# This is the way it should have been from the beginning....



## wuzak (Apr 4, 2012)

Another what if subject allowing us to use the great benefit of hindsight.

The idea is simple - list aircraft that were built/used during WW2 which could have been built better had they used ideas from later. These changes would have to be technically feasible in the time frame of the original aircraft, with engines historically available at the time (ie you can't say the Spitfire should have been the Mk XIV at the time of the BoB).

My first thought is the P-61. 

Instead of the original concept of the 3 man crew with powered turret with 4 x 0.50s







It should have been built with a 2 man crew, single canopy (or dual if the canopy is too large for 1942/43), keeping the nose radar and teh 4 x 20mm belly cannon.

It would have looked a lot like the P-61E day fighter.






It may have also been fitted with turbos, as per the P-61C, from the start - depending on turbocharger availability.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Aaron Brooks Wolters (Apr 4, 2012)

Did it not have four 20mm cannons in the belly tray?


----------



## wuzak (Apr 4, 2012)

Aaron Brooks Wolters said:


> Did it not have four 20mm cannons in the belly tray?



Yes, it did, plus 4 x 0.50s in the nose.

Saying it should have had teh radar in theer and ditch the 4 x 0.50s.


----------



## model299 (Apr 4, 2012)

Aaron Brooks Wolters said:


> Did it not have four 20mm cannons in the belly tray?



Yes. The 4 gun top turret proved problematic in early models with severe buffeting when trained anywhere besides straight forward. If not removed outright in the field, the top turrets were usually locked in the forward position and used by the pilot along with the 20's. In that case, the gunner was sometimes left behind to save a little weight, although some pilots liked to have him back there as an extra pair of MkI eyeballs.

EDIT: Spanked by wuzak


----------



## CobberKane (Apr 4, 2012)

How about this: hawker should have ditched the Napier Sabre engine when they drew up the Tempest and gone for the Pratt and Whitney Double Wasp, there by doing during the war what they did afterwards when the Bristol Centaurus was used. Same power, better altitude performance and increased survivability

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Useful Useful:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 5, 2012)

My idea: plumb the wings of the P-47C/D for drop tanks from day one. 600 gals of fuel, no sweat 

Plus: produce the Spitfire with Merlin 20 series, retractable tail wheel, LE fuel tanks, 29 gals rear fuel tank, all in late 1940.

Also: produce the Bf-109F/G with 3 cannons, no hull MGs, even if those are gondola-mounted.

The V-1650-1 for P-51 in 1942 is a topic beaten till death, even as we speak 

Install the 'features' of the P-38L on the earlier P-38s (proper intercooler, cabin heater, second generator, dive flaps, boosted ailerons, belt-fed cannon, LE tanks).

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gjs238 (Apr 5, 2012)

Tell Allison from Day 1 to design the V-1710 with 2-stage supercharging.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 5, 2012)

Tell USAAF that 2 stage Allison, with fuel injection, is the right way?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## model299 (Apr 5, 2012)

Build more examples of the XB-38. It may not have performed any better than a standard issue B-17, but man, what a gorgeous looking aircraft! Maybe a couple would have survived to this day to look at.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## davebender (Apr 5, 2012)

How about if we use ideas from earlier?

He-177B (4 Jumo 211 engines) was proposed during 1938.
Fw-190 powered by DB603 engine like Dr. Tank wanted during 1937.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 6, 2012)

The Mitsubishi A5M8 prototype was equipped with the late version of the Kinsei engine (circa 1500 HP). So lets make Zero (and Hayabusa?) have the contemporary engines on board ASAP.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Alison (Apr 6, 2012)

I am looking for a Robert Taylor print of Air Apaches on the Warpath. My husbands granfather is one of the pilots who signed the print Major Keith Doughtery. I would like very much to find this painting for my husband. His grandfather is 91 years old and is in the hospital with bone cancer. The man was a great inspiration to my husband and I know this painting would mean a lot to him. Is there anyone here who can help me out or may have a copy of the print they would be willing to sell?
Thanks


----------



## parsifal (Mar 29, 2018)

Ki 100 with Kinsei as opposed to the Ha 112 (the same engine but approved for army use). easily the best conventional Japanese fighter of the war and probably the best of any nation during the war. A single Ki100 once took on no less than 12 Hellcats simultaneously and survived.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Mar 29, 2018)

Built the P-40Q from the start. If Allison had done the 2-stage supercharger from the start, it would have been a really GOOD one. It would have been head and shoulders better than the P-40 even without the 2-stage S/C.

Perhaps scale up the Bf 109 so it could carry some FUEL?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 29, 2018)

GregP said:


> Built the P-40Q from the start. If Allison had done the 2-stage supercharger from the start, it would have been a really GOOD one. It would have been head and shoulders better than the P-40 even without the 2-stage S/C.



The (X)P-40Q was determined by a 2-stage V-1710. Bubble canopy was featured in one P-40N example, 4 guns was not some invention.
The P-40 + a 2-stage V-1710 makes much more sense than historical P-63 IMO.



> Perhaps scale up the Bf 109 so it could carry some FUEL?



Stick the DB 601/605 on the Fw 190? Much better potential for long range.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 29, 2018)

tomo pauk said:


> Tell USAAF that 2 stage Allison, with fuel injection, is the right way?


1. Take supercharger off the Merlin XX in the fall of 1940
2. Send to Allison.
3. In modern terms "copy and paste"  

solves an awful lot of problems in 1942, early 1943.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Mar 29, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> 1. Take supercharger off the Merlin XX in the fall of 1940
> 2. Send to Allison.
> 3. In modern terms "copy and paste"
> 
> solves an awful lot of problems in 1942, early 1943.



Or give the V-1710 to Rolls-Royce to develop?


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 29, 2018)

There wasn't much wrong with the basic engine, they just stayed with the basic supercharger way too long. 
Think Merlin stuck with the pre Hooker supercharger until 1943 or so.


----------



## wuzak (Mar 29, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> There wasn't much wrong with the basic engine, they just stayed with the basic supercharger way too long.
> Think Merlin stuck with the pre Hooker supercharger until 1943 or so.



More thinking the way that Rolls-Royce developed engines would have got more out of the design sooner. And, of course, they would probably install a Merlin XX supercharger and, possibly, a 2 speed drive.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 30, 2018)

The Basic power section of the V-1710 was improved to the point where it was good for 1600-1750hp for periods of time (or higher with water injection), It was the lack of good supercharging that held it back. 
granted there several steps along the way from the 1090hp engines of the long nose P-40s to the 1600hp and up engines (new engine blocks, new crankshafts) but Allison did a pretty good job with the basic engine and it probably could have equaled the Merlin XX series if given a comparable supercharger.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 30, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> 1. Take supercharger off the Merlin XX in the fall of 1940
> 2. Send to Allison.
> 3. In modern terms "copy and paste"
> 
> solves an awful lot of problems in 1942, early 1943.



Make a 9.60:1 S/C drive that is strong enough (= reliable), during late 1940. Means a 370 mph P-40, 380+ mph P-39, 400+ mph P-51, all in service by time of Pearl Harbour.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michaelmaltby (Mar 30, 2018)

.... it wasn't 'The American Way', unfortunately. Makes great sense but the US manufacturers didn't want to pay royalty fees. The Twin-Mustangs reverted to Alison's to avoid RR licensing charges which came into effect with the end of LL, IIRC. However the period you prescribe includes all LL (and Reverse LL) period _bu_t commences prior to the start of the LL program, March 15, 1941. If those in power had known that LL was coming and that there would be no fees on British turbos, maybe they might have been more innovative, .... or not.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 30, 2018)

There were two sample Merlin XX engines in the US during the summer of 1940 when talks were going on with Ford and Packard. This is before the -39 Allison goes into production. And over a year before Allison tries to make a production batch of engines with 9.60 gears. paying license fees at this point to get a much more effective engine should have no brainer.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## YF12A (Mar 30, 2018)

Have NAA design the Na-73X with the Merlin from the start, eliminate the development hassle, and the time wasted which is very important considering the lives and planes saved, with the Allison, use that money saved (I bet a LOT), and balance that against the royalty money or other back and forth trades. Or just pay it. In 1969, Pontiac had to pay the SCCA $50.00 for the use of the Trans Am name per car. No big deal as they sold 697 T/A's plus a handful of convertibles. In 1978 they sold almost 100,000 T/A's. That's $5,000,000, big deal, right? Not against the almost 3/4 of a Billion Dollars they took in just from Trans Am sales. Plus even more money from all the other Firebird models they also sold. Just depends on how you look at it.


----------



## yulzari (Mar 31, 2018)

CobberKane said:


> How about this: hawker should have ditched the Napier Sabre engine when they drew up the Tempest and gone for the Pratt and Whitney Double Wasp, there by doing during the war what they did afterwards when the Bristol Centaurus was used. Same power, better altitude performance and increased survivability


By the time of the Tempest the Sabre had most of it's issues sorted (once it had been taken out of the hands of Napiers) and factories were churning them out anyway.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 1, 2018)

YF12A said:


> Have NAA design the Na-73X with the Merlin from the start, eliminate the development hassle, and the time wasted which is very important considering the lives and planes saved, with the Allison, use that money saved (I bet a LOT), and balance that against the royalty money or other back and forth trades. Or just pay it. In 1969, Pontiac had to pay the SCCA $50.00 for the use of the Trans Am name per car. No big deal as they sold 697 T/A's plus a handful of convertibles. In 1978 they sold almost 100,000 T/A's. That's $5,000,000, big deal, right? Not against the almost 3/4 of a Billion Dollars they took in just from Trans Am sales. Plus even more money from all the other Firebird models they also sold. Just depends on how you look at it.


Nice solution but many built in barriers.

First, Material Command and War Production Board controlled priorities. At no time was NAA even considered in the priority assignment of Packard engines until late 1942. It would have taken incredible foresight by BPC to stipulate that Packard be the engine of choice, as well as incredible Good will by the General Motors Board to cut Allison out of the Mustang I market.

The breakthrough in 1942 occurred as simultaneous thrusts by RR to convert the Mustang I to Merlin 6o series, a revolt by AAF war fighters and planners to wrest the P-51 from a slow death at Wright Field - and get it to Eglin for a test series to confirm 'rumors' from non-Material Command pilots that had flown the Mustang I/XP-51 and raved about it, and finally re-writing AWPD-2 to point to a.) escort fighter requirements as well as b.) a fighter better capable than P-40 and P-39 to gain control of the air over the battlefield as well as CAS and tactical Recon.

Not all senior AAF thought leaders were bound to Strategic bombing - some actually felt moved by ties to armor and infantry support. This is when the 'Aha' occurred in both camps - even while Echols at Material Command still had a hard on for NAA and was over run by Generals Muir Fairchild and D.M Schlatter (Dir Ground Support) rammed the A-36, P-51A and 'conversion to Merlin 60 series as soon as possible'.

Second - Production of the real Difference maker - the 1650-3 did not commence until late April 1943.

Wave a magic wand and transform 'what could have happened' with zero fairy dust, and a.) Echols removed from Material Command - with all his 'like minded' hate NAA acolytes and replace them with thoughtful leaders that had the best interests of the Army Air Force and wished to field the best possible airframes to our troops and allies - in 1940. With foresight and ability to pressure the War Department and War production Board, the AAF would have looked to NAA and Packard and Allison - committed to fully understand the Development tracks for the V-1710 and V-1650-1. With the knowledge that the 2 speed/2 stage supercharger was on the fast track, the AAF could/should have authorized a parallel engine installation with one of the two XP-51 to be delivered as agreed in 1940.

With that idea in hand - and funding for the engine/radiator/cooling system change requirements in hand on or about the time flight tests by the RAF commenced in 1941, the AAF would have been able to aggressively test the first Allison XP-51 in November 1941, and receive the Merlin XX/1650-1
in early 1942... about the time the first Merlin 60 series was in full series production.

Now - with the pixie dust in hand we can come to at least one conclusion. The acceleration of the XP-51B could have started with the 1650-1 before RR began their project in May 1942. The first TEST of the XP-51B in the US with Merlin 60 series still required some airframe changes forward of the firewall and probably to the radiator inlet later in flight tests - but still wouldn't fly with a 1650-3 until November 30, simply because Packard was still solving issues and engine not in production yet.

What Would have happened is that the A-36 with 1650-1 could have been flying in early 1942, NO P-51A would have been necessary as the A-36 would have had better performance, would have been produced in 700+ range before converting to P-51B-1. With no 'contest' between Army C;lose Support and Strategic Airpower on the role of the P-51B vs A-36, the P-51B never would have been mistakenly tasked to 9th AF.

At the end of the day - IMHO - the ONLY differences of historical significance - would have been:
1.) NAA received Priority for Mustang series from WPD --------> with all the implications for additional plants and funding for advanced tooling, faster introduction into series production for A-36/P-51B.
2.) The A-36/Packard combo would have solved all the tactical requirements, including recon, and even CAS much earlier.
3.) P-38 production would have been more focused in Pacific - to replace P-39 and P-40, delivering more P-39 and P-40 to allies earlier (what a deal!), until P-47/A-36 delivered to Pacific/CBI escort and CAS roles.
4.) Production release of airframes for P-51B-1 would have been significantly higher and earlier with increased tooling investment and minimal changes from A-36 to P-51B engine and systems.

Unknown what the impact would have been to Lockheed as the P-38 cost nearly 2.5X over the bare airframe of the P-51 and far cheaper to train both pilots and ground crews, fas well as far cheaper to operate.

Unknown is the effect to Packard with increased funding for potential backlog forecast for A-36 and P-51B-1. Had engine R&D issue resolution for 1650-3 been accelerated, the P-38 may never have returned to the ETO in October and December 1943.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
2 | Informative Informative:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Apr 3, 2018)

YF12A said:


> Have NAA design the Na-73X with the Merlin from the start, eliminate the development hassle,



Thing was, the British Purchasing Commission originally wanted P-40s and it was NAA (Kindelberger) who offered to build a new fighter for the Brits, using the same engine, when NAA was asked to build the P-40 since Curtiss had its hands full.

Also, RR would never re-engineer the Allison. It was designed to be able to be worked on by Elmer Fudd and was simple, but robust and reliable. The Merlin however, was built to fine tolerances. Merlins had to be returned to RR for overhaul, whereas Allisons could be done anywhere. When Lord Hives of RR heard about the simple design of early gas turbines, he said, "don't worry, we'll design the simplicity out of it..."

Another one, give Whittle's engine to RR to begin with, rather than Rover.

Regarding the Mustang, proceed with plans for Gloster to build it instead of continuing Hurricane production.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 3, 2018)

nuuumannn said:


> Also, RR would never re-engineer the Allison. It was designed to be able to be worked on by Elmer Fudd and was simple, but robust and reliable. The Merlin however, was built to fine tolerances.



You know, I would _really love_ to see some documentation on this.

Like piston to cylinder fits or bearing clearances or some other actually measurements like

piston in cylinder top.........0.030L min........0.034L max
vs
Piston in cylinder top...........0.030/0.0 .......0.045 worn

Top is for an Allison and bottom for a Merlin.
Exact wording is a bit different. Merlin calls for measurement at 90 degrees to the gudgeon pin.
I have an old mechanics text book with rather abbreviated chapters on how to overhaul various aircraft engines"Aircraft Handbook" by Fred Colvin, 1942) that has several pages of clearances for both engines and I can't make out any pattern that either one was built to tighter tolerances than the other. different in some places yes, but overall finer???


----------



## nuuumannn (Apr 3, 2018)

Now, where did I see it...

Perhaps I got 'finer tolerances' wrong and mean something else.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 3, 2018)

I would also note that there were several overseas overhaul depots for Merlin including one 'housed' in caves outside of Cairo Egypt.
Another was in Algiers, and the far east was handled by facilities in Karachi and Bangalore

Photo can be found in "The Merlin in Perspective-the combat years" Alec Harvey-Bailey Rolls-Royce Heritage trust, Historical series No 2.


----------



## Schweik (Apr 4, 2018)

tomo pauk said:


> The (X)P-40Q was determined by a 2-stage V-1710. Bubble canopy was featured in one P-40N example, 4 guns was not some invention.
> The P-40 + a 2-stage V-1710 makes much more sense than historical P-63 IMO.



why do you say that? P-40 with a two stage V-1710 would be very dangerous to enemy pilots.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Apr 4, 2018)

For the Anglo-Americans:

Cancel Hawker Hurricane and Fairey Fulmar in 1941 and put engines built for them into P-39's, P-40's and P-38's. Would have had much better fighter fleet available as a result.
Or just ship these engines to the Russians to be fitted to LaGG-3, Yak 1 etc.
Do the same with Fairey Firefly, Barracuda and various other dead-ends from the mid-war period. Put those excellent engines into Mustangs or P-40's or P-38's, or Yaks.
Close down the Blackburn Aircraft company and also do not make any Boulton Paul Defiants. Put those engines into P-40's or Yak-9's.

Or if you can't stand putting them in foreign aircraft just build more Spitfires and Mosquitos.
Cancel the Blenheim and Beaufort and make Beaufighters instead.

Cancel all British bombers except the Mosquito and make a lot more of those.
Cancel the Norden bomb sight program and redirect those billions of dollars into the development of more and better fighters (and fixing the Torpoedoes etc).

Cut back the emphasis on the 4 engine heavy bombers in the US. Use B-24 for maritime patrol only and make only as many as you need for that purpose. Use the resulting extra industrial capacity to make Corsairs instead. Use Corsairs as land based fighters and fighter-bombers in Europe.

Do a "reverse lend lease" of the Pe-2 and manufacture it in the US in 1941. Or manufacture Mosquitoes in the US on a large scale. In either case do this instead of the B-26.
Do a Soviet-style purge of Curtiss and Bell aircraft company executives in the early war years and remove the most corrupt so they can get their act together.
Do the same with whatever bureau it was that made the American torpedoes.
For the Soviets:

Save the stalled Yak 3 program* in 1942 and rush-build them instead of all other inline-engined Soviet fighters. Might have shortened the war by a year.
Build a lot more Tu-2
Get a lot of Mosquitoes via Lend-Lease
I also agree force Allison to develop a reliable two stage V-1710 by mid-1942 or earlier if possible. Allow them to copy the RR system if necessary. Could have saved a lot of lives.

*The Luftwaffe slaughtering Yak 3 was almost ready in early 1942 but due to damage at the plant was put on hold for more than a year

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Apr 4, 2018)

For the Luftwaffe

Cancel the Me 110 in early 1941, use the engines for Me 109s, Ju 88 or put them in Italian fighters.

Same with Do 17 and He 111

Work with the Italians to develop a longer range fighter ASAP, Fiat G.55 is a good candidate or maybe Re 2005 if production can be simplified)
Or in say 1942 license-build a Ki-61, N1K1, or Ki-84. The Germans could have ironed out the engine problems much quicker than the Japanese.

In 1941 License build a bunch of A6M2-N fighter float planes for use in the Med / Malta zone early on.
In 1942 license build as many as possible Aichi B7A Ryusei (top speed 352 mph, range 3,000 km) as replacements for the Ju 87 (put Jumo engines in)
Develop a high speed transport aircraft (not sure what this would be though)
Develop the He 219 night fighter much earlier once Mosquitos started to become a problem
Develop the Me 262 only as a fighter (focus on the AR 234 if you want a bomber). I know this one is obvious / low-hanging fruit but come on.
For the Japanese

license-build a bunch of Fw 190's for the army, replace the Ki-43 and Ki-44 with these.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 4, 2018)

Schweik said:


> why do you say that? P-40 with a two stage V-1710 would be very dangerous to enemy pilots.



I say it because I think it is true. You might note that I've wrote that P-40 + 2-stage V-1710 makes plenty of sense.



Schweik said:


> For the Anglo-Americans:
> 
> Cancel Hawker Hurricane and Fairey Fulmar in 1941 and put engines built for them into P-39's, P-40's and P-39's. Would have had much better fighter fleet available as a result.
> Or just ship these engines to the Russians to be fitted to LaGG-3, Yak 1 etc.
> ...


The P-39 and P-39 need a redesigned Merlin, with reduction gear case separated from the block. Have surplus Merlins in 1941? Shove them on P-51s. Neither P-39, nor P-40, nor P-39 can replace Fulmar.
Yak-1 was supposed to do 650 km/h on Merlin 20, and 620 km/h on V-1710 - so Western V12 is a good idea, the cannon need to go in the cowling, though. Might be easier fit on the bigger LaGG-3 or MiG-3, though.
Mosquito is too late to replace Wellington, Whitley, Stirling, Halifax, it can't haul more than 2000 lb bomb load until late 1943, it can't haul combined bomb load (cookie + incediary) until late 1943. Better improve navigationn training, and use more intruders to harry German NF force.
More Spitfires, Mosquitoes and Mustangs is always a good idea. I agree that Curtiss and Bell will need some of Uncle Joe's medicine, but from 1942 on.


> For the Soviets:
> 
> Save the stalled Yak 3 program* in 1942 and rush-build them instead of all other inline-engined Soviet fighters. Might have shortened the war by a year.
> Build a lot more Tu-2
> ...



More Tu-2s is a good idea. Unfortunately, there wasn't enough of Mosquitoes to supply demands of yet another major air force. I don't think that Yak-3 was ready in 1942, the engine VK-105-PF2 was available from winter of 1943/44 for example.
An earlier 2-stage V-1710 needs co-operating USAAC/AAF to take flight, literaly. While also killing the V-3420, so there is more manpower to work on the V-1710 proper.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Apr 4, 2018)

tomo pauk said:


> The P-39 and P-39 need a redesigned Merlin, with reduction gear case separated from the block. Have surplus Merlins in 1941? Shove them on P-51s. Neither P-39, nor P-40, nor P-39 can replace Fulmar.



