2600 (1600 HP for take off) at 1st. USAF is dissapointed with 340 mph top speed, even if it is major advance over less than 300 mph of the P-35, so the R-2800 is installed (1850 HP for take off). 370 mph figure is found as satisfying (360 for the CV version). Since also the USMC needs a next-gen fighter, they will get it, but it will have the up-rated R-2600 (1700 HP for take off) installed, 350+ mph.
The experiments with 2-stage supercharged R-2800 are in full swing, USN will get the 1st examples since they helped funding. Also the engine installation receives the joint NACA and P&W treatment.
Once the reports from Europe are assesed, the protected tanks are being installed, dropping the internal fuel to 200 gals. Partial remendy for that is the installation of drop tanks facility under the wings. There is a need to increase firepower, so the next versions will get either another pair of HMGs, or replace inner HMG with 20 mm cannon.
When IJN attacks Pearl, US military (all branches) accepted 2912 of new fighters, while 631 is exported to the UK.
The 1st fighters with newer version of the R-2800 (2000 HP for take off) are being delivered. Heavier armament and presence of wing racks means that only less than 10 mph is gained over the previous best version, the rate of climb remained the same above 10000 ft. The necessity for the 2-stage supercharged engine is abovious, and 1st such fighter is delivered in February 1942, so the USN finally has a fighter that, in full combat trim, can beat 400 mph mark, and then some. With Ford production of R-2800s ramping up, the Marines also started receiving the fighters powered by that engine. Theri fighters were flying & fighting very well above Wake, but outnumbered and without early warning, were finally overcome by Japanese. RAF and other Commonwealth AFs are using the new fighter with enthusiasm, relegating their Hurricanes to fighter-bombers..
The quest for more range/radius is somewhat adressed with general clean-up of the internals, and installation of 90 gal fuel tank behind the pilot. Heavier 2-stage R-2800 helps a bit with counter-ballancing, but pilots are warned to use at least half of the fuel from the rear tank 1st, before switching to other tanks.
 
Top