P-40's with Merlin's would have helped a lot in 1942.

The Fulmars should be replaced for the FAA by Martlets, which is what they basically did anyway. Maybe keep a few (10% of the number produced) for recon, for which they were reasonably well suited, but most of those engines should go to better planes. FAA seemed to have a lot of problems making specs for airplanes - they probably needed a purge too. How else do you explain atrocities such as this









> Yak-1 was supposed to do 650 km/h on Merlin 20, and 620 km/h on V-1710 - so Western V12 is a good idea, the cannon need to go in the cowling, though. Might be easier fit on the bigger LaGG-3 or MiG-3, though.


Two nose guns is probably enough, with the vastly improved performance.



> Mosquito is too late to replace Wellington, Whitley, Stirling, Halifax, it can't haul more than 2000 lb bomb load until late 1943, it can't haul combined bomb load (cookie + incediary) until late 1943. Better improve navigationn training, and use more intruders to harry German NF force.



My theory, though i realize this is a larger and entirely different discussion, is that fighters and fast attack aircraft (you could classify Mosquito as either) made for much better bombers. I don't think the mass-civilian bombing was effective or a good idea for a bunch of reasons. If you want to say, knock out German oil industry (best target) or even something more iffy like V-2 factories or ball bearings, neither the US day bombers or British night-bombers are very effective. Same if you want to destroy enemy tanks etc.

For the former use Mosquitoes or A-26 Invader, just more of them, for the latter use fighter bombers like Corsair, P-47, Tempest / Typhoon, or any Soviet fighter.



> More Tu-2s is a good idea. Unfortunately, there wasn't enough of Mosquitoes to supply demands of yet another major air force. I don't think that Yak-3 was ready in 1942, the engine VK-105-PF2 was available from winter of 1943/44 for example.
> An earlier 2-stage V-1710 need co-operating USAAC/AAF to take flight, literaly.



I think engine production could have been more heavily emphasized.

For that matter, for the Soviets

put defensive guns in Il-2 from the outset
make half as many Il-2 and use that extra industrial / production capacity to speed up / improve engine production

let all the top designers out of jail (put some Curtiss execs in there)


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Apr 4, 2018)

tomo pauk said:


> produce the Spitfire with Merlin 20 series, retractable tail wheel, LE fuel tanks, 29 gals rear fuel tank, all in late 1940.


I second this. A Mk.III Spitfire with Mk.IX performance


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Apr 4, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Two nose guns is probably enough, with the vastly improved performance.


two 12.7mm machine guns could hardly be considered adequate. The B-20 cannons were not available until 1945, so the pre "P" model Yak-3 is dependent on the center line cannon to be effective.

So maybe the B-20 cannon modification to the UB should have been done earlier, replacing all the cowl machine guns.
A Merlin 60 powered Yak-3 armed with two 20mm cannons in the cowl would have been a short ranged rocket ship


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 4, 2018)

Schweik said:


> For the Luftwaffe
> 
> Cancel the Me 110 in early 1941, use the engines for Me 109s, Ju 88 or put them in Italian fighters.
> 
> ...



The Fw 190 'Made in Japan' makes sense, even with Japanese engines and guns.
Late-war Japanese or Italian fighters' designs don't solve Lutwaffe's problems of early ww2. A drop-tank facility on the Bf 109E just two months earlier than historically improves odds for the Luftwaffe during the BoB, but it will not make them win it.
The He 219 without working DB 603A will not be possible. Kill the Me 210 instead of the 110?
Germans need jet fighter from late 1943 on, whether the 262 or something 1-engined, or both. Ditto for a better transport A/C.
The flotplane fighter is a death trap vs. P-40s, let alone something more capable.
He 111 was one of best bombers before 1943.



Schweik said:


> ...
> The Fulmars should be replaced for the FAA by Martlets, which is what they basically did anyway. Maybe keep a few (10% of the number produced) for recon, for which they were reasonably well suited, but most of those engines should go to better planes. FAA seemed to have a lot of problems making specs for airplanes - they probably needed a purge too. How else do you explain atrocities such as this



The Grumman AF-1 was also ugly. 
Martlets that FAA got in 1941/42 are under-performers. Perhaps go for Sea Hurricanes ASAP?



> My theory, though i realize this is a larger and entirely different discussion, is that fighters and fast attack aircraft (you could classify Mosquito as either) made for much better bombers. I don't think the mass-civilian bombing was effective or a good idea for a bunch of reasons. If you want to say, knock out German oil industry (best target) or even something more iffy like V-2 factories or ball bearings, neither the US day bombers or British night-bombers are very effective. Same if you want to destroy enemy tanks etc.
> 
> For the former use Mosquitoes or A-26 Invader, just more of them, for the latter use fighter bombers like Corsair, P-47, Tempest / Typhoon, or any Soviet fighter.



Soviet fighters can kill tanks once they got bigger cannons, 23 and then 37mm. Other will need napalm or Class S cannons.
A-26 was too late to matter. Both British and US 4-engined bombers can destroy German fuel industry, but bot before the technology and training are improved, along with advent of escort fighters for the US bombers.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 4, 2018)

The trouble with a lot of these suggestions is that they require not a different decision made at point in time X but time machines and inter dimensional transporters 

For instance the first 723 Defiants used Merlin III engines and these offer no real improvement over the Allisons in the early P-40s. It is only the last 350 or so Defiants that have the Merlin XX.

Swiping engines from Fulmars is even worse, The first 250 use Merlin VIIIs which might be able to be changed to Merlin IIIs by changing the supercharger gear. The next 350 use Merlin 30s which are single speed engines using a cropped impeller. Not what you want for P-40s.

Now you have to shuffle engines back and forth across oceans. Please remember that the British planned to use P & W R-1830s in the Beaufort until the ship carrying the first 200 engines got torpedoed. 

As for making more Beaufighters sooner? That means sorting out Hercules production much sooner, it means getting more power out of the Hercules sooner Early Hercules engines had around 250-300 less horsepower than the later ones. 

Fairey Firefly used Griffon engines. A single stage two speed Griffon weighed about 350lbs more than a single stage two speed Merlin and about 400lbs more than an Allison so these are not drop in replacements for American aircraft. 

NO US army aircraft was capable of operating off RN carriers and in fact would have had extreme difficulty on US carriers. P-39s and carriers are a disaster of epic proportions. 

Could things have been done better, yes.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 4, 2018)

Schweik said:


> For the Anglo-Americans:
> 
> Cancel Hawker Hurricane and Fairey Fulmar in 1941 and put engines built for them into P-39's, P-40's and P-38's. Would have had much better fighter fleet available as a result.
> Or just ship these engines to the Russians to be fitted to LaGG-3, Yak 1 etc.
> ...




Why not just hand over the UK military production to the USA and forget about any naval aircraft too. Cancelling all British bombers means bombing effort on Germany starts for real in 1944 in daylight. The Hawker Hurricane should have been out of production and would have been if the Typhoon didn't have problems, just cancelling Hurricanes means less Hurricanes, whatever you want more of come about two years later. I believe world production capacity of Mosquito's was running close to capacity, just because of the special woods it used. 

In addition to the aircraft sent on lend lease from UK £1.5billion worth of aero engines, the Russians could have just asked for engines but actually they asked for aircraft.


----------



## Schweik (Apr 4, 2018)

Clayton Magnet said:


> two 12.7mm machine guns could hardly be considered adequate. The B-20 cannons were not available until 1945, so the pre "P" model Yak-3 is dependent on the center line cannon to be effective.
> 
> So maybe the B-20 cannon modification to the UB should have been done earlier, replacing all the cowl machine guns.
> A Merlin 60 powered Yak-3 armed with two 20mm cannons in the cowl would have been a short ranged rocket ship



I think 2 x 12.7mm HMG is actually fine if they are in the nose - at least against enemy fighters in say 1942. Russian P-40's were stripped down to this armament and did very well. The Bf 109 F-2 only had a 15mm "cannon" and 2 light machine guns in the nose and it was obviously quite effective right? A lot of the early Russian fighters just had one cannon and one machine gun, or just the cannon only.

Anyway as I think you were alluding you could also just do two nose cannons like in the La 5.

S


----------



## Schweik (Apr 4, 2018)

tomo pauk said:


> The Fw 190 'Made in Japan' makes sense, even with Japanese engines and guns.
> Late-war Japanese or Italian fighters' designs don't solve Lutwaffe's problems of early ww2. A drop-tank facility on the Bf 109E just two months earlier than historically improves odds for the Luftwaffe during the BoB, but it will not make them win it.



I don't think there is much that could be done for the BoB, but I think for the 'second turning point' of late 1942 through Spring 1943, it would have been helpful for the Germans to have had some longer ranged fighters. Fiat G.55 was deployed to combat units in March 1943, first flight was in April 1942. It was obviously very promising already by then. You could have a parallel German / Italian development from that point on. Or developed the Re 2000 series from 1940 or the MC 202 from 1941. I think the Re 2000 series was maybe the most promising of all them but also probably the most difficult to perfect. The Re 2001 was around in 1941 flying with a DB 601, with 1,100 km range (without drop tanks) and was already clearly a very promising design. They could have started with that.



> The He 219 without working DB 603A will not be possible. Kill the Me 210 instead of the 110?


Kill them both, waste of effort. 219 was a much better design. Or develop the Ta 154 if you prefer.



> Germans need jet fighter from late 1943 on, whether the 262 or something 1-engined, or both. Ditto for a better transport A/C.



Jet transport in WW2 seems a bit out of reach but I'm willing to listen 



> The flotplane fighter is a death trap vs. P-40s, let alone something more capable.



It wasn't in the Pacific so I don't know why you would think so. The main thing though is that especially with the ability to operate from forward / remote airfields, that plane could engage well beyond the operational radius of any allied land based fighters available in 1942, except maybe P-38's. And it was maneuverable enough (even with the floats) to still have a pretty good chance against it.



> He 111 was one of best bombers before 1943.


Disagree. They were highly vulnerable (shot down a lot whenever fighters were around) very inaccurate like all level bombers, and way too slow. It's a Spanish Civil War era relic way past it's prime by 1942. The niche the Ju 87 had was that in spite of it's sluggishness, because it was a dive bomber at least it was extremely accurate and useful on a tactical level. What the Germans needed was another, faster dive bomber. The Aichi I suggested was a perfect fit - it even had gull wings.



> Martlets that FAA got in 1941/42 are under-performers. Perhaps go for Sea Hurricanes ASAP?



Sea Hurricanes as far as I know did not really have the range to be useful naval aircraft, except for CAP (i,.e. no escort missions). This would make for a debate I'm sure but I think the Martlets were much more effective fighters than Hurricanes - (which is why the FAA went with them instead of relying on Sea Hurricanes)



> Soviet fighters can kill tanks once they got bigger cannons, 23 and then 37mm. Other will need napalm or Class S cannons.


Or rockets...



> A-26 was too late to matter. Both British and US 4-engined bombers can destroy German fuel industry, but bot before the technology and training are improved, along with advent of escort fighters for the US bombers.



Mosquitoes didn't need escort fighters. Which is the point.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 4, 2018)

A lot of this depends on timing and which country/gun you are talking about. 
The US .50 didn't take to synchronizing well and had a poor rate of fire. The Russian 12.7mm fired much faster (and was lighter) 
The Italian 12.7mm may have been between the two but used a low powered round. However it also used exploding bullets. 
So which is better?


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Apr 4, 2018)

Schweik said:


> I think 2 x 12.7mm HMG is actually fine if they are in the nose - at least against enemy fighters in say 1942. Russian P-40's were stripped down to this armament and did very well. The Bf 109 F-2 only had a 15mm "cannon" and 2 light machine guns in the nose and it was obviously quite effective right? A lot of the early Russian fighters just had one cannon and one machine gun, or just the cannon only.
> 
> Anyway as I hink you were alluding you could also just do two nose cannons like in the La 5.
> 
> S


2 heavy machine guns as the sole armament would have been a big step backward, and well behind the curve in 1942, let alone 1944 when the Yak-3 actually entered service. 
La-5 had 2 ShVAK cannons in the nose, which would not have fit in the Yak-3 cowling. I purpose a Yak-3, modified with western equipment and manufacturing expertise ( no plywood ) which should lighten the airframe somewhat. Powered by a Merlin 60, and armed with the substantially smaller and lighter B-20 20mm cannons. It would be next to useless in Western Europe do to its tiny range, but would have been a UFO on the Eastern front.


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Apr 4, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> A lot of this depends on timing and which country/gun you are talking about.
> The US .50 didn't take to synchronizing well and had a poor rate of fire. The Russian 12.7mm fired much faster (and was lighter)
> The Italian 12.7mm may have been between the two but used a low powered round. However it also used exploding bullets.
> So which is better?


I propose the Soviet UB machine gun could have been necked up to 20mm sooner than it was, when it became the B-20 cannon.


----------



## Schweik (Apr 4, 2018)

pbehn said:


> Why not just hand over the UK military production to the USA and forget about any naval aircraft too. Cancelling all British bombers means bombing effort on Germany starts for real in 1944 in daylight. The Hawker Hurricane should have been out of production and would have been if the Typhoon didn't have problems, just cancelling Hurricanes means less Hurricanes, whatever you want more of come about two years later.



So when the Typhoon ran into problems, start shipping over P-38's, P-39's and P-40's and swapping the engines out with those superb Merlins. Simple. And nobody goes out of work.



> I believe world production capacity of Mosquito's was running close to capacity, just because of the special woods it used.



I'm sure the US could have built them.



> In addition to the aircraft sent on lend lease from UK £1.5billion worth of aero engines, the Russians could have just asked for engines but actually they asked for aircraft.



I didn't say cancel _all _British bombers, I said cancel everything except Mosquitoes. What is the _point _of bombing Germany, i.e. what military goal can Lancasters accomplish that Mosquitoes can't to and at less risk to aircrews and much more precision? I know there are probably some ( the dam busting perhaps?), but I don't think many.

Same for US daylight bombing. They didn't actually reduce German production capacity much did they? Ever read Speer? The main accomplishment was the destruction of the Luftwaffe but at great cost. Could have done that more efficiently with fighters and fighter-bombers.

S


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 4, 2018)

We have conflicting theories about the effectiveness of the bombing. We have some saying it was useless because it didn't _reduce_ German production. However we have no estimates as to how much _more_ production the Germans would have achieved if there was no bombing. 

Also things don't happen in a vacuum. A much reduced bombing campaign means the Germans can shift AA gun production to something else. AA shell production to something else. AA manpower to other things. It means some Luftwaffe squadrons can redeploy.

America doesn't grow balsa wood so no help there.

America also would NOT bother with the PE-2. It doesn't do anything the A-20 won't do.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 4, 2018)

Schweik said:


> 1. So when the Typhoon ran into problems, start shipping over P-38's, P-39's and P-40's and swapping the engines out with those superb Merlins. Simple. And nobody goes out of work.
> 
> 2. I'm sure the US could have built them.
> 
> ...


1. The USA had need of all those P38s, P40s and P-39s and the UK found a use for Hurricanes too as catapult launched planes, defence of Malta north Africa and far east.
2. The Balsa and Hardwoods came from USA via various routes, cutting down trees is not like smelting aluminium, you quickly run out of trees like Europe did in the Napoleonic era.
3. The bombing of Germany involved massive defence expenditure, just in 88mm guns, and munitions manpower expended it was worth the effort. That apart from the devastation of major cities and loss of production involved. In addition the Tirpitz is still a threat the Atlantic submarine pens are unmolested etc etc etc. In 10/10s cloud conditions the RAF could bomb as accurately at night as the USAAF could in daylight. You cannot replace a strategic bomber with a Mosquito although Mosquitos massively increased the effectiveness of Bomber Command.
4. They reduced the increase in German capacity, and by the end very little of anything was being produced.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 4, 2018)

Just for clarification Balsa wood comes from the 'Americas' but not from the United States. It comes from South or Central America and was not being commercially cultivated (grown on plantations) at that time. Balsa trees do not grow in forests or groves but were more spread out. Only a few Balsa trees per acre interspersed with other trees.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 4, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Just for clarification Balsa wood comes from the 'Americas' but not from the United States. It comes from South or Central America and was not being commercially cultivated (grown on plantations) at that time. Balsa trees do not grow in forests or groves but were more spread out. Only a few Balsa trees per acre interspersed with other trees.


I cant remember where I read it S/R but what I meant was the shipping trading route and the biggest issue was hardwood laminates, there was some sort of cottage industry in the USA producing them. Pre war it was mainly concerned with coffee tables and wardrobes, not 1000x bombers. The rejection rate of materials was so high it is a bit like the Napoleonic warships, you clear a complete oak forest to build one ship.


----------



## Glider (Apr 4, 2018)

Schweik said:


> I think 2 x 12.7mm HMG is actually fine if they are in the nose - at least against enemy fighters in say 1942. Russian P-40's were stripped down to this armament and did very well. The Bf 109 F-2 only had a 15mm "cannon" and 2 light machine guns in the nose and it was obviously quite effective right? A lot of the early Russian fighters just had one cannon and one machine gun, or just the cannon only.
> 
> Anyway as I think you were alluding you could also just do two nose cannons like in the La 5.
> 
> S


Remember that the two HMG in the nose were a lot slower firing due to the prop, the Italians estimated it halved the ROF.
The Bf109 F2 with the 15mm was very lightly armed proven by the fact that any pilot with influence had the 15mm replaced by a 20mm . The first F2 captured by the British had already had the gun replaced.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 4, 2018)

Spruce, which is the other main wood used in the Mosquito comes in a number of varieties and came mainly from the US and Canada. Any European/Russian sources being cut off. 
Spruce was a common wood for building a number of light aircraft during the 20s and 30s. But getting long, straight grain, knot free pieces sutiable for spars and such is not easy.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 4, 2018)

Glider said:


> Remember that the two HMG in the nose were a lot slower firing due to the prop, the Italians estimated it halved the ROF.
> The Bf109 F2 with the 15mm was very lightly armed proven by the fact that any pilot with influence had the 15mm replaced by a 20mm . The first F2 captured by the British had already had the gun replaced.




and here we have the difference between what an "expert" might want and what an average pilot needed. The German 15mm gun was about the flattest shooting, shortest time of flight gun put in an airplane (short of the big 30mm) making it easy to get hits with. Unfortunately it didn't mate well with the 7.9mm guns and the 15mm shell didn't have anywhere near the effect of a 20mm shell.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 4, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Spruce, which is the other main wood used in the Mosquito comes in a number of varieties and came mainly from the US and Canada. Any European/Russian sources being cut off.
> Spruce was a common wood for building a number of light aircraft during the 20s and 30s. But getting long, straight grain, knot free pieces sutiable for spars and such is not easy.


That's what I meant S/R, I saw it on a programme on TV which showed a small cottage industry in USA, women ironing woods with heavy irons. Pre WW2 it was a small artisan niche, very difficult to expand the industry and a plane needs long wide sheets with no faults. Same with Norwegian Spruce there are thousands of tons of it all over the place but density humidity grain knots etc etc mean only a small percentage of the wood cut is used.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 4, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> and here we have the difference between what an "expert" might want and what an average pilot needed. The German 15mm gun was about the flattest shooting, shortest time of flight gun put in an airplane (short of the big 30mm) making it easy to get hits with. Unfortunately it didn't mate well with the 7.9mm guns and the 15mm shell didn't have anywhere near the effect of a 20mm shell.


Also the difference between what you are required to shoot down and how much time you have to do it. From the start the RAF wanted as many MGs as possible firing as fast as possible, then they wanted cannon. However effective rifle calibre guns are at taking down a fighter when it came to taking down bombers they wanted ever more powerful MGs, cannon and even rockets (now called Air to Air missiles).


----------



## Milosh (Apr 4, 2018)

That would be *Sitka* Spruce.

DeHavilland Canada built just over 1000 Mosquitoes.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 4, 2018)

Well there is at least one guy who is involved in the restoration of a Mosquito just how easy is it to source the various woods required.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 4, 2018)

Sourcing wood for one airplane is one thing, have to hunt down vendor/s.
Sourcing wood for thousands MORE aircraft when you are already building thousands is a bit different.


----------



## Schweik (Apr 4, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> We have conflicting theories about the effectiveness of the bombing. We have some saying it was useless because it didn't _reduce_ German production. However we have no estimates as to how much _more_ production the Germans would have achieved if there was no bombing.



Again, keep in mind - I am _not _suggesting they should not have dropped any bombs, it's more by what _kind _of aircraft would drop the bombs, and against what targets. Rather than "de-housing" however many million German, Belgian, French, Italian and other Western and Central European civilians, and incinerating a lot of nice Medieval architecture in the process simply because your bombers are too vulnerable to fly during the daytime and can't hit anything from 30K' anyway, send in precision bombers (by WW2 standards) i.e. Mosquitoes and anything else you can find or build with equivalent speed and accuracy, and use a ton of fighter bombers. 

Fast bombers like Mosquitos and Fighter bombers, my theory goes, seem to do a better job than the big 4 engine heavies for most strategic, operational and tactical purposes.



> Also things don't happen in a vacuum. A much reduced bombing campaign means the Germans can shift AA gun production to something else. AA shell production to something else. AA manpower to other things. It means some Luftwaffe squadrons can redeploy.



This is a poor excuse for incinerating scores of cities. And more importantly, the same result is achieved by a massive fast-bomber and fighter bomber campaign. For example, instead of building 19,256 B-24's, you could put Consolidated to work making 25,000 mosquitoes (or Pe-2s) and still have enough engines left over to make 15,000 Corsairs. How would that benefit the war effort?

I can promise you the Ploesti raid would go a lot smoother.

(Plus you could still make the 1,256 remaining B-24's which you would actually have a use for in maritime patrol.)



> America doesn't grow balsa wood so no help there.



I'm sure they could find some useful equivalent somewhere in the Americas, for example basswood



> America also would NOT bother with the PE-2. It doesn't do anything the A-20 won't do.



Agree with the first part, but I think the reason is "because it's_* Commie*_" not because the A-20 was just as good - Pe-2 was 40 mph faster for one thing, right?


----------



## Schweik (Apr 4, 2018)

pbehn said:


> 1. The USA had need of all those P38s, P40s and P-39s and the UK found a use for Hurricanes too as catapult launched planes, defence of Malta north Africa and far east.



The US didn't get much use out of the P-39 in any Theater. They got much more value for every one they sent to the Soviets than any they used. There was only one USAAF P-39 ace in the whole war and I don't think any from any other non-Russian ally. 

They ended up putting Merlin engines in the P-40 for use in North Africa
They did benefit from the P-38's (especially in the Pacific) but would have got much more use out of them in Europe with Merlin engines. Especially the ones flying from UK 
Hurricanes did not do much good in Malta, North Africa or the Far East after 1941. They never did much good in the Far East to be honest.



> 2. The Balsa and Hardwoods came from USA via various routes, cutting down trees is not like smelting aluminium, you quickly run out of trees like Europe did in the Napoleonic era.
> 3. The bombing of Germany involved massive defence expenditure, just in 88mm guns, and munitions manpower expended it was worth the effort. That apart from the devastation of major cities and loss of production involved. In addition the Tirpitz is still a threat the Atlantic submarine pens are unmolested etc etc etc.



The FAA debacle with the Tirpitz could have been handled some other way, see the US destruction of the entire Japanese Pacific fleet and it's much more powerful battleships (i.e. Yamato and Musashi)



> In 10/10s cloud conditions the RAF could bomb as accurately at night as the USAAF could in daylight.



= not very accurate. See my comment on the Norden bombsight.



> You cannot replace a strategic bomber with a Mosquito although Mosquitos massively increased the effectiveness of Bomber Command.



I am saying you could. What Strategic bomber mission(s) can a Stirling do better than a Mosquito?



> 4. They reduced the increase in German capacity, and by the end very little of anything was being produced.



You should really read this book


----------



## Schweik (Apr 4, 2018)

Glider said:


> Remember that the two HMG in the nose were a lot slower firing due to the prop, the Italians estimated it halved the ROF.
> The Bf109 F2 with the 15mm was very lightly armed proven by the fact that any pilot with influence had the 15mm replaced by a 20mm . The first F2 captured by the British had already had the gun replaced.



I'm saying, compare a Russian fighter with a slightly dodgy 1,180 hp Klimov engine and a cannon thru the spinner, slightly underpowered and wheezing during climbs, vs. the same fighter with a 1,480 hp Merlin XX and _only_ two heavy machine guns but ... (not sure how to estimate this precisely but I'm going to say...) accelerating and climbing much faster and with a 20 or 30 mph faster top speed. Assuming you are a Soviet pilot and can't have it all, which would you prefer?

For that matter would you rather fight in North Africa or the Russian Front in 1942 with a Bf 109E-4 with two 20mm cannon +2 machine guns or a Bf 109F-2 20 mph faster but only the 15mm cannon and 2 mg?

Anyway, is there some reason why they couldn't figure out how to put a cannon to shoot through the prop spinner in a Merlin the way they did a DB 601?


----------



## wuzak (Apr 4, 2018)

The topic seems to have wandered off my original intent - aircraft that evolved into something that they could have been from the start. The example in the OP is the P-61A/B vs the P-61E. It would have been quite possible for the P-61 to be built with a 2 man crew and without the turret from the beginning.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Apr 4, 2018)

tomo pauk said:


> Mosquito is too late to replace Wellington, Whitley, Stirling, Halifax, it can't haul more than 2000 lb bomb load until late 1943, it can't haul combined bomb load (cookie + incediary) until late 1943.



The Mosquito could carry a combined load of 2 x 500lb MC + 2 x 500lb SBC in 1942. It can add 2 more 500lb stores under the wings when the universal wing is put into production (late 1942?).

The Mosquito could only carry the cookie with incendiaries if the latter were carried on the wings. IIRC, the first version to allow a 5000lb capacity (1 x 4000lb + 2 x 500lb) was the B.XVI in early 1944.

The cookie carrying Mosquito could carry different 4000lb stores - the 4000lb HC "cookie", the 4000lb MC and a 4000lb incendiary bomb.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 4, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Again, keep in mind - I am _not _suggesting they should not have dropped any bombs, it's more by what _kind _of aircraft would drop the bombs, and against what targets. Rather than "de-housing" however many million German, Belgian, French, Italian and other Western and Central European civilians, and incinerating a lot of nice Medieval architecture in the process simply because your bombers are too vulnerable to fly during the daytime and can't hit anything from 30K' anyway, send in precision bombers (by WW2 standards) i.e. Mosquitoes and anything else you can find or build with equivalent speed and accuracy, and use a ton of fighter bombers.
> 
> Fast bombers like Mosquitos and Fighter bombers, my theory goes, seem to do a better job than the big 4 engine heavies for most strategic, operational and tactical purposes.
> 
> ...


 You are assuming an awful lot. Like V-12 engines and radials being interchangeable. 
The factories that built the B-24s and the engines for them were being built a year and half before the first mission of a Mosquito bomber. Trying to change them over at that point is going to take months, many months.

and again, if the allies stop with the high altitude big bomber raids the Germans stop making big AA guns and make a crap load of 20mm and 37mm guns. 
Corsairs make crappy planes for attacking Germany unless you have bases in France or Low the low countries.

Basswood, on average weighs 26lbs per cubic foot while Balsa, on average weighs 9lb per cubic foot. It would add hundreds of pounds to the airframe weight. 

The Pe-2 has a bit of an overblown reputation. and 40mph faster than than an A-20??? only if it has a rocket strapped to it, a big rocket.
Most sources say the PE-2 could do 530kph at best altitude. (Wikipedia is wrong or quoting an experimental engine) or about 330mph. 
A-20s could hit about 340 or over depending on model, they could run at over 300mph at max continuous at 12,000ft. 
The PE-2 carried six 220lbs inside, while heavier bombs could be carried outside that kills the speed.
A-20 could carry 2000lb inside. (and 2000lbs outside on really short missions)
Range gets debatable depending on speed/load but an A-20G could fly over 1000 miles at 264mph true at 12,000ft 
The PE-2 isn't any faster, it carries less, and has no more range. It has nothing to do with being "commie" it just isn't as good.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Apr 4, 2018)

Schweik said:


> My theory, though i realize this is a larger and entirely different discussion, is that fighters and fast attack aircraft (you could classify Mosquito as either) made for much better bombers. I don't think the mass-civilian bombing was effective or a good idea for a bunch of reasons. If you want to say, knock out German oil industry (best target) or even something more iffy like V-2 factories or ball bearings, neither the US day bombers or British night-bombers are very effective. Same if you want to destroy enemy tanks etc.
> 
> For the former use Mosquitoes or A-26 Invader, just more of them, for the latter use fighter bombers like Corsair, P-47, Tempest / Typhoon, or any Soviet fighter.



A-26 Invader doesn't turn up until mid 1944.

The Lancaster was the best bomber for destroying oil plants - could carry 1 x 4000lb, plus multiple 500lb MC bombs and incendiaries. Or it could carry a 8000lb or 12000lb bomb. No messing around with little bombs.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 4, 2018)

I would note that soviet _fighters _are *really* crappy at trying to take out tanks.
The rockets are terribly inaccurate (so were the American and British rockets) the Russian 20mm gun isn't that good at penetrating armor (significantly worse than the 20mm Hispano) and the usual bomb load of soviet fighters was a pair of 220lb bombs which require a closer miss distance than 500 or 1000lb bombs. 
That was a big reason for the IL-2. They needed something for ground attack and their fighters just weren't good enough.


----------



## Schweik (Apr 4, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> You are assuming an awful lot. Like V-12 engines and radials being interchangeable.
> The factories that built the B-24s and the engines for them were being built a year and half before the first mission of a Mosquito bomber. Trying to change them over at that point is going to take months, many months.



So substitute another fast bomber - or just take the Merlins for the Mosquitoes from Hurricanes and useless Fulmars and so on. Making 19,000 B-24's was a huge waste of resources.



> and again, if the allies stop with the high altitude big bomber raids the Germans stop making big AA guns and make a crap load of 20mm and 37mm guns.



Let me get this strait, you are saying 26,000 casualties from the 8th AF and an astounding 55,573 KiA from RAF Bomber Command, not to mention 500k+ civilians killed was worth it because it forced the Germans to build 88mm AA guns? I think the destruction of the Luftwaffe could have been done more effectively, and I thought how I was saying it could have been done was obvious but let me spell it out more clearly...



> Corsairs make crappy planes for attacking Germany unless you have bases in France or Low the low countries.



The idea is not for Corsairs to make deep Strategic bombing raids into Germany in 1942. The idea is for Corsairs, and P-47s and P-38s and Beaufighters and P-51s and P-40's and Typhoons and whatever else was effective and available would be used for operational interdiction of communications and tactical bombing at or near the front, as well as attacking the Luftwaffe at every opportunity, while faster bombers like Mosquitos, de Havilland Hornets, A-26s, even P-61s per the OP for that matter, could do the long range night intrusion and Strategic bombing missions. If Mosquitos could hit Gestapo HQ in multiple countries, then I think they could hit Romanian Oil Fields, aircraft factories, V-2 factories and so on.

Sure, I can see that there would be some targets for which you need to drop massive bombs, so make a f_ew_ Lancasters or B-29's for that one stubborn sub pen. Make 377 Lancasters instead of 7,377. But since we know that the majority of the 4 engine strategic bombing missions _missed most of their targets_, I'm saying that faster and much more precise bombers could have done a better job with far fewer casualties among Anglo-American servicemen as well as vastly fewer civilian casualties.



> Basswood, on average weighs 26lbs per cubic foot while Balsa, on average weighs 9lb per cubic foot. It would add hundreds of pounds to the airframe weight.



I'm sure the US could source balsa if the UK could, or a find an equivalent. Do you really doubt that? Somebody already pointed out the Canadians made 1,000 Mosquitoes. I'm not an expert on wood so i won't debate the finer points of basswood vs. balsa.



> The Pe-2 has a bit of an overblown reputation. and 40mph faster than than an A-20??? only if it has a rocket strapped to it, a big rocket.
> Most sources say the PE-2 could do 530kph at best altitude. (Wikipedia is wrong or quoting an experimental engine) or about 330mph.
> A-20s could hit about 340 or over depending on model, they could run at over 300mph at max continuous at 12,000ft.
> The PE-2 carried six 220lbs inside, while heavier bombs could be carried outside that kills the speed.
> ...



This sounds like another interesting debate for another thread! I'll make one ...

S


----------



## Schweik (Apr 4, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> I would note that soviet _fighters _are *really* crappy at trying to take out tanks.
> The rockets are terribly inaccurate (so were the American and British rockets) the Russian 20mm gun isn't that good at penetrating armor (significantly worse than the 20mm Hispano) and the usual bomb load of soviet fighters was a pair of 220lb bombs which require a closer miss distance than 500 or 1000lb bombs.
> That was a big reason for the IL-2. They needed something for ground attack and their fighters just weren't good enough.



I'm not sure I buy that, but for sake of argument Ok, give them AP ammo for their P-39's, have them make better rockets or just produce more Soviet fighters with 37 or 45mm cannon etc. ala Yak 9 T / TK / K, Yak 3 K etc.

I am also fine with Sturmoviks - they did destroy a lot of German AFV, but the Soviets lost _so many _of them initially, I think they could have used more good quality fighters instead. I also think while armor is good and you need it in a ground-attack aircraft, speed is a better defense against AAA.

They also definitely should have but the defensive gun on the Il2 much sooner and some armor for the gunner.

S


----------



## Schweik (Apr 4, 2018)

wuzak said:


> The topic seems to have wandered off my original intent - aircraft that evolved into something that they could have been from the start. The example in the OP is the P-61A/B vs the P-61E. It would have been quite possible for the P-61 to be built with a 2 man crew and without the turret from the beginning.



Do you really think the P-61E was effective as a day fighter? What was the top speed? Did it have compressibility issues like the P-38? Engine difficulties?


----------



## wuzak (Apr 4, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Let me get this strait, you are saying 26,000 casualties from the 8th AF and an astounding 55,573 KiA from bomber command, not to mention 500k+ civilians killed was worth it because it forced the Germans to build 88mm AA guns? I think the destruction of the Luftwaffe could have been done more effectively, and I thought how I was saying it could have been done was obvious but let me spell it out more clearly...



The point he is making is that the production of the AA guns reduced or prevented the production of other weapons.

I believe the 88mm AA gun was a derivative of, or was the same as, a field gun, which was also used in tanks. Each one pointed at the sky was one not being used against the Soviets on the Eastern Front.




Schweik said:


> The idea is not for Corsairs to make deep Strategic bombing raids into Germany in 1942. The idea is for Corsairs, and P-47s and P-38s and Beaufighters and P-51s and P-40's and Typhoons and whatever else was effective and available would be used for operational interdiction of communications and tactical bombing at or near the front, as well as attacking the Luftwaffe at every opportunity, while faster bombers like Mosquitos, de Havilland Hornets, A-26s, even P-61s per the OP for that matter, could do the long range night intrusion and Strategic bombing missions. If Mosquitos could hit Gestapo HQ in multiple countries, then I think they could hit Romanian Oil Fields, aircraft factories, V-2 factories and so on.



Hornets won't be available until 1946. A-26s, P-61s not around until 1944.

Mosquitoes could not do the Ploesti mission in 1943. The range was too far - hence the use of B-24s with small bomb loads.

It may have been possible to launch the Mosquitoes from carriers in the Med, but they would have to be relatively close.

The 1944 raids from bases in Italy would have been possible, these having been conducted by P-38s.

The Gestapo headquarter raids were comparatively short ranged missions.




Schweik said:


> Sure, I can see that there would be some targets for which you need to drop massive bombs, so make a f_ew_ Lancasters or B-29's for that one stubborn sub pen. Make 377 instead of 7,377. But since we know that the majority of the 4 engine strategic bombing missions _missed most of their targets_, I'm saying that faster and much more precise bombers could have done a better job with far fewer casualties among Anglo-American servicemen as well as vastly fewer civilian casualties.



It is possible that the bomber war could have been conducted more efficiently/effectively.

But you still need the heavy lift capabilities that the heavy bombers give, particularly the Lancaster.

The B-29 was more important in the Pacific, due to the ranges involved.


----------



## wuzak (Apr 4, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Do you really think the P-61E was effective as a day fighter? What was the top speed? Did it have compressibility issues like the P-38? Engine difficulties?



No.

My argument is that the P-61 night fighter should have been in that format, without the turret and without the 4 x 0.50" HMGS in the nose of the P-61E.


----------



## wuzak (Apr 4, 2018)

Schweik said:


> The FAA debacle with the Tirpitz could have been handled some other way, see the US destruction of the entire Japanese Pacific fleet and it's much more powerful battleships (i.e. Yamato and Musashi)



The Yamato and Musashi were not in a confined area with AA installations around the hills, with heavily armed ground based fighters near by or covered by an effective smoke screen and anti-torpedo nets.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 4, 2018)

Schweik said:


> So substitute another fast bomber - or just take the Merlins for the Mosquitoes from Hurricanes and useless Fulmars and so on. Making 19,000 B-24's was a huge waste of resources.



The Mosquitos used two speed superchargers, the Fulmars did not. Now Please note that for the British some of the shadow factories tended to build one or the other. They are not 100% interchangeable. And please note that planing and allocations of materials were often done a year or more before aircraft were actually built. 





> Let me get this strait, you are saying 26,000 casualties from the 8th AF and an astounding 55,573 KiA from bomber command, not to mention 500k+ civilians killed was worth it because it forced the Germans to build 88mm AA guns? I think the destruction of the Luftwaffe could have been done more effectively, and I thought how I was saying it could have been done was obvious but let me spell it out more clearly...
> 
> The idea is not for Corsairs to make deep Strategic bombing raids into Germany in 1942. The idea is for Corsairs, and P-47s and P-38s and Beaufighters and P-51s and P-40's and Typhoons and whatever else was effective and available would be used for operational interdiction of communications and tactical bombing at or near the front, as well as attacking the Luftwaffe at every opportunity, while faster bombers like Mosquitos, de Havilland Hornets, A-26s, even P-61s per the OP for that matter, could do the long range night intrusion and Strategic bombing missions. If Mosquitos could hit Gestapo HQ in multiple countries, then I think they could hit Romanian Oil Fields, aircraft factories, V-2 factories and so on.



Problem is there was no front for all those fighters to do "operational interdiction of communications and tactical bombing" until June of 1944. (Italy excepted and there is only so much you can do on a peninsula about 100 miles wide.) The bombing campaign, in part, was to appease "Uncle Joe's" demand for a 2nd front. 
You really need to check up on the dates of your aircraft too. There were no Hornets operational during WW II, the A-26 didn't show up until 1944 (although that could have/should have been changed) P-61s were an awful expensive way to get to get a pair of 1000lbs behind enemy lines, P-38s would have done it a lot cheaper. The 4 under wing stations don't show up until the B-10 production batch.

If you want to hit Romanian oil fields you need bases to operate from. If the B-24s had to modified to use fuel tanks in the fuselage/bomb bay I doubt that the Mosquito, excellent plane that it was, could have flown the distance. 
As to the 88mm guns, it wasn't just the 88mm AA guns, it ws the 105mm guns, the 128mm guns, teh millions of larger AA shells and the 10s of thousands of men used to man them, the search lights, the radar stations and so on. 






> I'm sure the US could source balsa if the UK could, or a find an equivalent. Do you really doubt that? Somebody already pointed out the Canadians made 1,000 Mosquitoes. I'm not an expert on wood so i won't debate the finer points of basswood vs. balsa.



I do really doubt there was an equivalent. The British weren't importing the stuff from Honduras if they could get it from anywhere in the British Isles. The Canadians imported it, they didn't use a substitute. Sophisticated wood construction requires specific woods, you are not making cheap war time gun stocks where a few ounces difference on a ten pound rifle would go unnoticed. The Balsa was sandwiched between the inner and out layers of the thin plywood over the entire fuselage and some of the wing? There were hundreds of square feet of the stuff per airplane.


----------



## Schweik (Apr 4, 2018)

wuzak said:


> The point he is making is that the production of the AA guns reduced or prevented the production of other weapons.
> 
> I believe the 88mm AA gun was a derivative of, or was the same as, a field gun, which was also used in tanks. Each one pointed at the sky was one not being used against the Soviets on the Eastern Front.



I'm well aware of the point he was trying to make - I just very strongly disagree with it. 88mm AA guns are great against high altitude aircraft and tanks (it was originally the same gun but they made an AT variant) but also pretty vulnerable to fast moving fighter bombers and not particularly good at shooting _them_ down.

My point is that neither of you have made a case that there was anything particularly efficient (in terms of winning the war) about forcing the Germans to build heavy AA guns, at the cost of 70+ thousand Anglo-American aircrew and 500k + civilians, not to mention incalculable loss of cultural and architectural treasures which had previously lasted 5 or 6 centuries or more.

In the scenario I outlined, they would still have to commit a lot of resources, especially aircraft. I think it's basically a consensus that the major achievement of the Strategic bomber offensive (aside from eventually getting the oil) was the destruction of the Luftwaffe, mainly by American daylight bombers and their escorts.



> Hornets won't be available until 1946. A-26s, P-61s not around until 1944.



I don't know that much about Hornets, but I know both the A-26 and P-61 first flight were in 1942 and both development and production could have been accelerated if they had shifted emphasis away from the 4 engined heavy bombers. My point in general is that if you de-emphasized the 4 engine heavies (which in the US for example had priority for turbocharger development among other wasteful things) you could have had a lot more fast twin engine bombers like the Mosquito and of the types they later developed, as well as a lot more good quality fighters much more quickly. And I think winning air superiority over the front, whether that was in North Africa or Italy or Russia, was more important than incinerating people in Hamburg.



> Mosquitoes could not do the Ploesti mission in 1943. The range was too far - hence the use of B-24s with small bomb loads.



I don't buy that. They could have flown from Palermo to Ploesti is 1,900 km according to Google. Cairo is 1,700 km. Range of a Mosquito XVI with a "full weapons load" is 2,400 km per Wikipedia. It says a Mosquito Mk IX had a range of 4,540 km!! That is more than enough.

Just like with the B-24's, who were straining their range by flying at low alt, the Mosquitos may have had to carry a light bomb load, but they certainly could have done it and would have had fewer casualties. With the higher survivability rate you could have done multiple missions.



> It is possible that the bomber war could have been conducted more efficiently/effectively.
> 
> But you still need the heavy lift capabilities that the heavy bombers give, particularly the Lancaster.



You need some heavy lift capacity, arguably (though Mosquitos did reach the ability to carry a 4,000 bomb which is pretty big even by today's standards). You don't need 7,000 Lancasters and 19,000 B-24's.

S


----------



## Schweik (Apr 4, 2018)

wuzak said:


> No.
> 
> My argument is that the P-61 night fighter should have been in that format, without the turret and without the 4 x 0.50" HMGS in the nose of the P-61E.



Ah, I see gotcha. Maybe with some 'schrage musik' guns pointing up at an angle instead like the European night fighters.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 4, 2018)

"The complete fuselage is made up as a balsa-plywood sandwich, the 0.437-in balsa being compressed between two 0.062-in 3-ply spruce or birch skins. Since balsa wood varies greatly in weight — from 5 to 30 lb per cu ft — it must be carefully selected. Weight of that used in the _Mosquito_ averages about 9 lb per cubic foot. With a large volume used, this is an important item in the final weight of the ship.


From LiTOT: Mosquito design analysis

There is no Balsa in the wing.


----------



## wuzak (Apr 4, 2018)

Schweik said:


> I don't buy that. They could have flown from Palermo to Ploesti is 1,900 km according to Google. Cairo is 1,700 km. Range of a Mosquito XVI with a "full weapons load" is 2,400 km per Wikipedia. It says a Mosquito Mk IX had a range of 4,540 km!! That is more than enough.



Palermo was not available in 1943 when the B-24 raid occurred.

The 1944 raids originated in Italy and were performed by P-38s.


----------



## Schweik (Apr 4, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Problem is there was no front for all those fighters to do "operational interdiction of communications and tactical bombing" until June of 1944. (Italy excepted and there is only so much you can do on a peninsula about 100 miles wide.) The bombing campaign, in part, was to appease "Uncle Joe's" demand for a 2nd front.



Impressing Stalin is another bad reason for that huge waste of all those resources and lives, IMO.

And there was a front.

I think if you had that much more air power with that much more of a qualitative edge, it cold have made a big difference. I know North Africa / Med as a Front tends to get dismissed as irrelevant for some reason, but it wasn't. Vital supply route for the English, if the Germans had been able to keep it it could have been an even more vital source for oil for them.

Imagine this scenario if you will. Double the quantity of effective fighter bombers and bombers in North Africa. Place heavy empahsis there. Use mosquitoes to attack the Germans everywhere you can reach from the UK, while overwhelming them in North Africa. Invade Sicily 6 months or a year earlier. Capture Naples by early 1943. Now you have not only Romania, but most of Central Europe in range for fast, effective intruder bombers like Mosquitos and I daresey, A-26's, not to mention increasing pressure from allied fighter bombers all along Southern Europe. Destroy their communications to the East, and thereby really help Uncle Joe. Blow up all their gas.

Recapture Crete, recapture Norway. Tighten the noose.

At the very least this should put just as much pressure on the Germans as the Strategic bombing did, for a much lower all around cost.



> I do really doubt there was an equivalent. The British weren't importing the stuff from Honduras if they could get it from anywhere in the British Isles. The Canadians imported it, they didn't use a substitute. Sophisticated wood construction requires specific woods,



Per Wikipedia Balsa wood is native to Brazil, Bolivia and all the way up to Mexico. Are you really suggesting this would be hard for the Americans to secure as a Strategic material? Breh!


----------



## Schweik (Apr 4, 2018)

wuzak said:


> Palermo was not available in 1943 when the B-24 raid occurred.
> 
> The 1944 raids originated in Italy and were performed by P-38s.



Palermo was captured in July 1943. How long does it take to set up / clean up an airfield during an invasion on that scale?  Gerbini was flying A-20's from August 1943.

S


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 4, 2018)

" It says a Mosquito Mk IX had a range of 4,540 km!! That is more than enough."

If you are going to stage a bombing raid it helps if the planes actually carry bombs.






Range 1870 miles with a 500lb bomb under each wing and 121 IMP gallons in the bomb bay and flying at 245mph at 15,000ft which hardly makes you immune to interception.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 4, 2018)

Schweik said:


> *Invade Sicily* 6 months or a *year earlier*.



Really???
Invade Sicily 4 months before Invading Tunisia???

Just what are you using for these fleets of fighter bombers in the summer of 1942?

I like alternate history as much as most people but I am out of this one.


----------



## wuzak (Apr 4, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Palermo was captured in July 1943. How long does it take to set up / clean up an airfield during an invasion on that scale?  Gerbini was flying A-20's from August 1943.
> 
> S



So why wasn't the B-24 raid launced from Italy, which would have enabled larger bomb loads.


----------



## Schweik (Apr 4, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> " It says a Mosquito Mk IX had a range of 4,540 km!! That is more than enough."
> 
> If you are going to stage a bombing raid it helps if the planes actually carry bombs.
> 
> Range 1870 miles with a 500lb bomb under each wing and 121 IMP gallons in the bomb bay and flying at 245mph at 15,000ft which hardly makes you immune to interception.



I think you just proved my point.

Bases become available to the USAAF / RAF in Sicily, and are actually operational with A-20s in August 1943. The big Ploesti raid was, by coincidence, in August, 1943

1870 miles is plenty of range for the job then. Palermo to Ploesti (direct) is 800 miles as the Mosquito flies according to Google.

So fly out to the target at night, (escorted by Mosquito night fighters without bombs) swoop down and drop the bombs, head for home flat out. No problem!

S


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 4, 2018)

wuzak said:


> So why wasn't the B-24 raid launced from Italy, which would have enabled larger bomb loads.


 Maybe because the Polesti raid was staged about 1 month before the Allies invaded Italy?
The Polesti raid was almost exactly between the invasion of Sicily and the landings at Salerno.


----------



## Schweik (Apr 4, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Really???
> Invade Sicily 4 months before Invading Tunisia???
> 
> Just what are you using for these fleets of fighter bombers in the summer of 1942?
> ...



Yes, those two notions go together - it's an "alternative history" scenario - IF you de-emphasize the 4 engined bombers, the premise i was suggesting is that you would have a lot more and better fighters, fighter bombers and fast / light bombers like the Mossie.

If that happened, maybe you could win the war in North Africa and capture Tunisia etc. much sooner.

*However none of this is necessary to do the Mosquito raid on Ploesti in 1943*, as I outlined above. They absolutely could have done it with minimal alternative history forces required - just send a bunch of mosquitoes to Sicily. They have a long ferry range you could do it in a few days.


----------



## Schweik (Apr 4, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Maybe because the Polesti raid was staged about 1 month before the Allies invaded Italy?
> The Polesti raid was almost exactly between the invasion of Sicily and the landings at Salerno.



The conquest of Sicily was complete by 17 August 1943. i already pointed out (and linked to the wikipedia entry for) one Sicilian airfield which was operating A-20's in that same month.

So it was definitely possible. 

One issue they may have had though with B-24's is that B-24's require a bigger airfield than a two engined bomber like an A-20 or a Mosquito.


----------



## Schweik (Apr 4, 2018)

Look it's all just a lark, and a big "what if" - this thing about the 4 engine bombers vs. the Mosquitos is something I've thought about for years, but there is no changing the past. As the other stuff with the Merlins going into US or Soviet fighters, it's a neat idea but also a lark. They didn't do it so there is no point in taking the discussion too seriously. It's just for fun.

Apologies if I ruffled any feathers.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Apr 5, 2018)

Schweik said:


> The conquest of Sicily was complete by 17 August 1943. i already pointed out (and linked to the wikipedia entry for) one Sicilian airfield which was operating A-20's in that same month.
> 
> So it was definitely possible.
> 
> One issue they may have had though with B-24's is that B-24's require a bigger airfield than a two engined bomber like an A-20 or a Mosquito.



The Ploesti raid was done on 1 August, 1943. So the base would not have been available in time.

There must have been some reason for doing the raid on that day, rather than wait.


----------



## wuzak (Apr 5, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Look it's all just a lark, and a big "what if" - this thing about the 4 engine bombers vs. the Mosquitos is something I've thought about for years, but there is no changing the past. As the other stuff with the Merlins going into US or Soviet fighters, it's a neat idea but also a lark. They didn't do it so there is no point in taking the discussion too seriously. It's just for fun.
> 
> Apologies if I ruffled any feathers.



Mosquitoes in the strategic bomber role has been debated here for years. 

I have been a proponent of doing daylight bombing with Mosquitoes instead of B-17s. But there are some practical limitations.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Apr 5, 2018)

wuzak said:


> The Ploesti raid was done on 1 August, 1943. So the base would not have been available in time.
> 
> There must have been some reason for doing the raid on that day, rather than wait.



you got me, it may have been 3 weeks late. I don't think it changes the overall point though, do you?


----------



## Schweik (Apr 5, 2018)

wuzak said:


> Mosquitoes in the strategic bomber role has been debated here for years.
> 
> I have been a proponent of doing daylight bombing with Mosquitoes instead of B-17s. But there are some practical limitations.



Fair enough - as you probably noticed it's a subject I'm interested in as well. And I learned something about it in the little discussion we all just had.


----------



## Milosh (Apr 5, 2018)

Schweik said:


> and an astounding 55,573 KiA from RAF Bomber Command



That number is the total for operation and non operational losses and includes POWs.. Operational losses (KIA, MIA), still high, was just over 47,000.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 5, 2018)

wuzak said:


> Mosquitoes in the strategic bomber role has been debated here for years.
> 
> I have been a proponent of doing daylight bombing with Mosquitoes instead of B-17s. But there are some practical limitations.




One of the limitations in this case is the replacement of all the B-24s made in 1942 and the first half of 1943 with a version of the Mosquito made in small numbers in the spring/early summer of 1943. 
The substitution of a long circuitous route in order to avoid/deceive defenses in favor of a direct charge (shades of Balaclava) at the target.
The replacement of planes carrying 4000lb of bombs with planes carrying 1000lbs each and the assumption that Mosquitos bombing from low level will be that much more accurate than B-24s bombing from as low as 200ft, the first Polesti raid NOT being done at high or even medium altitude. 

What ifs can be a lot of fun but when it starts to get into _they should have replaced all those worthless planes built in 1942-43 with wonder plane XX that wasn't built untill 1944!! _it gets very hard to make reasoned arguments.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 5, 2018)

Schweik said:


> I don't think there is much that could be done for the BoB, but I think for the 'second turning point' of late 1942 through Spring 1943, it would have been helpful for the Germans to have had some longer ranged fighters. Fiat G.55 was deployed to combat units in March 1943, first flight was in April 1942. It was obviously very promising already by then. You could have a parallel German / Italian development from that point on. Or developed the Re 2000 series from 1940 or the MC 202 from 1941. I think the Re 2000 series was maybe the most promising of all them but also probably the most difficult to perfect. The Re 2001 was around in 1941 flying with a DB 601, with 1,100 km range (without drop tanks) and was already clearly a very promising design. They could have started with that.



The G.55 was probably the sexiest fighter ever designed when looking the side elevation, however it does not offer anything over what Fw 190 did 15 or 20 months earlier. Have surplus of DB 605 engines? Install them on the Fw 190s.
Re.2001 (and Ki-61) shows that DB 601, good performance long range were possible in a single aircraft, but it was late to 1940, while German priorities of 1943 were not dictating long-range fighters.



> Kill them both, waste of effort. 219 was a much better design. Or develop the Ta 154 if you prefer.
> Jet transport in WW2 seems a bit out of reach but I'm willing to listen



 There was still plenty of steam in the piston-engined transports, LW harvested little of that steam.
The He 219 with BMW 801 would've probably been a good fighter.



> It wasn't in the Pacific so I don't know why you would think so. The main thing though is that especially with the ability to operate from forward / remote airfields, that plane could engage well beyond the operational radius of any allied land based fighters available in 1942, except maybe P-38's. And it was maneuverable enough (even with the floats) to still have a pretty good chance against it.



Call me sceptic when it is about floatplane fighters in and around Europe 



> Disagree. They were highly vulnerable (shot down a lot whenever fighters were around) very inaccurate like all level bombers, and way too slow. It's a Spanish Civil War era relic way past it's prime by 1942. The niche the Ju 87 had was that in spite of it's sluggishness, because it was a dive bomber at least it was extremely accurate and useful on a tactical level. What the Germans needed was another, faster dive bomber. The Aichi I suggested was a perfect fit - it even had gull wings.



Every unescorted bomber was highly vulnerable, while percentage of killed He 11s vs. bombs dropped was no worse than of the Ju 88, Do 17 or Wellingtons in 1940. Every bomber was slow in these days, even the Ju 88 was much slower than non-so-fast Hurrucanes.
Germany needed faster bombers, that I will agree, however the B7A does not cut the mustard with 1100 lbs in a bomb bay, while any external bomb load cuts the speed.



> Sea Hurricanes as far as I know did not really have the range to be useful naval aircraft, except for CAP (i,.e. no escort missions). This would make for a debate I'm sure but I think the Martlets were much more effective fighters than Hurricanes - (which is why the FAA went with them instead of relying on Sea Hurricanes)



Sea Hurricanes carried two drop tanks, were rangier than early Martlets that carried no drop tanks, and were of same range as later Martlets with drop tanks. Once Martlets' versions with folding wing became available, they were a better fit since more could be carried, plus they were basically free.



> Or rockets...



Rockets will not do against tanks.



> Mosquitoes didn't need escort fighters. Which is the point.



Bombing campaign was done with aircraft coming out from production lines. There was no option 'let's wait until there is enough of Mosquitoes so we can bomb Germany'. Escort fighter can kill enemy fighters & their pilots, bomber Mosquitoes cannot.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 5, 2018)

I have said this before. Dive bombers against land targets only made sense when the defending AA was patchy and/or low quality. 

Against sea targets the Profit to loss ratio changes quite a bit. Even a destroyer required many, many times the investment in materials, man hours of labor and crew than the attacking bombers. A single dive bomber may be more expensive than a single tank, let alone trucks. As land based light AA multiplied and grew larger (Bren guns replaced by 20mm or Bofors guns for example, or single/twinMg 34s replaced by quad 20mm) ) dive bombing lost a LOT of it's attractiveness.


----------



## Schweik (Apr 5, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> One of the limitations in this case is the replacement of all the B-24s made in 1942 and the first half of 1943 with a version of the Mosquito made in small numbers in the spring/early summer of 1943.



Come on man, I don't think you are on the level here.

The Mosquito was flying bombing missions in early 1942. If they had moved some of the funding / energy / momentum from the 4 engined heavy bombers i'm sure they could have developed the Mosquito as a bomber a little faster. But you don't need to in order to pull off the Mosquito Ploesti raid.



> The substitution of a long circuitous route in order to avoid/deceive defenses in favor of a direct charge (shades of Balaclava) at the target.



What I was suggesting was just having the Mossies fly at night, escorted by Mosquito night fighters, arrive at dawn to drop their bombs and then fly out Nap of the Earth or by whatever circuitous route they want.



> The replacement of planes carrying 4000lb of bombs with planes carrying 1000lbs each and the assumption that Mosquitos bombing from low level will be that much more accurate than B-24s bombing from as low as 200ft, the first Polesti raid NOT being done at high or even medium altitude.



B-24's don't bomb accurately from any level, and more importantly, they got slaughtered on that mission whereas the Mosquitoes probably wouldn't have. If you have more planes carrying a slightly smaller bomb load but bombing more accurately it will do the trick. I've worked in refineries they are quite delicate and it doesn't take that much to wreck one.



> What ifs can be a lot of fun but when it starts to get into _they should have replaced all those worthless planes built in 1942-43 with wonder plane XX that wasn't built untill 1944!! _it gets very hard to make reasoned arguments.



There is a big difference between not liking an argument and actually proving there is something fallacious in it.

S


----------



## soaringtractor (Apr 5, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> 1. Take supercharger off the Merlin XX in the fall of 1940
> 2. Send to Allison.
> 3. In modern terms "copy and paste"
> 
> solves an awful lot of problems in 1942, early 1943.


People....The Merlin XX (20) V1650-1 Was a SINGLE stage supercharger with a 2nd SPEED !!! It was NOT the LATER 60 series 2 stage 2 speed supercharged engine of 1942/production 1943 !!!! RR used THREE different superchargers on the merlin, the single stage up to but NOT the XX and then they added a 2nd SPEED, XX (20) series through the 50 series, most merlin were this and THEN the added a 2nd stage with the 2 speed to get the high altitude 60 series Merlin !!! ALL Merlins were NOT created equal !!!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Apr 5, 2018)

Schweik said:


> What I was suggesting was just having the Mossies fly at night, escorted by Mosquito night fighters, arrive at dawn to drop their bombs and then fly out Nap of the Earth or by whatever circuitous route they want.



That's part of the problem: want more fighters, have fewer bombers.




Schweik said:


> B-24's don't bomb accurately from any level, and more importantly, they got slaughtered on that mission whereas the Mosquitoes probably wouldn't have. If you have more planes carrying a slightly smaller bomb load but bombing more accurately it will do the trick. I've worked in refineries they are quite delicate and it doesn't take that much to wreck one.



The Mosquito range is too short for the mission. Unless, as I said earlier, you launch from a carrier. Even then I am not sure they could get back to base (not being equipped to land on a carrier either).


----------



## soaringtractor (Apr 5, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> The Basic power section of the V-1710 was improved to the point where it was good for 1600-1750hp for periods of time (or higher with water injection), It was the lack of good supercharging that held it back.
> granted there several steps along the way from the 1090hp engines of the long nose P-40s to the 1600hp and up engines (new engine blocks, new crankshafts) but Allison did a pretty good job with the basic engine and it probably could have equaled the Merlin XX series if given a comparable supercharger.


The Merlin XX (20) was NOT the great 2 stage 2 speed merlin!!! That was the 60 series 1942/ production 1943 !!! The Merlin XX (20) and the V1650-1 Has a SINGLE stage supercharger with a 2nd speed added !!! This was NOT the 60 series 2 stage 2 speed High Altitude Merlin everyone gets goofy about !!! The facts !!!


----------



## wuzak (Apr 5, 2018)

soaringtractor said:


> People....The Merlin XX (20) V1650-1 Was a SINGLE stage supercharger with a 2nd SPEED !!! It was NOT the LATER 60 series 2 stage 2 speed supercharged engine of 1942/production 1943 !!!! RR used THREE different superchargers on the merlin, the single stage up to but NOT the XX and then they added a 2nd SPEED, XX (20) series through the 50 series, most merlin were this and THEN the added a 2nd stage with the 2 speed to get the high altitude 60 series Merlin !!! ALL Merlins were NOT created equal !!!!



This is not new knowledge. It is well known here.

Shortround's suggestion is because the Merlin XX supercharger was superior to the one fitted to the V-1710. This enabled the FTH to be several thousand feet higher than for the V-1710.


----------



## soaringtractor (Apr 5, 2018)

wuzak said:


> More thinking the way that Rolls-Royce developed engines would have got more out of the design sooner. And, of course, they would probably install a Merlin XX supercharger and, possibly, a 2 speed drive.


Shortround You are correct !!! The Merlin XX (20) was a SINGLE STAGE supercharger with a 2nd speed added !!! Most wartime production was this engine !!!! The 60 series 2 stage 2 speed was available in 1942,V1650-3 and production 1943 !!! This was the fabled high altitude Merlin !!! Not all merlins were created equal !!!


----------



## Schweik (Apr 5, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> I have said this before. Dive bombers against land targets only made sense when the defending AA was patchy and/or low quality.



Disagree - dive bombers, specifically the Ju-87, had _immense_ value for the German war machine. This was really the key to many of their tank breakthroughs among other things. There is a reason why the Luftwaffe stuck with the Stuka for so long.

The issue is precision. WW2 bombers were very poor in precision.

It's also difficult for AAA to target dive bombers coming in vertically from 10,000 feet rather than say, a medium bomber at 3,000 feet trying to be accurate. you can see this in the casualty rates in the Pacific fighting - Torpedo bombers often didn't survive a single mission, medium bombers while Dive bombers had a comparatively low loss rate _and _hit a lot more often. And that is not just due to defective torpedoes.

In tactical bombing, dive bombers were an order of magnitude more effective than medium bombers when it came to actually hitting their targets with bombs.

Now it's true that extremely concentrated AAA, like they had at Leningrad for example can stop most bombers. But on the battlefield, a dive bomber is much more effective than any level bomber. And across a wide front, the Germans could have used more effective dive bombers. Their main issue with Stukas was vulnerability to fighters and the difficulty for the fighters in escorting such a slow aircraft which made them vulnerable and cut their range. A faster dive bomber would have been much better all-around.

S


----------



## Schweik (Apr 5, 2018)

wuzak said:


> The Mosquito range is too short for the mission. Unless, as I said earlier, you launch from a carrier. Even then I am not sure they could get back to base (not being equipped to land on a carrier either).



Already pointed out - 800 miles from Sicily to Ploesti. Well within Mosquito range, even if you add a few hundred miles for flying around enemy radar or AAA. And they had operational airfields in Sicily in August 1943. At the latest, they may have had to do the mission in September instead of August. But unlike the actual raid, they would not have gotten so badly mauled and could have done it again and a gain, which could have had a much greater impact on the war.


----------



## soaringtractor (Apr 5, 2018)

wuzak said:


> More thinking the way that Rolls-Royce developed engines would have got more out of the design sooner. And, of course, they would probably install a Merlin XX supercharger and, possibly, a 2 speed drive.





wuzak said:


> This is not new knowledge. It is well known here.
> 
> Shortround's suggestion is because the Merlin XX supercharger was superior to the one fitted to the V-1710. This enabled the FTH to be several thousand feet higher than for the V-1710.


Shortround The merlin XX (20) V1650-1 was a SINGLE stage supercharger with a 2nd speed added, it was NOT the FABLED 60 series high altitude merlin everybody drools over !!! The V1650-1 when fitted to the 1200 P40 F & L Kittyhawks made little to NO difference in overall performance of the P40 !!! The supercharger compressor wheel was said to be larger than the merlins which negated any advantage of the 2nd speed on the merlin!!! There was little to no improvement to the altitude with the merlin and the Allison was faster ant lower altitudes !!! NOT all merlins were created equal, Merlins used THREE different superchargers during their life !!!


----------



## Schweik (Apr 5, 2018)

soaringtractor said:


> The Merlin XX (20) was NOT the great 2 stage 2 speed merlin!!! That was the 60 series 1942/ production 1943 !!! The Merlin XX (20) and the V1650-1 Has a SINGLE stage supercharger with a 2nd speed added !!! This was NOT the 60 series 2 stage 2 speed High Altitude Merlin everyone gets goofy about !!! The facts !!!



So what? Merlin XX is still much better than the V-1710 available at the time, let alone Klimov M-105

A single stage Merlin added to the P-40F/L greatly improved it's performance and survivability.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 5, 2018)

The Mosquito MK IX used Merlin 72 engines which were two stage engines. The Data sheet provided show the range with various combinations of fuel and bombs. To get the 1870 mile range you have to use a fuel tank which fills the bomb bay and are reduced to a single 500lb under each wing. I also gave you the speed and altitude that range was figured at. 

If you want to use the Mosquitos that were in use in 1942 be my guest. 






range is 2040 miles but with NO bombs. Range with 2000lb bombs 1620 miles at 15,000ft at 265mph. 
Flying lower may shorten range due to increase drag. The very early Mosquitos carried no under wing loads. 

Mosquitos went through a number of engines and some of those engines went through upgrades or upratings in allowable boost. 

The first 10 mosquito bombers built were rated for four 250lbs, the four 500lb bombs became useable when they shortened the tail fins to fit them in the bomb bay, they were going to use telescoping fins but found the short fin bombs gave acceptable accuracy. 

So sorry if historical development in engines and fuel plays havoc with your theory. 

A lot of people want to replace the heavies with the Mosquito based on the Mosquitos use of the 4000lb cookie. WHich didn't actually take place until Feb 1944. There were only a few squadrons operating Mosquitos during daylight in 1943 and by the fall of 1943 the use of Mosquitos was switching to night use in order to............wait for it..............................._reduce losses. _


----------



## soaringtractor (Apr 5, 2018)

wuzak said:


> Or give the V-1710 to Rolls-Royce to develop?


Why would you give the Allison to RR to "develop???" You do know don't you the 2 stage superchrger was invented in the USA with patents being issued in 1938???? RR did not invent the 2 stage supercharger!! The grumman F4F Wildcat with a PW R1830 was THE first plane to fly with a 2 stage supercharger !!!! Also PW added that 2 stage 2 speed supercharger to the R2800 as used on the F4U -4 Corsair and the F6F Hellcat. The P47 added a turbocharger to the R2800 for high altitude performance !!! The better question would have been why was not this info available to Allison ???? Jesse Vincent of Packard had access to the 2 stage superchargers early on, he had an air version A2500 he was working on of the PT Boat engine M2500 that used a 2 stage supercharger. That engine got shelved when Packard agreed to build the Merlin FOR THE BRITS !!!! USA had the technology but the USAAF was hung up on turbos that could not be fitted to most fighters, BUT the Navy saw the need !!!


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 5, 2018)

soaringtractor said:


> Shortround The merlin XX (20) V1650-1 was a SINGLE stage supercharger with a 2nd speed added, it was NOT the FABLED 60 series high altitude merlin everybody drools over !!! The V1650-1 when fitted to the 1200 P40 F & L Kittyhawks made little to NO difference in overall performance of the P40 !!! The supercharger compressor wheel was said to be larger than the merlins which negated any advantage of the 2nd speed on the merlin!!! There was little to no improvement to the altitude with the merlin and the Allison was faster ant lower altitudes !!! NOT all merlins were created equal, Merlins used THREE different superchargers during their life !!!


 you might want ot look at some graphs or charts rather than just go off of peak speeds.
Yes the P-40F was either the same speed or within a few mph of the Allison P-40 (make sure you are comparing contemporary P-40s and not the later Ns) but at 20,000ft and above the P-40F was 20-30mph faster than the P-40E, it also enjoyed a significantly better climb rate at altitudes in the 20 thousand foot range.


----------



## soaringtractor (Apr 5, 2018)

Schweik said:


> So what? Merlin XX is still much better than the V-1710 available at the time, let alone Klimov M-105
> 
> A single stage Merlin added to the P-40F/L greatly improved it's performance and survivability.


WRONG !!!! The Allison was still faster at lower altitudes up to 20,000 ft above that speed was about equal and very little if any altitude was gained with the merlin. Why only 1200 were ever built and they went back to the Allison !!! The Allison was 300# LIGHTER, and a simplier engine to maintain and work on !!!


----------



## Schweik (Apr 5, 2018)

tomo pauk said:


> The G.55 was probably the sexiest fighter ever designed when looking the side elevation, however it does not offer anything over what Fw 190 did 15 or 20 months earlier. Have surplus of DB 605 engines? Install them on the Fw 190s.
> Re.2001 (and Ki-61) shows that DB 601, good performance long range were possible in a single aircraft, but it was late to 1940, while German priorities of 1943 were not dictating long-range fighters.



I always thought the Fw 190 (until the D which came so late in the war) had some issues with both range and higher altitude combat. The G.55 or Re 2005 was also much more maneuverable - much better turning anyway.



> The He 219 with BMW 801 would've probably been a good fighter.



Exactly!



> Call me sceptic when it is about floatplane fighters in and around Europe


I'm thinking of the convoy fights involving a lot of (fascinating, but slightly ridiculous) skirmishing between Venturas, Short Sunderlands, Sea-Gladiators, Fulmars, Ju 88's, Ar 196, SM 79's, He 115's, FW 200, and the occasional Sea Hurricane. An A6M2-N could handle a Martlet, or Sea Hurricane on _at least _equal footing. Can slaughter Fulmars, Gladiators or Fairy Swordfish. And can operate from almost anywhere a Submarine can get to. Think about it a little more.



> Every unescorted bomber was highly vulnerable, while percentage of killed He 11s vs. bombs dropped was no worse than of the Ju 88, Do 17 or Wellingtons in 1940. Every bomber was slow in these days, even the Ju 88 was much slower than non-so-fast Hurrucanes.
> Germany needed faster bombers, that I will agree, however the B7A does not cut the mustard with 1100 lbs in a bomb bay, while any external bomb load cuts the speed.



Every unescorted bomber except the Mosquito! haha. I think faster bombers are safer. The B7A was faster than a Hurricane. And an 1100 lb bomb load is plenty for a dive bomber, one big bomb that actually hits is much better than 5 that miss.



> Rockets will not do against tanks.


I think what rockets do is destroy all the lighter vehicles around tanks, which makes tanks very vulnerable. And in enough numbers they can actually destroy tanks too. The Soviets in particular used a variety of rockets some quite heavy.



> Bombing campaign was done with aircraft coming out from production lines. There was no option 'let's wait until there is enough of Mosquitoes so we can bomb Germany'. Escort fighter can kill enemy fighters & their pilots, bomber Mosquitoes cannot.



In my scenario, fighter bombers initially would draw Luftwaffe response and shoot down all those Me 109's and Fw 190s. Meanwhile Mosquitoes can actually hit their production plants, airfields etc. unlike the 4 engined heavys which tend to miss almost all the time. Over time of course the German night fighter response gets heavier and more effective, but at the same time, Allied fighters achieve longer and longer range. I never said cancel the P-51 did I?

S


----------



## soaringtractor (Apr 5, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> you might want ot look at some graphs or charts rather than just go off of peak speeds.
> Yes the P-40F was either the same speed or within a few mph of the Allison P-40 (make sure you are comparing contemporary P-40s and not the later Ns) but at 20,000ft and above the P-40F was 20-30mph faster than the P-40E, it also enjoyed a significantly better climb rate at altitudes in the 20 thousand foot range.


By the same token IF you compare a P40 E that is an EARLIER version. The M/N are a better comparison, why more Merlin powered P40 were NOT built !!!


----------



## Schweik (Apr 5, 2018)

soaringtractor said:


> WRONG !!!! The Allison was still faster at lower altitudes up to 20,000 ft above that speed was about equal and very little if any altitude was gained with the merlin. Why only 1200 were ever built and they went back to the Allison !!! The Allison was 300# LIGHTER, and a simplier engine to maintain and work on !!!



They actually built 1,300 F and 700 very similar L (also Merlin engined) so about 2,000 altogether. The reason they only built that many is because priority for Packard-Merlins went to the P-51 as the P-40. The reason the P-51 used the Merlin rather than the Allison was because it gave much better altitude performance!

Also worth noting, every US Fighter group that fought in the Med - 33rd, 79th, 57th, 325th and 324th, was equipped primarily with P-40F/L.

You might want to read Christopher Shores Mediterranean Air War, esp. Volume III which deals with the American P-40's.

The Allison-engined P-40's had an effective performance ceiling of between 12,000 - 16,000 feet depending on the exact subtype and the climate / weather. In the actual real world - in the war, this was very well understood by the British and the Americans. In both cases, the P-40F/L models flew top cover for the other types (P-40K or (Commonwealth only at that point) P-40E up at about 20,000 feet. This was their only real advantage over the P-40K which peaked out at about 15,000 feet. But it was a _huge_ advantage.

The P-40K was quite good with a strengthened Allison routinely capable of 57" mercury manifold pressure which yielded ~1,500 hp at some altitudes. They actually liked it better than the Merlin types down low. But it did not confer the ceiling and the ceiling was the key thing that made a difference. At 20,000 feet, due to the relatively short operational ranges and the fact that most of the bombers in the Med weren't flying much higher than that, they more rarely got jumped from above by the Bf 109's and MC 202's. At 15,000 feet it happened much more frequently.

Both British and American pilots commented on all this in the book. The key issue for P-40's in general was having to "look up" for enemy attacks. But this was much alleviated by the Merlin engined types.

Performance ceilings were not limited to Allison engines by any means, many aircraft suffered from some variation of this problem, from the early Zero's to the Fw 190's, as well as Hurricanes and many other fighters. But for this problem, the Merlin was the best solution in an inline engine. The Allison didn't conquer this until the turbo was worked out completely for the P-38 and that was very late in the game. It's one of the biggest scandals of the war in my opinion.

S


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 5, 2018)

soaringtractor said:


> By the same token IF you compare a P40 E that is an EARLIER version. The M/N are a better comparison, why more Merlin powered P40 were NOT built !!!




Will you PLEASE look up the dates? 
The P-40F prototype flew in the summer of 1941 (June 30th), but production had to wait for Packard to get up to speed. Jan 3rd 1942 sees the delivery of the first production P-40F, it doesn't matter if the P-40M can fly at 500mph or climb to the stratosphere in 3 minutes if it doesn't show up until Nov of 1942 and the N doesn't show up until Feb of 1943. 
Increased production of P-38s and P-47 also decreased demand for P-40s off all kinds and please remember that when the P-40M goes into production multiple prototypes of P-51s with two stage Merlins are flying and orders for several thousand Merlin P-51s are on the books. 
Packard will continue to build thousands of single stage Merlins for British bombers and Canadian Hurricanes.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Apr 5, 2018)

I think soaringtractor's exclamation mark key is malfunctioning

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Agree Agree:
2 | Funny Funny:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Apr 5, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Will you PLEASE look up the dates?
> The P-40F prototype flew in the summer of 1941 (June 30th), but production had to wait for Packard to get up to speed. Jan 3rd 1942 sees the delivery of the first production P-40F, it doesn't matter if the P-40M can fly at 500mph or climb to the stratosphere in 3 minutes if it doesn't show up until Nov of 1942 and the N doesn't show up until Feb of 1943.


 
Well I do know the dates.

I never said anything about the M or N (which both used Allison engines)
The P-40F was already in combat with US units (57 FG) in August 1942 in North Africa. 66th FS / 57 FG P40F's shot down their first Bf 109 August 9.
The P-40M was mostly for export and the N wasn't used much if at all by the USAAF in the Med, only in the Pacific / CBI



> Increased production of P-38s and P-47 also decreased demand for P-40s off all kinds and please remember that when the P-40M goes into production multiple prototypes of P-51s with two stage Merlins are flying and orders for several thousand Merlin P-51s are on the books.
> Packard will continue to build thousands of single stage Merlins for British bombers and Canadian Hurricanes.



but the US was phasing out the P-40 for American use, with emphasis shifting to the P-51.

They were trying to phase out P-40's since 1942 but found they still needed them well into 1943 due to the P-39 basically failing in US use and the P-38 having so many teething problems. So at the time of the invasion of North Africa / Operation Torch the P-40 (Merlin engined F, mainly, plus some P-40K) was the main American fighter. The P-38's had trouble and ended up being mostly used for high altitude escorts of the B-24's.

S


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 5, 2018)

I was replying to soaring tractor with that post. sorry for any confusion.


----------



## Schweik (Apr 5, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> I was replying to soaring tractor with that post. sorry for any confusion.



Sorry my eyesight isn't so good I confused you for him, apologies.


----------



## YF12A (Apr 5, 2018)

Going back to making more Mosquito's, it is worlds of difference in making wood vs metal airplanes in the tens of thousands. One, metal, you make in any quantity you want, the other you have to find and import or grow, harvest, etc. Then there is the huge quality control difference between something you make and control, metal, vs wood which you have to individually inspect. Not saying it couldn't be done, but....

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 5, 2018)

soaringtractor said:


> Why would you give the Allison to RR to "develop???" You do know don't you the 2 stage superchrger was invented in the USA with patents being issued in 1938???? RR did not invent the 2 stage supercharger!! The grumman F4F Wildcat with a PW R1830 was THE first plane to fly with a 2 stage supercharger !!!! Also PW added that 2 stage 2 speed supercharger to the R2800 as used on the F4U -4 Corsair and the F6F Hellcat. The P47 added a turbocharger to the R2800 for high altitude performance !!! The better question would have been why was not this info available to Allison ???? Jesse Vincent of Packard had access to the 2 stage superchargers early on, he had an air version A2500 he was working on of the PT Boat engine M2500 that used a 2 stage supercharger. That engine got shelved when Packard agreed to build the Merlin FOR THE BRITS !!!! USA had the technology but the USAAF was hung up on turbos that could not be fitted to most fighters, BUT the Navy saw the need !!!



Toning down the questionmarks, exclamation marks and flag-waving would've probably be a good idea.
2 stage superchargers were used in Europe in mid/late-1930s for high altitude flights, French company Farman was freely giving away informations about 2-stage S/Cs already in 1935 (link). You might be surprised that people in the forum devoted to the ww2 A/C already know that P&W and other US companies were making 2-stage and turbo-supercharged engines.
Why is it such a big problem with Packard making Merlins for the British (aside the fact that they also were making Merlins for the good ole USA)?



Schweik said:


> I always thought the Fw 190 (until the D which came so late in the war) had some issues with both range and higher altitude combat. The G.55 or Re 2005 was also much more maneuverable - much better turning anyway.



In 1943, the G.55 with 380 mph does not offer anything over the Fw 190 of 400-410 mph. Wing was thick, no sign of modern airfoil, and of bigger area than on the Fw 190. Range of the Fw 190 can be improved by a large margin with installation of the DB 601/605 engine instead of BMW 801 due to far smaller consumption of the DB. The 'Daimlerized Fw 190' gets drag and weight reduction vs. ordinary Fw 190A, and will still be rolling as fast.



> I'm thinking of the convoy fights involving a lot of (fascinating, but slightly ridiculous) skirmishing between Venturas, Short Sunderlands, Sea-Gladiators, Fulmars, Ju 88's, Ar 196, SM 79's, He 115's, FW 200, and the occasional Sea Hurricane. An A6M2-N could handle a Martlet, or Sea Hurricane on _at least _equal footing. Can slaughter Fulmars, Gladiators or Fairy Swordfish. And can operate from almost anywhere a Submarine can get to. Think about it a little more.



Rufe, with 270 mph, cannot handle a Sea Hurricane or a better Martlet version on equal footing. Fulmars were not slaughtered historically, hence Rufes will not do it. Sorry, I'm not sold on floatplane fighters in and around Europe.



> Every unescorted bomber except the Mosquito! haha. I think faster bombers are safer. The B7A was faster than a Hurricane. And an 1100 lb bomb load is plenty for a dive bomber, one big bomb that actually hits is much better than 5 that miss.



I'm all for Mosquitoes, unfortunately they can't solve all WAllied problems in 1942-43. 1100 lb bomb is not a big bomb, the 8000 or 12000 lb bombs were big bombs.



> I think what rockets do is destroy all the lighter vehicles around tanks, which makes tanks very vulnerable. And in enough numbers they can actually destroy tanks too. The Soviets in particular used a variety of rockets some quite heavy.



I will not claim that rockets were not worth it. Just that hey were not good in killing tanks.



> In my scenario, fighter bombers initially would draw Luftwaffe response and shoot down all those Me 109's and Fw 190s. Meanwhile Mosquitoes can actually hit their production plants, airfields etc. unlike the 4 engined heavys which tend to miss almost all the time. Over time of course the German night fighter response gets heavier and more effective, but at the same time, Allied fighters achieve longer and longer range. I never said cancel the P-51 did I?



Fighter bombers didn't draw LW response in 1941-42 above W.Europe when RAF was flying Rodeos and Rhubarbs, unless LW controllers asumed that they might gain upper hand and trash the opposition. Results were RAF loosing multiple fighters/fighter-bombers/bombers for each LW fighter downed, with even worse ratio when it is about pilots lost.
Fighter-bombers play into German strength - numerous Flak.
Heavy bombers flying during dayling were the honey trap LW could not ignore, it took a while (many months) for the WAllies to capitalize on this, though.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 5, 2018)

YF12A said:


> Going back to making more Mosquito's, it is worlds of difference in making wood vs metal airplanes in the tens of thousands. One, metal, you make in any quantity you want, the other you have to find and import or grow, harvest, etc. Then there is the huge quality control difference between something you make and control, metal, vs wood which you have to individually inspect. Not saying it couldn't be done, but....


The Mosquito was referred to as ‘The Wooden Wonder’, in that approximately 60% by weight of the aircraft was wood of one species or other. Canadian yellow spruce for the laminated wing spars from British Columbia, balsa from Ecuador (which despite its lack of strength is technically a hardwood), and birch – for the plywood – from Wisconsin and the British Isles; all of these played their part, along with other woods such as Douglas fir. The spruce, vital for the wing spars and other components, had to come from old-growth forests, be perfectly straight and close-ringed, and have an ultimate strength of approximately 60N/mm2 (in today’s values); this was equal to some light alloys. The Air Ministry publication DTD36B, which contained the specification for spruce to be used in aircraft construction, was quite a strict one, laying down values for density, moisture content, straightness of grain and other criteria. Only one in ten trees felled passed the necessary tests for wood to be used in Mosquito wing spars. Certain areas of the airframe used ash for its hard-wearing qualities, and the wing-root pick-up structures were made from walnut, chosen for its great strength.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Apr 5, 2018)

tomo pauk said:


> In 1943, the G.55 with 380 mph does not offer anything over the Fw 190 of 400-410 mph. Wing was thick, no sign of modern airfoil, and of bigger area than on the Fw 190. Range of the Fw 190 can be improved by a large margin with installation of the DB 601/605 engine instead of BMW 801 due to far smaller consumption of the DB. The 'Daimlerized Fw 190' gets drag and weight reduction vs. ordinary Fw 190A, and will still be rolling as fast.
> 
> Rufe, with 270 mph, cannot handle a Sea Hurricane or a better Martlet version on equal footing. Fulmars were not slaughtered historically, hence Rufes will not do it. Sorry, I'm not sold on floatplane fighters in and around Europe.



I think you are a little bit too focused on top speed. Top speed for a fighter is not the same as combat speed. Bf 109E was slower, on paper than the Spit I/ II or early P-40, but in practice it was faster due to acceleration and low drag.

'Daimlerized Fw 190' is an interesting idea too but I doubt as good as an Re 2005 or G.55.

Rufe's held their own against allied fighters in the Pacific about as well as the Zero did. Which is to say pretty well. I'm confident it could easily handle the Hurricane which offered no advantages against it. Martlet would probably be more even because at least the F4F can disengage. Fulmars weren't slaughtered because they rarely saw combat against fighters ... because everyone knew they would be slaughtered.



> I'm all for Mosquitoes, unfortunately they can't solve all WAllied problems in 1942-43. 1100 lb bomb is not a big bomb, the 8000 or 12000 lb bombs were big bombs.



Today the go-to bomb for most missions is a 1,000 or 2,000 lbs bomb. The accuracy (today laser guided or GPS guided) makes the difference. An 8,000 lb bomb has very limited real world need, outside of propaganda. Much like huge 4 engine bombers full of 500 lb bombs which explode miles away from their target.

A 1,000 lb bomb is plenty to destroy oil refineries and most factories or airfields. Let alone tanks or AT guns which is the main purpose of a Dive Bomber in land combat ala Stuka.

Most 4 engined heavy bomber raids were dropping 250 or 500 lb bombs anyway most of the time. And missing.



> Fighter bombers didn't draw LW response in 1941-42 above W.Europe when RAF was flying Rodeos and Rhubarbs, unless LW controllers asumed that they might gain upper hand and trash the opposition. Results were RAF loosing multiple fighters/fighter-bombers/bombers for each LW fighter downed, with even worse ratio when it is about pilots lost.
> Fighter-bombers play into German strength - numerous Flak.



I think you know that the reasons 'Rhubarbs' failed from the UK was because they had fighters with very limited range and because the Fw 190 had the number of the Spit V.

Send a few hundred Corsairs or P-47's and you'll notice a difference, but keep in mind, i wasn't referring so much to "Rhubarbs" for tactical fighters, so much as close air support. Win North Africa quicker, invade Italy quicker, etc.

Long range escort fighters would appear around the same time regardless. Which means the fight goes to the Luftwaffe much more quickly. The "honey trap" would be stickier when actual military operations were being threatened. Rail lines cut, locomotives and bridges blown up, Gestapo HQ incinerated, airfields destroyed, tank concentrations bombed and strafed.

As we know, post D-Day these kinds of attacks were extremely effective, in direct and obvious contrast to the useless and bloody heavy bomber raids. They were also increasingly effective in Russia as their fighters improved sufficiently in quality to provide protection to their Sturmoviks.

S


----------



## Schweik (Apr 5, 2018)

pbehn said:


> The Mosquito was referred to as ‘The Wooden Wonder’, in that approximately 60% by weight of the aircraft was wood of one species or other. Canadian yellow spruce for the laminated wing spars from British Columbia, balsa from Ecuador (which despite its lack of strength is technically a hardwood), and birch – for the plywood – from Wisconsin and the British Isles; all of these played their part, along with other woods such as Douglas fir. The spruce, vital for the wing spars and other components, had to come from old-growth forests, be perfectly straight and close-ringed, and have an ultimate strength of approximately 60N/mm2 (in today’s values); this was equal to some light alloys. The Air Ministry publication DTD36B, which contained the specification for spruce to be used in aircraft construction, was quite a strict one, laying down values for density, moisture content, straightness of grain and other criteria. Only one in ten trees felled passed the necessary tests for wood to be used in Mosquito wing spars. Certain areas of the airframe used ash for its hard-wearing qualities, and the wing-root pick-up structures were made from walnut, chosen for its great strength.



The whole point in making wooden aircraft - also done (partial wood) extensively by the Soviets, was to save on strategic metals like aluminum and magnesium etc. The marvelous performance of the Mosquito and some of the later war Soviet planes was a happy side effect.

The Soviets also used birch and spruce, by the way. They had been using birch for all kinds of things for 1,000 years and had literally tons of it.

The US had much easier access to Central and South American natural resources not to mention all of North America (which is covered in forests), than comparatively tiny and treeless England did.

The argument that the US couldn't build mosquitoes because they didn't have the wood is very weak.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 5, 2018)

Schweik said:


> The whole point in making wooden aircraft - also done (partial wood) extensively by the Soviets, was to save on strategic metals like aluminum and magnesium etc.
> 
> The US had much easier access to Central and South American natural resources not to mention all of North America, than England did.
> 
> The argument that the US couldn't build mosquitoes because they didn't have the wood is very weak.


It would be a weak argument, but I didn't make it. The wood was from trees of a particular type and age. increasing the harvesting of this requires the setting up of a logging industry.


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Apr 5, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Send a few hundred Corsairs or P-47's and you'll notice a difference


in 1941/42? seems unlikely

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 5, 2018)

Schweik said:


> I think you are a little bit too focused on top speed. Top speed for a fighter is not the same as combat speed. Bf 109E was slower, on paper than the Spit I/ II or early P-40, but in practice it was faster due to acceleration and low drag.
> 
> 'Daimlerized Fw 190' is an interesting idea too but I doubt as good as an Re 2005 or G.55.



The Bf 109E was not a low drag A/C, granted it was a bit lighter than Spitfires or P-40s.
Ever greater speed was what people in (not only) ww2 wanted and usualy got, it is not some funky fetish of mine. Nobody was saying 'let's make this fighter slower, since it is too fast'. Against 400-430 mph P-47s, P-38s, Spitfire VIII/XI/XIIs, P-51s, Tyhoons, yet another 380 mph will not cut it. Even the Fw 190 was found wanting against P-47s above 20000 ft, despite being faster than G.55.
Daimlerized 190 offers thinner and smaller wing than Re.2005, let alone the G.55. Better canopy, excellent rate of roll, suitable for mass production, already can lug hefty cannon, ammo, fuel and bomb load. Germans dropped the ball by not making it already in 1939.



> Rufe's held their own against allied fighters in the Pacific about as well as the Zero did. Which is to say pretty well. I'm confident it could easily handle the Hurricane which offered no advantages against it. Martlet would probably be more even because at least the F4F can disengage. Fulmars weren't slaughtered because they rarely saw combat against fighters ... because everyone knew they would be slaughtered.



I disagree with the above quoted, this being my last comment on that.



> Today the go-to bomb for most missions is a 1,000 or 2,000 lbs bomb. The accuracy (today laser guided or GPS guided) makes the difference. An 8,000 lb bomb has very limited real world need, outside of propaganda. Much like huge 4 engine bombers full of 500 lb bombs which explode miles away from their target.



Please, don't mix B-17s/24s with bombers capable carrying big bombs, like the Lancaster or Halifax, that used those frequently. Mixing the 21st century stuff with what was used in ww2? C'mon, you know better that that.



> A 1,000 lb bomb is plenty to destroy oil refineries and most factories or airfields. Let alone tanks or AT guns which is the main purpose of a Dive Bomber in land combat ala Stuka.
> 
> Most 4 engined heavy bomber raids were dropping 250 or 500 lb bombs anyway most of the time. And missing.



As above - let's not mix US bombers with British bombers. War-time exerience taught British that 1000 lb bombs were too small, they didn't went to 4000, 8000, 12000 bombs because they were swimming in money.



> I think you know that the reasons 'Rhubarbs' failed from the UK was because they had fighters with very limited range and because the Fw 190 had the number of the Spit V.
> Send a few hundred Corsairs or P-47's and you'll notice a difference, but keep in mind, i wasn't referring so much to "Rhubarbs" for tactical fighters, so much as close air support. Win North Africa quicker, invade Italy quicker, etc.



Wait for mid-1943 for P-47s and Corsairs in order to win in N.Africa by early 1943? Please.
What will the 'tactical air support' support in the ETO in 1942/43? What US fighters can bring to the air war there in 1942, in order to beat the Fw 190s?



> Long range escort fighters would appear around the same time regardless. Which means the fight goes to the Luftwaffe much more quickly. The "honey trap" would be stickier when actual military operations were being threatened. Rail lines cut, locomotives and bridges blown up, Gestapo HQ incinerated, airfields destroyed, tank concentrations bombed and strafed.
> 
> As we know, post D-Day these kinds of attacks were extremely effective, in direct and obvious contrast to the useless and bloody heavy bomber raids. They were also increasingly effective in Russia as their fighters improved sufficiently in quality to provide protection to their Sturmoviks.



Allies were already trashing bridges, Geetspo HQs, tank concentrations, what they were not doing in 1942 and better part of 1943 was destroying POL facilities, chemical factories and other targets of interest deep in Germany. Fighter-bombers can't do it, no matter how you cut it.
Post D-day attacks were done against German targets devoid of fighter protection. Soviet fighters protecting Sturmoviks is one thing, not comparable with what you want to do with WAllied types on WAllied fronts.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 5, 2018)

Schweik said:


> 1 Today the go-to bomb for most missions is a 1,000 or 2,000 lbs bomb. The accuracy (today laser guided or GPS guided) makes the difference. An 8,000 lb bomb has very limited real world need, outside of propaganda. Much like huge 4 engine bombers full of 500 lb bombs which explode miles away from their target.
> 
> 2 Send a few hundred Corsairs or P-47's and you'll notice a difference, but keep in mind, i wasn't referring so much to "Rhubarbs" for tactical fighters, so much as close air support. Win North Africa quicker, invade Italy quicker, etc.
> 
> ...


1 An 8,000lb bomb and heavier had many uses in the real world, sinking battleships and smashing submarine pens, collapsing rail tunnels, destroying V3 sites etc your objection to them is obvious, no US bomber could drop one until 1945. They played a major part in the battle of the Atlantic.

2 The Africa campaign finished in May 1943, what use would a P47 or Corsairs be in shortening that? P 47s did not become operational in UK until Jan 1943

Post D Day was also post Bagration and post the allied air offensive which not only crippled the LW but also removed much of their access to fuel.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 5, 2018)

Schweik said:


> The argument that the US couldn't build mosquitoes because they didn't have the wood is very weak.



It is actually pretty good in that the US didn't have some of the right types of wood. 
Yes the US was closer to the Balsa trees than England but you still had to find them, cut them, get them to a port, load them on a ship and then send them to either the US Canada or England. The countries were they grew not having very good infrastructure (roads or railroads) 
You only need a few Balsa trees to make thousands of Balsa wood model aircraft but you need thousands of Balsa trees to make hundreds of Mosquitos.
Yes you can substitute wood. but every pound of heavier wood means one of three things. 
1. poorer performance, mainly climb and ceiling
2. shorter range.
3. lower bomb load.

The first is if you accept a higher gross weight. the other two are if you don't.
The US was building quite a number of light planes out of wood plus gliders. However some of the bigger US wooden aircraft didn't turn out so well. 
The Curtiss C-76 almost being the poster child for how NOT to build a wooden airplane. 





USAAF Materiel Command later estimated the entire C-76 project cost the U.S. government $400 million dollars and several months in lost production time.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 5, 2018)

I think there is a misunderstanding of "strategic materials" as far as the mosquito is concerned. De Havilland used the argument that it didn't use "strategic materials" to say the project should continue, they were told three times to stop it. However de Havilland used wood as the material of choice, they built wooden planes before it and even used wood on their jets in places.


----------



## Milosh (Apr 5, 2018)

How did DeHavilland Canada manage to built its Mosquitoes?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 5, 2018)

Milosh said:


> How did DeHavilland Canada manage to built its Mosquitoes?


Probably the same way the British did. The Canadians built 1134. Perhaps the US could have built that many or more. the Problem comes in with people wanting to replace tens of thousands of 4 engine bombers. A few Thousand Mosquitos isn't going to do it. You are not adding 15 or 20 or 25% to mosquito production, you are trying to multiply it by 5 or 6 times.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Creative Creative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 5, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> It is actually pretty good in that the US didn't have some of the right types of wood.
> Yes the US was closer to the Balsa trees than England but you still had to find them, cut them, get them to a port, load them on a ship and then send them to either the US Canada or England. The countries were they grew not having very good infrastructure (roads or railroads)
> 
> View attachment 488662
> ...


Just reading the wiki article on balsa wood. The natural distribution is 3 per hectare and they take thirty years to grow, you may build the first aircraft with one outside the shipping office, very quickly you are building roads to reach what you want. The living wood weighs almost the same as water because it is mainly water. After drying there is a huge variation in density, not all balsa wood is suitable.


----------



## soulezoo (Apr 5, 2018)

Milosh said:


> How did DeHavilland Canada manage to built its Mosquitoes?


They didn't build them, they grew them. Mostly around B.C.


----------



## Schweik (Apr 5, 2018)

A few quick comments and a request.

BF 109E (and all BF 109s) _were _low drag because 32' wingspan (vs. Spitfire 36', P-40 37', and Hurricane 40'). Unless you have "Laminar Flow" type ultra low drag wings, bigger wings mean more drag, it's probably the single most important factor.

On the other hand, big wings are good at high altitude. This is where the P-47 excelled (it actually wasn't so great down low). G.55 had big 38' 10" wings but they were also low drag if I recall. But i think this along with a good DB 605 engine means good altitude performance. It's also very heavily armed with 3 x 20 mm cannon plus 2 x 12.7mm HMG.

The notion that Canada could build 1,100 of a type of aircraft but the US might be able to equal it? You are trying too hard breh. Do I really need to point out the difference between US and Canadian Industrial Capacity in 1942? The US was already exploiting Latin America for all kinds of resources including _a lot_ of lumber by 1940. Almost all coffee and a lot of sugar used by the US came from down south by then. The notion that they couldn't secure balsa is a joke. A ridiculous joke! If you just don't want to agree that's ok but don't try so hard to bend reality.
You can't blame a Curtiss aircraft boondogle on wooden materials. Curtiss was a mess and had a dozen or more terrible aircraft design catastrophes. The P-40 was probably their last halfway decent plane, or maybe the C-46. Most of their attempts to build new aircraft failed after ~1942. One of the reasons why the company failed right after the war.

Why does everyone keep moving the goalposts on dates. What effective Strategic bombing was done in 1941? 

Similarly, the "what if" of a Strategic shift away from heavy 4-engined bombers toward fast bombers and fighters, would mean more engines and nice things like turbochargers for fighters. Which means, presumably, better fighters sooner. Which in turn is how I posit an earlier invasion of North Africa (partly because less trouble in the Pacific to worry everyone) 

Put Merlin XX engines in P-40's I think that would get you a long way to where you need to be. Either fix the turbos in the P-38 quicker or put Merlin XX's in those too. Again, better fighter a lot quicker. Merlin XX might even fix the P-39.
But forget all these silly arguments for a moment. *I need a little help.*
I must humbly report that I am a newby here and have apparently 'watched' too many threads. I thought only 'watched' two threads actually but somehow I got 120 messages in my email inbox as of yesterday. This is not sustainable for ye olde Schweik! Can't seem to find on here how to switch the notifications to once a week or something reasonable like that. Can anyone help?

S


----------



## pbehn (Apr 5, 2018)

Milosh said:


> How did DeHavilland Canada manage to built its Mosquitoes?


They built 1,134 with 500 completed before the end of the war. Setting up new production facilities abroad takes time and until it actually flew the Mosquito had few friends or champions.


----------



## Schweik (Apr 5, 2018)

pbehn said:


> 1 An 8,000lb bomb and heavier had many uses in the real world, sinking battleships and smashing submarine pens, collapsing rail tunnels, destroying V3 sites etc your objection to them is obvious, no US bomber could drop one until 1945. They played a major part in the battle of the Atlantic.



And how many battleships did Germany have?

Most industrial targets could be destroyed by 1,000 lb bombs or less. If they hit the target. That's the big caveat.

Giant bunker buster / block buster bombs were mostly a gimmick. They did have some uses, but their use to damage battleships was basically an act of desperation born of extreme ineptitude. They were mainly intended to blow the roofs off of buildings and houses so they would catch fire more easily if I remember correctly.

*It may be blasphemy to compare 21st Century to WW2, but I think modern experience has borne out that in most cases, precision wins out over muscle when it comes to the use of air assets. *We may have some use for 'carpet bombing' but it's more of a niche thing. Like those massive daisy cutter bombs, they are impressive but not actually used that much.


The idea that I don't like heavy bombers with blockbuster bombs because Murikuh is pretty creative too. How did you get to that from my suggestion that we cancel all B-24's and replace with (last I heard, British designed) Mosquitos.


----------



## Schweik (Apr 5, 2018)

Nevermind on the watched threads thing I think I figured it out.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 5, 2018)

Schweik said:


> And how many battleships did Germany have?
> 
> Most industrial targets could be destroyed by 1,000 lb bombs or less. If they hit the target. That's the big caveat.
> 
> ...


Damage caused to heavy industry by small bombs can be repaired very quickly, it is mainly a lot of seamless welded tubes. 

you cannot damage submarine pens with 1000lb bombs, or many other protected facilities.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 5, 2018)

Schweik said:


> A few quick comments and a request.
> 
> BF 109E (and all BF 109s) _were _low drag because 32' wingspan (vs. Spitfire 36', P-40 37', and Hurricane 40'). Unless you have "Laminar Flow" type ultra low drag wings, bigger wings mean more drag, it's probably the single most important factor.
> 
> ...




There was a Merlin XX-powered P-40, named P-40F, available from start of 1942. Was about as good as Spitfire II, ie. will not help much against LW's dynamic duo above 10000 ft. As before - if there is surplus of Merlins, install them on Mustangs.
Bf 109E was draggy due to deep radiators, fixed tailwheel, struts at tail, blocky nose. Granted, being small helped to keep speed up, the redesigned 109F was much more stremlined and gained speed because of that and engine power increase.
Proposing to use fighters that got produced in numbers in 1943 in the USA, in order to solve perceived problems in other part of the world in 1st 2/3rds of 1943 defies logic. So does throwing more fighter-bombers and dive-bombers into teeht of German Flak. Changing production priorities too late also does not help.
P-38 program needed much more input than sorting out turboes in 1941-43 - cockpit heating, compressibility problems, apaling rate of roll, messed up cockpit, pilots training for a twin with turbo engines, too much time wasted in 1940-41, no second source. New or a better powerplant, no matter how good, does not solve that.
I'm not sure that re-designing Merlin for the P-39 is an easier & faster thing than making a 9.60:1 S/C drive for the V-1710.


> But forget all these silly arguments for a moment. *I need a little help.*
> I must humbly report that I am a newby here and have apparently 'watched' too many threads. I thought only 'watched' two threads actually but somehow I got 120 messages in my email inbox as of yesterday. This is not sustainable for ye olde Schweik! Can't seem to find on here how to switch the notifications to once a week or something reasonable like that. Can anyone help?
> 
> S



Perhaps drop the private message to a moderator to help you out?


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 5, 2018)

Schweik said:


> The notion that Canada could build 1,100 of a type of aircraft but the US might be able to equal it? You are trying too hard breh. Do I really need to point out the difference between US and Canadian Industrial Capacity in 1942? The US was already exploiting Latin America for all kinds of resources including _a lot_ of lumber by 1940. Almost all coffee and a lot of sugar used by the US came from down south by then. The notion that they couldn't secure balsa is a joke. A ridiculous joke! If you just don't want to agree that's ok but don't try so hard to bend reality.
> 
> You can't blame a Curtiss aircraft boondogle on wooden materials. Curtiss was a mess and had a dozen or more terrible aircraft design catastrophes. The P-40 was probably their last halfway decent plane, or maybe the C-46. Most of their attempts to build new aircraft failed after ~1942. One of the reasons why the company failed right after the war.
> 
> ...




coffee plants and sugar cane don't grow 3 plants per 100 acres. how many square miles of tropical forest do you have to deal with to get the needed trees? 
If some bright spark around 1910 had decided that Balsa wood would be the coming thing in 30 years and planted hundreds of acres with neat rows of Balsa trees so they could be harvested and shipped in large quantities with little trouble then yeah, America could have built thousands of Mosquitos. 

Just pointing out that wooden aircraft take a certain expertise and when you are trying to get either multiple manufactures or one consortem of 3-5 manufacturers to build large numbers of something things can go wrong. B-17s were built in 3 plants and B-24s were built in 5. 

If you want to replace the B-17 and the B-24 the decision has to be made in 1941. it doesn't matter if the accomplished anything or not in 1941 or even much in 1942. 1941 (and before) is when the factories started to be built, the engine factories started to be built, machinery purchased/ordered supplies of material sorted out (how many tons of aluminum to which rolling mills which would supply which factories with the least amount of miles traveled by rail car) 

As for fighters with turbos. They almost have to be designed in from the start adding them later is NOT like adding them to car today.
adding them later gets you things like this




and this is for a plane that already had a two stage supercharger and intercoolers.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Apr 5, 2018)

tomo pauk said:


> There was a Merlin XX-powered P-40, named P-40F, available from start of 1942. Was about as good as Spitfire II, ie. will not help much against LW's dynamic duo above 10000 ft. As before - if there is surplus of Merlins, install them on Mustangs.



As noted previously in this thread by others, the Merlin XX / V-1650 on the P-40F/L was not the same engine they put in the P-51 (V-1650-7) which had a 2 stage supercharger with an intercooler. I think a P-40 with that engine would have been even better than the P-40F, which was pretty good (I'd say more on par with a Spit V but with longer range).



> Bf 109E was draggy due to deep radiators, fixed tailwheel, struts at tail, blocky nose. Granted, being small helped to keep speed up, the redesigned 109F was much more stremlined and gained speed because of that and engine power increase.


And yet, not that much speed increase right? 20 - 25 mph with much more streamlining plus a ~ 200 hp more powerful engine ? That tells me that in spite of all the little protrusions the overall drag of the 109E was actually pretty low, and I named the culprit already, the small wings.



> Proposing to use fighters that got produced in numbers in 1943 in the USA, in order to solve perceived problems in other part of the world in 1st 2/3rds of 1943 defies logic. So does throwing more fighter-bombers and dive-bombers into teeth of German Flak. Changing production priorities too late also does not help.


I never said it would be easy, nor was I proposing fighter bombers attack hardened german targets like Sub pens. I was talking about the tactical use of fighter bombers (i.e. against tanks and troops and AT / AA guns) and the operational / strategic use of Mosquitoes and the equivalent 'schnellbomber' you might call 'em.

And yes for example I definitely do think that if you cut production of B-24's, you could _definitely _accelerate the A-26 as well as making 25,000 or more Mosqutos. And make more even faster bombers as the Japanese did late in the war (too late for them).

Dive bombers was another argument, i was suggesting the Lufwtwaffe could have used some faster ones like the very fast Aicha B7A.



> P-38 program needed much more input than sorting out turboes in 1941-43 - cockpit heating, compressibility problems, apaling rate of roll, messed up cockpit, pilots training for a twin with turbo engines, too much time wasted in 1940-41, no second source. New or a better powerplant, no matter how good, does not solve that.
> I'm not sure that re-designing Merlin for the P-39 is an easier & faster thing than making a 9.60:1 S/C drive for the V-1710.



A two stage sueprcharged merlin could have allowed them to dump the turbo on the P-38 and allowed the P-38 to play at high altitude, where they faced limited competition that didn't fly that well up high. Then they could focus on the other (I agree, myriad) problems. But the P-38 was supposed to be a high altitude fighter from the get-go so it's major problems playing up above the clouds was a huge setback for it's value as a fighter.



> Perhaps drop the private message to a moderator to help you out?



I figured it out, thanks.

S


----------



## wuzak (Apr 5, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Today the go-to bomb for most missions is a 1,000 or 2,000 lbs bomb. The accuracy (today laser guided or GPS guided) makes the difference. An 8,000 lb bomb has very limited real world need, outside of propaganda. Much like huge 4 engine bombers full of 500 lb bombs which explode miles away from their target.
> 
> A 1,000 lb bomb is plenty to destroy oil refineries and most factories or airfields. Let alone tanks or AT guns which is the main purpose of a Dive Bomber in land combat ala Stuka.
> 
> Most 4 engined heavy bomber raids were dropping 250 or 500 lb bombs anyway most of the time. And missing.



The USAAF essentially carpet bombed oil facilities in Germany with small bombs (250-500lb GP) in 1944. They caused damage, but that could be repaired. So the bombers had to repeat the raid over and over. It became a race between the repairers and the bombers.

The RAF used larger bombs - 1000lb and up. They did more damage to oil facilities with these bombs, particularly the 4000lb HC bomb, and had to return to the facilities on fewer occasions.


----------



## wuzak (Apr 5, 2018)

Schweik said:


> A two stage sueprcharged merlin could have allowed them to dump the turbo on the P-38 and allowed the P-38 to play at high altitude, where they faced limited competition that didn't fly that well up high. Then they could focus on the other (I agree, myriad) problems. But the P-38 was supposed to be a high altitude fighter from the get-go so it's major problems playing up above the clouds was a huge setback for it's value as a fighter.



Several Merlin P-38s were proposed - ones with Merlin XX (V-1650-1), Merlin 60 series (V-1650-3) and Merlin 100 series.

None even went to the prototype stage - perhaps because of lobbying efforts by GM, who owned Allison.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Apr 5, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> coffee plants and sugar cane don't grow 3 plants per 100 acres. how many square miles of tropical forest do you have to deal with to get the needed trees?
> If some bright spark around 1910 had decided that Balsa wood would be the coming thing in 30 years and planted hundreds of acres with neat rows of Balsa trees so they could be harvested and shipped in large quantities with little trouble then yeah, America could have built thousands of Mosquitos.



America made a lot of mistakes and blunders in WW2, but two things they were very good at was production and logistics. They were already importing vast quantities of lumber and other stuff from down South (I think some strategic materials too from the Andes but can't remember what, maybe copper?) I just don't buy your argument that they would have undue trouble with that.



> If you want to replace the B-17 and the B-24 the decision has to be made in 1941. it doesn't matter if the accomplished anything or not in 1941 or even much in 1942.



I don't agree with that, yes they would need some lead time and yes it took a while to realize the futility of heavy bomber raids, probably not until 1943. But if they had stopped then and shifted over to fast, precision bombers instead, they would have saved a lot of lives IMO. 



> As for fighters with turbos. They almost have to be designed in from the start adding them later is NOT like adding them to car today.
> adding them later gets you things like this
> View attachment 488666
> 
> and this is for a plane that already had a two stage supercharger and intercoolers.



hahah that's hilarious you definitely get points for that one.

S


----------



## Schweik (Apr 5, 2018)

wuzak said:


> Several Merlin P-38s were proposed - ones with Merlin XX (V-1650-1), Merlin 60 series (V-1650-3) and Merlin 100 series.
> 
> None even went to the prototype stage - *perhaps because of lobbying efforts by GM, who owned Allison.*



I think _this _was the main problem that the US faced in WW2. Corruption, to be blunt about it.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 5, 2018)

LOL S/R the Mosquito only started trials in 1941, lets see all that effort stopped because someone has seen a wooden plane in UK


----------



## wuzak (Apr 5, 2018)

soaringtractor said:


> Why would you give the Allison to RR to "develop???



More people.
More money.
More aggressive developers.




soaringtractor said:


> You do know don't you the 2 stage superchrger was invented in the USA with patents being issued in 1938???? RR did not invent the 2 stage supercharger!! The grumman F4F Wildcat with a PW R1830 was THE first plane to fly with a 2 stage supercharger !!!! Also PW added that 2 stage 2 speed supercharger to the R2800 as used on the F4U -4 Corsair and the F6F Hellcat. The P47 added a turbocharger to the R2800 for high altitude performance !!! The better question would have been why was not this info available to Allison ???? Jesse Vincent of Packard had access to the 2 stage superchargers early on, he had an air version A2500 he was working on of the PT Boat engine M2500 that used a 2 stage supercharger. That engine got shelved when Packard agreed to build the Merlin FOR THE BRITS !!!! USA had the technology but the USAAF was hung up on turbos that could not be fitted to most fighters, BUT the Navy saw the need !!!



The 2 stage engine in the F4F was not particularly high altitude. Nor the ones in the F6F or F4U-1.


----------



## Schweik (Apr 5, 2018)

wuzak said:


> The USAAF essentially carpet bombed oil facilities in Germany with small bombs (250-500lb GP) in 1944. They caused damage, but that could be repaired. So the bombers had to repeat the raid over and over. It became a race between the repairers and the bombers.
> 
> The RAF used larger bombs - 1000lb and up. They did more damage to oil facilities with these bombs, particularly the 4000lb HC bomb, and had to return to the facilities on fewer occasions.



I've worked in refineries. They are delicate and catch fire really easily. They blow up really easily, sometimes on their own. We had one near where I live which was damaged by a Cat Cracker explosion about 20 years ago, and it took months to get it working again, this without the pressure of having a war on and dealing with further raids.

I don't know that much about the RAF raids on oil facilities but I do know about the Ploesti raid and others done with B-24's, and they suffered massive casualties. That and their relatively poor bombing accuracy (no fault of the brave crews) meant that they couldn't keep going back and really finish the job. I think with Mosquitoes you could.

S


----------



## Schweik (Apr 5, 2018)

pbehn said:


> LOL S/R the Mosquito only started trials in 1941, lets see all that effort stopped because someone has seen a wooden plane in UK



Obviously not. But once the Mosquito started to prove itself - say late summer of 1942? January 1943 when they did their first Berlin daylight raid? yes that is a little late in the game but American industry was capable of making a lot of sudden shifts. The P-51 came more or less out of the blue at that point too didn't it? They put the Merlin 61 into it in Oct 1942, the P-51B went into production in June 1943. That is late in the game but it still did change the game.

Thank god some smart people on both sides of the Atlantic realized the P-51 was something they needed a lot more of and _fast_. That changed the course of the war. As much as I like the P-40 I recognize that production momentum shift to P-51 was a very good idea (yes I know they still produced P-40's but the emphasis quickly shifted to the Mustang, thank god).

If you had a _really _bright person to whom it occurred to think of it by say January 1943, (say Marshall and Churchil saw eye to eye on this during a 7 martini lunch) maybe they could have seen the light. Naturally it's unlikely - it's a "what if" but if you could have started shifting priorities then instead of doubling down on bad decisions and rationalizing "mass de-housing" as a strategy.

It's a game of "what if" we are engaging in here not "what happened"

S


----------



## pbehn (Apr 5, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Obviously not. But once the Mosquito started to prove itself - say late summer of 1942? If you had a really bright person in charge, maybe they could have seen the light. Naturally it's unlikely - it's a "what if" but if you could have started shifting priorities then instead of doubling down on bad decisions and rationalizing "mass de-housing" as a strategy.
> 
> It's a game of "what if" we are engaging in here not "what happened"
> 
> S


I am a big fan of the mosquito myself, but you need everyone in all military organisations to have a complete change of mind sometime in the thirties, the British were more obsessed with putting turrets in everything than taking all defensive armament out. The mass de housing as a strategy worked, it was a massive drag on German industry and output.


----------



## wuzak (Apr 5, 2018)

Schweik said:


> I've worked in refineries. They are delicate and catch fire really easily. They blow up really easily, sometimes on their own. We had one near where I live which was damaged by a Cat Cracker explosion about 20 years ago, and it took months to get it working again, this without the pressure of having a war on and dealing with further raids.



Small bombs had smaller radius of effect, so they needed to land closer to the things that they could damage. Which is why the USAAF used lots of small bombs - some had to get close to something.

The small bombs could not destroy larger equipment or tanks. The big bombs could.


----------



## Schweik (Apr 5, 2018)

pbehn said:


> I am a big fan of the mosquito myself, but you need everyone in all military organisations to have a complete change of mind sometime in the thirties, the British were more obsessed with putting turrets in everything than taking all defensive armament out. The mass de housing as a strategy worked, it was a massive drag on German industry and output.



No, I don't think you needed to have a complete change of mind in the 30's. Military theories in the 30's were mostly wrong. The obsession on turrets by the RAF, which was going to turret-fighters, is a good example. They did make some idiotic turret fighters by the beginning of the war, but it didn't take them long to realize that was a dreadful mistake.

Same for a whole host of RAF bomber types which wound down pretty quickly.

Similarly the P-51 as I mentioned. It was only a few months after realizing the Merlin 61 (and additional fuel) made the P-51 a world class fighter that they had started full scale production of the new type. Another is the Corsair, it was on the verge of being scrapped when the Marines proved it's value and the Fleet Air Arm proved it could be landed on Carriers, and that turned the program around. Instead of making that many more Wildcats, they shifted a lot of resources over to the Corsair, including building it in multiple new factories.

I think they could have done something similar with the bombers. Unfortunately guys like Le May and Harris had a lot of influence and made their case in spite of the facts. It cost us a lot, and the Continental Europeans even more. Russians too probably.

S


----------



## pbehn (Apr 5, 2018)

Schweik said:


> I've worked in refineries. They are delicate and catch fire really easily. They blow up really easily, sometimes on their own. We had one near where I live which was damaged by a Cat Cracker explosion about 20 years ago, and it took months to get it working again, this without the pressure of having a war on and dealing with further raids.
> 
> I don't know that much about the RAF raids on oil facilities but I do know about the Ploesti raid and others done with B-24's, and they suffered massive casualties. That and their relatively poor bombing accuracy (no fault of the brave crews) meant that they couldn't keep going back and really finish the job. I think with Mosquitoes you could.
> 
> S


I have worked on refineries too all over UK and Saudi Arabia plus one in Abu Dhabi. Unless you destroy the vessels and heavy equipment the rest can be lashed up quickly.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 5, 2018)

Schweik said:


> No, I don't think you needed to have a complete change of mind in the 30's. Military theories in the 30's were mostly wrong. The obsession on turrets by the RAF, which was going to turret-fighters, is a good example. They did make some idiotic turret fighters by the beginning of the war, but it didn't take them long to realize that was a dreadful mistake.
> 
> Same for a whole host of RAF bomber types which wound down pretty quickly.
> 
> ...


The USA ended up more wedded to the idea of turrets than the UK. It may have been only a few months after the Mustang was tried out with a Merlin but it took until mid 1943 for them to arrive in UK and early 1944 before they were there in numbers. The FAA "proving" that the Corsair could be landed on a carrier is a myth. No doubt at all things could have been done differently and in some cases better just not really with mosquitos.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 5, 2018)

I would note that Brewster was brought in as a 2nd source for Corsairs on Nov 1st 1941. At some point in Dec 1941 Goodyear is brought in as the 3rd source. This is well over *year before* the Marines *proved* anything. The first combat mission of the Marine Corsairs was on Feb 13 1943 and Goodyear manages to deliver it's first two Corsairs in April beating Brewster by about 2 months, Goodyear goes on to seriously outproduce Brewster.
Navy Squadron VF-12 had ten Corsairs on Jan 14th 1943. eight days later they had 22. They train with the Corsairs until April at which point they hand them off to marines at Espirito Santo and re-equip with Hellcats. VF-12 was on the CVE-13 USS Core a 500ft 17kt carrier and lost 14 pilots killed in training. They transferred to the USS Sangamon for the trip to the South Pacific.

we really aren't going to get anywhere unless some of this time travel stops.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Apr 5, 2018)

pbehn said:


> I have worked on refineries too all over UK and Saudi Arabia plus one in Abu Dhabi. Unless you destroy the vessels and heavy equipment the rest can be lashed up quickly.



That is an astounding opinion that I won't comment on further because I don't know you and don't want to be rude. Or ruder. I'm sorry but that is an incredible thing for anyone to say. Incredible. We live in such times though.

The Corsair was well on it's way to being cancelled or at least phased out (I believe it had already been banned from carrier use) when the Marines success with the aircraft revived it's fortunes. 

You two in particular have thoroughly convinced me of one thing - that you cannot be convinced of anything you did not already believe. This is a common trait online. 

So I think it would be pointless for me to continue this particular discussion, having already made my points. I think it's demonstrably provable that Mosquitos could certainly have conducted the Ploesti raid by September of 1943 at the very latest, and I think most people would agree they would have taken fewer casualties and caused more damage. They also could have certainly done repeated raids.

The broader question of whether B-24's and Lancasters could have been cancelled in favor of building more mosquitos and accelerating development and production of high performance fighters is too speculative to have a reasonable discussion about among strangers. 

As for the alleged Submarine-pen like invulnerability of oil refineries to 1,000 lb bombs, or the Strategic value of "De-housing" hundreds of thousands of civilians, gentlemen, you are entitled to your opinions, but you have not even come within 100 miles of convincing me that is for sure.

That is my last word in this thread. Good night.


----------



## wuzak (Apr 5, 2018)

Regarding sub pen attacks:

http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Magazine Documents/2015/February 2015/0215targets.pdf


----------



## wuzak (Apr 5, 2018)

Schweik said:


> The Corsair was well on it's way to being cancelled or at least phased out (I believe it had already been banned from carrier use) when the Marines success with the aircraft revived it's fortunes.



It wasn't banned for carrier use - it hadn't been cleared for carrier use (until early 1943?)

Don't know where you get the idea that F4U was close to being cancelled.




Schweik said:


> So I think it would be pointless for me to continue this particular discussion, having already made my points. I think it's demonstrably provable that Mosquitos could certainly have conducted the Ploesti raid by September of 1943 at the very latest, and I think most people would agree they would have taken fewer casualties and caused more damage. They also could have certainly done repeated raids.



I personally think that Mosquitoes could have conducted a low level day time attack on the ball bearing factories at Schweinfurt in August or October 1943, if there had been sufficient available at the time.

But I doubt that Ploesti was possible in August 1943.




Schweik said:


> As for the alleged Submarine-pen like invulnerability of oil refineries to 1,000 lb bombs, or the Strategic value of "De-housing" hundreds of thousands of civilians, gentlemen, you are entitled to your opinions, but you have not even come within 100 miles of convincing me that is for sure.



The point is that the USAAF rarely, if ever, used 1000lb bombs against oil facilities. Generally they used smaller bombs of 250lb, 300lb and 500lb. Even 100lb. Basically because the more they used the better chance of hitting something.

The RAF, on the other hand, used 1000lb and 4000lb bombs, and probably some 500lb bombs as well.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 6, 2018)

Schweik said:


> That is an astounding opinion that I won't comment on further because I don't know you and don't want to be rude. Or ruder. I'm sorry but that is an incredible thing for anyone to say. Incredible. We live in such times though.
> 
> The Corsair was well on it's way to being cancelled or at least phased out (I believe it had already been banned from carrier use) when the Marines success with the aircraft revived it's fortunes.
> 
> ...


I worked in the middle east for two years, although my "day job" was running a mechanical test house, I was at the time qualified in ultrasonics and radiography, while there I was trained in thermography so I was asked to do "odd jobs" of a few days or so all over KSA and one outage in Abu Dhabi. I also live next to the UKs biggest (at the time) refineries in WW2. Times have changed, where I live for much of the war protected itself with pollution, there was such a cloud of smoke from the plant and the towns finding a precise target was difficult, indeed sometimes bombers returning to the local airfields occasionally couldn't find them.

Destroying oil capacity proved to be just like destroying civilian morale. What happened is that capacity was reduced by the raid, maybe to zero but quickly started to rise again as repairs were effected. In war time using slave labour and not respecting any safety codes things can be brought back on line, and were, very quickly, even if at reduced capacity. I didn't say they were invulnerable, I said they were much harder to hit and permanently destroy than anyone thought at the start.

Ploesti had ten refineries, it was bombed from as soon as the allies could reach it until just before it was over run by the red army.
Ploesti Air Raids on Romania Oil Fields World War II

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Apr 6, 2018)

United States Strategic Bombing Survey: Summary Report (European War)

posted in Strategic Bombing Campaign Impact on German Oil Production

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 6, 2018)

wuzak said:


> Several Merlin P-38s were proposed - ones with Merlin XX (V-1650-1), Merlin 60 series (V-1650-3) and Merlin 100 series.
> 
> None even went to the prototype stage - perhaps because of lobbying efforts by GM, who owned Allison.



It may have been lobbing, it may have been that paper engineering studies/estimates showed no real advantage. In some cases they showed a few disadvantages like a reduction in range, one was an 8% reduction in range if I remember right. Wither this was of any real consequence I don't know. 
The P-38 was in a weird position as the premier American fighter from before Pearl Harbor until the Spring of 1943. It was large and expensive but until you get P-47s showing in quantity It was the only game in town and slowdowns in production were not going to viewed well. 
Yes Lockheed was working on a few other prototypes and might have been able to squeeze a Merlin P-38 into the mix but where were the Merlins going to come from for production batches? 

Sticking V-1650-1s in P-38s would fewer P-40Fs. 
In the Spring/summer of 1943 NA had several hundred P-51B airframes waiting for V-1650-3 Merlins. 

It turns out the XP-49 (first ordered in the fall of 1939) turns out to be a total dud due the engines.

The Allison used higher compression ratio than the Merlin and got better fuel economy, at least at cruising speeds. 
At altitude the turbo, if used properly, could also help with cruising more than the exhaust thrust of a non turbo engine. 
Now these may have been single digit differences or even combined still been in the single digits but not everything is a conspiracy.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 6, 2018)

Schweik said:


> As noted previously in this thread by others, the Merlin XX / V-1650 on the P-40F/L was not the same engine they put in the P-51 (V-1650-7) which had a 2 stage supercharger with an intercooler. I think a P-40 with that engine would have been even better than the P-40F, which was pretty good (I'd say more on par with a Spit V but with longer range).



I know that V-1650-1 was not the same engine as the V-1650-7. However, you've suggested the Merlin XX (roughly V-1650-1) for the P-40 in the post #133:
_Put Merlin XX engines in P-40's I think that would get you a long way to where you need to be. Either fix the turbos in the P-38 quicker or put Merlin XX's in those too. Again, better fighter a lot quicker. Merlin XX might even fix the P-39.
_
... and not the V-1650-7



> And yet, not that much speed increase right? 20 - 25 mph with much more streamlining plus a ~ 200 hp more powerful engine ? That tells me that in spite of all the little protrusions the overall drag of the 109E was actually pretty low, and I named the culprit already, the small wings.



With 150 PS more, the 109F1 and F2 were ~60 km/h faster. On same power, the difference was ~40 km/h. Ergo, the 109E was one draggy fighter.



> I never said it would be easy, nor was I proposing fighter bombers attack hardened german targets like Sub pens. I was talking about the tactical use of fighter bombers (i.e. against tanks and troops and AT / AA guns) and the operational / strategic use of Mosquitoes and the equivalent 'schnellbomber' you might call 'em.
> And yes for example I definitely do think that if you cut production of B-24's, you could _definitely _accelerate the A-26 as well as making 25,000 or more Mosqutos. And make more even faster bombers as the Japanese did late in the war (too late for them).



Allies were already attacking tactical targets, so I'mm not sure how much your proposal differs vs. what occured historically.
Douglas was not included in production of the B-24, factories making R-1830 cannot switch to production of R-2800 after someone just snapped the fingers. A woman will deliver a baby after 9 months, there is no way that 9 woman can deliver one complete baby after just one month.
I've already agreed with more Mosquitoes as idea. Unfortunately, The decision to go that route need to be put into effect by 1941, with factories churning them out by 1942. Factories other than the ones tooled up for B-24s.



> Dive bombers was another argument, i was suggesting the Lufwtwaffe could have used some faster ones like the very fast Aicha B7A.



They certainly could. That those were much slower than contemporary Allied fighters might put a wrench to that plan, Allies were not using Hurricanes as 1st-line fighters by 1944. 



> A two stage sueprcharged merlin could have allowed them to dump the turbo on the P-38 and allowed the P-38 to play at high altitude, where they faced limited competition that didn't fly that well up high. Then they could focus on the other (I agree, myriad) problems. But the P-38 was supposed to be a high altitude fighter from the get-go so it's major problems playing up above the clouds was a huge setback for it's value as a fighter.



A 2-stage supercharged Merlin also requires a good intecooler, that will not be any bit easier to retrofit on those P-38s vs. on the historical ones. Someone will also need to make a compete assesment of CoG changes and how to cure them, now that heavier engine is in the front, along with heavier prop, while there is no turbo behind the CoG to help with ballance. So people at Lockheed will need to compeltely rework the powerplant installation, along with different coolant and oil system, and after all of that is done, start working out other, more pressing needs. Hopefully no-one will notice that Lockheed is not delivering the P-38s for weeks in 1943, since new tooling need to be introduced. AAF declined the P-38K due to the expected loss of production, that was a small redesign of the legacy P-38, after all.
Then we enter the problem of actually not having the 2-stage Packard Merlins around, there were hundreds of P-51B airframes gathering dust in Inglewood during the summer of 1943 due to having no engines.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 6, 2018)

Schweik said:


> The Corsair was well on it's way to being cancelled or at least phased out (I believe it had already been banned from carrier use) when the Marines success with the aircraft revived it's fortunes.
> 
> You two in particular have thoroughly convinced me of one thing - that you cannot be convinced of anything you did not already believe. This is a common trait online.
> 
> ...



We have someone come in, put forth what they believe is a new theory, or somewhat new, Mosquitos as the primary bomber for the bombing campaign having been discussed many times before. Then they ridicule objections to increase production of Mosquito by likening the harvest of trees growing in the wild at about 20 trees per square mile to the harvesting of coffee or sugar on established farms/plantations that can increase production drastically in one growing season by expanding planted areas to immediately adjacent land. 
A confused and not chronologically correct timeline is used to justify/support the theory and yet those who question it are accused of being closed minded and not open to new ideas. 
Hard to argue with that. Never let facts get in the way of a good theory.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## Jugman (Apr 6, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> There were two sample Merlin XX engines in the US during the summer of 1940 when talks were going on with Ford and Packard. This is before the -39 Allison goes into production. And over a year before Allison tries to make a production batch of engines with 9.60 gears. paying license fees at this point to get a much more effective engine should have no brainer.



There are several snags with this idea.

1. RR had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the Packard deal. That's why the British government ( and I believe the US government after taking over the contracts) payed RR a whopping three to four thousand dollar per engine royalty.

2. It wasn't designing the superchanger but redesigning the accessory section to accommodate a larger, and preferably, two speed superchanger that was the major herdle. The magnesium alloy accessory section was an important structural part of the engine. Any changes need to be thought out carefully.

3. The Allison was never the favored engine of the AAF. The interest in it largely revolved around the fact that it was a high temperature liquid cooled engine designed with turbo supercharging in mind. It's dominance in fighter designs at the end of the 1930s was largely because it was the only available liquid cooled engine. 

4. As it was, the last AAF clean sheet fighter design intended to be V-1710 powered was the P-47 and the last intended production model up to this time ( summer 1940 ) was the stopgap P-40D. It was expected that production of the would be over by the end of 1941. Now of course this didn't happen but the point is that their prospects for future orders looked bleak at the time.

5. 1940 was a whole mess of technical, operational, and organizational problems brought about by the extremely rapid growth in size of both the armed services and the aircraft industry.

6. There was political controversy over the Allison at this time. Partly do to the delays in getting the V1710-33 into production and the perceived lack of power in comparison to foreign types. 

Given the above circumstances I don't think it was a "no brainier" at all. Really how is a fairly minor improvement, in comparison to the engines it was competing with, going to garner more order. So your "1000hp" class engine can now generate that power a few thousand feet higher. That's still a few thousand feet and a few hundred hp less than the 1500-2500hp engines the AAF was interested in could do. Well at least what they could do in theory.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 6, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Come on man, I don't think you are on the level here.
> 
> The Mosquito was flying bombing missions in early 1942. If they had moved some of the funding / energy / momentum from the 4 engined heavy bombers i'm sure they could have developed the Mosquito as a bomber a little faster. But you don't need to in order to pull off the Mosquito Ploesti raid.
> 
> ...



B-24s and B-17s were quite accurate given good visibility and a substantial bomb run for the lead crews from the IP. The 8th and 15th AF fleet of B-24s and B-17s were abysmal for strategic bombing purposes when 7/10 to 9/10 cloud cover obscured the Target and worthless for blind bombing.

More repeat targeting for refineries were due to not enough 1000 and 2000 GP use (same issue with the Schweinfurt attacks which were efficient but would have better with bigger bombs.

IMO there are two issues with your thesis. First, to put together a Mossie force with sufficient squadrons to predict a good outcome with execution according to plan - were not available to AAF, and the RAF were not particularly interested. Second, the Mossie force must travel a VERY long way 
'nekkid' with neither defensive fire nor any survival factors other than speed and dispersion to make the pursuing force task more difficult to find a target rich environment. The AAF tried to obtain Mossies for recon and special tasking but never squeezed a commitment to allocate sufficient production from Canada sources to plan any organization larger than squadron level deployment.

To match the B-24 deployment (entire 8th AF B-24 force) to add to 12th AF B-24s to make the critical mass deemed necessary for the mission, the Mossie force also need to have critical mass deployed to Benghazi in May 1943. Possible given other RAF priorities?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Jugman (Apr 6, 2018)

On the topic of Merlin powered P-38s. Only the two-stage proposals shown any improvement and this was with the assumption that drag would be identical to the shallow chin models. The radiator for the aftercooler needs to go somewhere and it's going to add drag. There is the issue of insufficient production capacity for air-to-liquid heat exchangers. This was a major reason for the absence of an intercooler in the P-63. I strongly suspect it is why Lockheed used that kludged together air-to-air unit in the J and L models.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 6, 2018)

No one would be a greater advocate of the Mosquito than myself, there is no doubt that the allies could have made use of many more of them than they had however, I make the following points.

On the famous Mosquito raids 
1. Carthage (Shell house raid) 18 Mosquito Bombers 30 Mustang escorts 2 Mosquito recon. Losses 4 mosquitos and two Mustangs. =22% bomber loss
2. Jericho (Amiens prison) 9 Mosquitos 12 Typhoons (escort) Losses 3 Mosquitos 2 typhoons = 30% bomber loss
3. Aarhus raid 24 Mosquitos, 1 destroyed = 4%
4. Oslo raid ( Gestapo HQ) 4 mosquitos 1 destroyed = 25%
5. Goering radio broadcast 6 mosquitos in two separate raids 1 loss = 33% or 17% ( how do you calculate).

All of these raids were complete surprise raids, no one marks out prisons or intelligence HQs as precision bomb targets in1940s warfare, despite that all raids suffered completely unacceptable loss rates. These raids had a massive amount of planning photo recon and even model building to prepare the crews. You cannot do that on a refinery complex, Ploesti had ten refineries each with many areas that must be hit, how do you sort out an order of significance, as previously stated refineries were surrounded in pollution one you hit them and cause a fire it hides everything for following bombers.

You can only make a surprise raid once, after that it must be assumed the enemy will take action and stop you,

The success of bombing on Axis refineries increased as the war progressed but that was due to the offensive as a whole, the LW lost its capacity to repel such attacks long before from the start of "Big Week" onwards. Apart from hitting LW aircraft production which was never achieved by any other bombing the Mosquito doesn't do anything to challenge the LW 1944 when it has an escort with legs as long as it has.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Optimistic Optimistic:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 6, 2018)

tomo pauk said:


> Allies were already attacking tactical targets, so I'mm not sure how much your proposal differs vs. what occured historically.
> Douglas was not included in production of the B-24, factories making R-1830 cannot switch to production of R-2800 after someone just snapped the fingers. A woman will deliver a baby after 9 months, there is no way that 9 woman can deliver one complete baby after just one month.
> I've already agreed with more Mosquitoes as idea. Unfortunately, The decision to go that route need to be put into effect by 1941, with factories churning them out by 1942. Factories other than the ones tooled up for B-24s.


Douglas was making B-17s. Douglas was actually making a whole lot of stuff, and building new factories to do it.





> They certainly could. That those were much slower than contemporary Allied fighters might put a wrench to that plan, Allies were not using Hurricanes as 1st-line fighters by 1944.


I believe that most _armies_ pretty much gave up on dive bombers as a type of aircraft around 1943?? At least against well equipped opponents.
Japanese army in the CBI theater not having an abundance of AA guns. While Dive bombers in a dive are not the easiest of targets they are also not that difficult for for fast firing weapons. The flight path is fairly predictable and so is the pull out. A large portion of the speed of the dive is lost in the pull out if the pullout is down at high Gs and low altitude. A higher pull out helps degrade the AA effectiveness but also degrades the accuracy of the dive bomber.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 6, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> We have some people come in, put forth what they believe is a new theory, or somewhat new, then they ridicule objections.
> Hard to argue with that. Never let facts get in the way of a good theory.


Great post S/R but too specific, I edited it slightly to cover the last 6 experts.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 6, 2018)

pbehn said:


> No one would be a greater advocate of the Mosquito than myself, there is no doubt that the allies could have made use of many more of them than they had however, I make the following points..............._You can only make a surprise raid once, after that it must be assumed the enemy will take action and stop you_,
> 
> The success of bombing on Axis refineries increased as the war progressed but that was due to the offensive as a whole, the LW lost its capacity to repel such attacks long before from the start of "Big Week" onwards. Apart from hitting LW aircraft production which was never achieved by any other bombing the Mosquito doesn't do anything to challenge the LW 1944 when it has an escort with legs as long as it has.



There had been a raid in June of 1942 by 13 B-24s, after which the Germans moved in several hundred 88mm and bigger guns and even more light AA. From wiki so corrections welcome
" _Luftwaffe_ General Alfred Gerstenberg built one of the heaviest and best-integrated air defense networks in Europe. The defenses included several hundred large-caliber 88mm guns and 10.5 cm FlaK 38 anti-aircraft guns, and many more small-caliber guns. The latter were concealed in haystacks, railroad cars, and mock buildings.[12] The Luftwaffe had three fighter groups within flight range of Ploiești (52 Bf 109 fighters and Bf 110 night fighters, and some Romanian IAR-80 fighters).[4] Gerstenberg also counted on warnings from the Luftwaffe signals intelligence station in Athens, which monitored Allied preparations as far away as North Africa."

Just because you plan to attack at dawn doesn't mean you will catch the defenders asleep in bed. By the summer of 1943 that trick was getting a little tired. All it takes is a couple of phone calls about large numbers of aircraft flying in over the coast and the surprise is gone.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 6, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> There had been a raid in June of 1942 by 12 B-24s, after which the Germans moved in several hundred 88mm and bigger guns and even more light AA. From wiki so corrections welcome
> " _Luftwaffe_ General Alfred Gerstenberg built one of the heaviest and best-integrated air defense networks in Europe. The defenses included several hundred large-caliber 88mm guns and 10.5 cm FlaK 38 anti-aircraft guns, and many more small-caliber guns. The latter were concealed in haystacks, railroad cars, and mock buildings.[12] The Luftwaffe had three fighter groups within flight range of Ploiești (52 Bf 109 fighters and Bf 110 night fighters, and some Romanian IAR-80 fighters).[4] Gerstenberg also counted on warnings from the Luftwaffe signals intelligence station in Athens, which monitored Allied preparations as far away as North Africa."
> 
> Just because you plan to attack at dawn doesn't mean you will catch the defenders asleep in bed. By the summer of 1943 that trick was getting a little tired. All it takes is a couple of phone calls about large numbers of aircraft flying in over the coast and the surprise is gone.


Like the dambusters raid, you only get one chance, and after the dambusters raid the UK had to take steps to make sure Adolf didn't return the compliment.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 6, 2018)

Jugman said:


> There are several snags with this idea.
> 
> 
> Given the above circumstances I don't think it was a "no brainier" at all. Really how is a fairly minor improvement, in comparison to the engines it was competing with, going to garner more order. So your "1000hp" class engine can now generate that power a few thousand feet higher. That's still a few thousand feet and a few hundred hp less than the 1500-2500hp engines the AAF was interested in could do. Well at least what they could do in theory.


I do agree with much of your post in detail. 
However the difference was not as small as you suggest. In the Summer of 1940 Allison was delivering engines (and superchargers) capable of around 1090hp at 13,200ft (this early Allison ratings bounced around a bit) and was promising 1150hp at 12,000ft for the engines to be delivered in 1941 (P-39s and P-40D & E)exact altitude depending on backfires screens. Merlin supercharger was offering enough airflow to make 1175hp at 21,000ft which is 50hp more at 6,000ft higher than the Allison got with the 9.60 gears. 

Even if the supercharger is not copied bolt for bolt it should have been a wake-up call that American superchargers were falling behind. The P & W R-1830 needed a two stage supercharger and intercoolers and still couldn't match it. 

Allison may not have been the Armies prefered engine (that was the IV-1410) but a better supercharger (or the difference between the american superchargers and the Merlin XX) should have been a no brainer to investigate as soon as possible. 
Packard promised engines sooner than they could actually make them but the Army had around 1 1/2 to two years to work on a better single stage supercharger for the Allison before things really went to pot.


----------



## mikemike (Apr 6, 2018)

Schweik said:


> For the Luftwaffe
> 
> Cancel the Me 110 in early 1941, use the engines for Me 109s, Ju 88 or put them in Italian fighters.
> 
> ...



My opinion:
License the Mitsubishi Kinsei and Kasei engines. Put the BMW 801 on the back burner. Use the Kinsei instead of the Bramo 323 /BMW 132 and the Kasei instead of the BMW801. You have reliable 1500 HP in 1939 instead of in 1942. Mitsubishi brought the Kasei up to 1875 HP in 1943 without fuel injection. BTW, the Mitsubishi MK9 would have fitted in a FW190, too, almost the same size as the '801.

The Jumo 211 in the Ju88 were more powerful than the DB601 early in 1941 and more reliable to boot. More Me109 would have been good even earlier in the war, but you would have needed a number of retirements with extreme prejudice in the Luftwaffe and RLM higher echelons to achieve that.

The Luftwaffe evaluated the newest crop of Italian fighters early in 1943 and came to the conclusion that they would like to license-produce the FIAT G55, but preferably the G56 variant with the DB603. That came to nothing for some reason. I don't think earlier models would have been attractive for the Luftwaffe.

As for the Japanese aircraft, the problem would have been the engines (not the Ki-61, of course), as the Nakajima Homare was quite a bit smaller and lighter than the BMW801, as well as being just as unreliable as the early '801s.

The Aichi Ryusei first flight was in March of 1942 and the plane was nowhere near production maturity then. Again, engine trouble - needs an air-cooled radial - only the BMW801 available - at that time only 1600 hp, which is insufficient for the aircraft. Perhaps you meant the Yokosuka D4Y, which was certainly fast enough but also had totally unprotected tanks and hardly any protection for the crew.

Concerning the He219, according to "Winkle" Brown who tested it, the aircraft was nastily underpowered with two DB603s. It would probably have needed the Jumo222 to become a performer.

As I said above, get your air-cooled radials from the Japanese, because they are better at it, especially Mitsubishi. And a lot of promising higher-powered liquid-cooled engines were cancelled or suffered from official vacillation. DB603 development was stopped and the engine almost sold abroad because it was a private venture and "not wanted" by the RLM, so about a year was lost. The Jumo222 was off-again, on-again for the whole war although a factory was built just t o produce that engine. That factory produced almost nothing - wasted effort that was unaffordable.

I concur concerning the Fw190 for the IJAAF - especially as a fighter-bomber - the Japanese had decent engines for it. But they tested several FW190 A-3 and didn't want it - perhaps unsuitable for Japanese production.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Apr 7, 2018)

pbehn said:


> No one would be a greater advocate of the Mosquito than myself, there is no doubt that the allies could have made use of many more of them than they had however, I make the following points.
> 
> On the famous Mosquito raids
> 1. Carthage (Shell house raid) 18 Mosquito Bombers 30 Mustang escorts 2 Mosquito recon. Losses 4 mosquitos and two Mustangs. =22% bomber loss
> ...



I would argue that low numbers of aircraft lost on small missions make for big loss rates. It doesn't necessarily follow that a 100 Mosquito bomber raid will have the same loss rate.

Having said that, the loss rates are similar to the loss rates of the Schweinfurt/Regensburg mission in August 1943 (60 aircraft from about 300). And those planes had guns.

The easiest way to reduce loss rates is to send more aircraft. In early 1944, even with fighter escort, some missions were still losing about 50-60 bombers. But when the number sent is ~1000, the loss rate is a more acceptable 5-6%, rather than 20%.

Interestingly, for the Ploesti raid in August 1943, there was no air recon before the raid. Presumably to avoid tipping off the defenders.


----------



## wuzak (Apr 7, 2018)

drgondog said:


> More repeat targeting for refineries were due to not enough 1000 and 2000 GP use (same issue with the Schweinfurt attacks which were efficient but would have better with bigger bombs.



The first Schweinfurt attack was with 1000lb GP bombs. 230 bombers carrying 5 or 6 1000lb bombs each, 80 of which hit the target.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 7, 2018)

wuzak said:


> The first Schweinfurt attack was with 1000lb GP bombs. 230 bombers carrying 5 or 6 1000lb bombs each, 80 of which hit the target.


Wuzak - the Mission FO 84 Summary affirms 1000 pound bombs (235) but the majority were a mix of 250 and 500 pounders (1776). 183 effectives for the Schweinfurt Task force, 120 effective with only mix of 25/500 pound bombs.

That said I did forget that the first Schweinfurt mission DiD carry some 1000 pound bombs.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 7, 2018)

The Mosquito was an excellent aircraft.
However many people only look at some of the performance specifications and/or the results of a few rather specialized raids and try to change the policy/strategy.
The Mosquito was later in timing than the B-17/B-24/British heavies and would require much work in building/tooling up factories to be thrown out and redone. The American bombers also stayed almost frozen in time, once you had the late 1941/early 42 versions improvements came at a glacial pace and mostly consisted of hanging more guns/turrets on them. The engines were essentially unchanged for most of the war. The Mosquito got engines that were uprated from time to time, first with higher boost limits and then with the 2 stage superchargers. SOmewhere around 2/3ds of Mosquito bombers got 2 stage superchargers and that _started _in 1943 when The US had 8 factories making the two 4 engine bombers. 
Mosquitos were, especially in the beginning, flown by elite crews on special missions that had lots of preparation. They weren't being used on a schedule of flying a raid every decent flying day there was. Open to correction on that (1942 early 43). Granted with European weather even the big bombers had numerous and sometimes long gaps between missions. But they weren't being used the same way. 

Both the big bombers and the Mosquitos alos changed in capability over the years in navigation and in accuracy. When making suggestions as to what plane the _Powers That Be _should have picked please don't compare pathfinder mosquitos of late 1944 to the nearly blind heavy bombers of 1942. 

Please note it took until 1944 for really large and effective raids to happen using the 4 engine bombers even though the planing started back in 1940. 

In some cases the _PTB_ did make mistakes or follow a path a bit too long. But using data/information from a year or two in the future was not a luxury they had.


----------



## Glider (Apr 7, 2018)

My personal get it right would be the Me210. If that had been right the first time, it would have been very dangerous in the Middle East and Russia.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 7, 2018)

Jugman said:


> There are several snags with this idea.
> 
> 1. RR had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the Packard deal. That's why the British government ( and I believe the US government after taking over the contracts) payed RR a whopping three to four thousand dollar per engine royalty.
> 
> ...



Pt.1 - any proof that RR was so andamantly against the deal with Packard? Any proof that British or US governments, during the ww2, paid any royalty to the RR for the engines made by Packard?
Pt.2 - yes, for example Allison was of opinion in 1938 that it would've need 2 years to redesign the rear section in order to incorporate a bigger S/C.
Pt.3. again yes, we can wonder how much of improvement to the V-1710 would've been possible to design & produce faster if that engine was favored by the Army and backed up financially.
Pt.4. there was no bleak future for the V-1710 in any time in 1940, since plenty of the engines were ordered for the P-40s, P-39s, P-38s, both for somestic use and export, plus Mustangs for export, plus V-3420 as the perspective 2000+ HP engine. P-40B was just just a gleam in the eyes in the Curtiss designers by 1940.
Pt.5 - yes, not just in the US military.
Pt.6. perceived it might've been, real it was not vs. any V12 that is not a Merlin XX in 1940.

The Merlin XX was making ~1150 HP at ~18000 ft (not at 21000 ft, that will do the Merlin 46 with bigger S/C). Or, 6000 ft up vs. V-1710-33.
Granted, AAF by 1940 was trying to cover it's bases with regard to the fighter engines, thus their positive stance towards the RR-Packard deal, as well as going with turboed R-2800. Along with several attempts with engines that ended up as a footnote in ww2 aircraft engineering (IV-2220, plus 'residuals' from the 'hi-per' engine program).

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dimlee (Apr 7, 2018)

Schweik said:


> For the Luftwaffe
> 
> Cancel the Me 110 in early 1941, use the engines for Me 109s, Ju 88 or put them in Italian fighters.
> 
> ...



Since the discussion is moving close to alternate history, let me suggest the best scenario for Berlin. Make peace with USSR in 1942, help Soviets to improve rail network and to create real Transsib rail link, send Speer and Milch to Tokyo to agree on cooperation and to devise joint development strategy. (Optional: send Goering as well and drop him from the train somewhere in Siberia). Jet engines and airframes are shipped by Transsib eastbound, crates with frames and wings of Aichi B7A (nicknamed _Sternschnuppe_ or just JapanStuka) and of Ki-67 (_Drachen_?) are shipped westbound... 

Sorry, just could not resist.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 7, 2018)

wuzak said:


> I would argue that low numbers of aircraft lost on small missions make for big loss rates. It doesn't necessarily follow that a 100 Mosquito bomber raid will have the same loss rate.
> 
> Having said that, the loss rates are similar to the loss rates of the Schweinfurt/Regensburg mission in August 1943 (60 aircraft from about 300). And those planes had guns.
> 
> ...


I agree Wuzak I was just pointing out that although these missions were hailed as a great success the losses in most cases were on par with Schweinfurt Regensburg which were considered a disaster, the same applies to the dambusters raid with 8 from 19 Lancasters lost. An increased use of Mosquitos would use different strategies, their is no defensive field of fire so no need to be in a big group. As a what if, what if 600 mosquitos with 600 mustangs went in pairs to 600 different destinations, but all change direction twice when in range of radar?

In fact that in a way was one use of the Mosquito, the raids on Berlin with single aircraft were purely to make the sirens sound the alarm and for a huge explosion to be heard somewhere in the city, I have no doubt they did some material damage but most of it was psychological and physical.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 7, 2018)

pbehn said:


> I agree Wuzak I was just pointing out that although these missions were hailed as a great success the losses in most cases were on par with Schweinfurt Regensburg which were considered a disaster, the same applies to the dambusters raid with 8 from 19 Lancasters lost. An increased use of Mosquitos would use different strategies, their is no defensive field of fire so no need to be in a big group. As a what if, what if 600 mosquitos with 600 mustangs went in pairs to 600 different destinations, but all change direction twice when in range of radar?
> ...



8 Lancasters = 56 crew lost, major targets destroyed. 
60 B-17s lost = 600 crew lost, major targets severely damaged
Losses % is not always a good metrics.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 7, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> The Mosquito was an excellent aircraft.
> However many people only look at some of the performance specifications and/or the results of a few rather specialized raids and try to change the policy/strategy.
> The Mosquito was later in timing than the B-17/B-24/British heavies and would require much work in building/tooling up factories to be thrown out and redone. The American bombers also stayed almost frozen in time, once you had the late 1941/early 42 versions improvements came at a glacial pace and mostly consisted of hanging more guns/turrets on them. The engines were essentially unchanged for most of the war. The Mosquito got engines that were uprated from time to time, first with higher boost limits and then with the 2 stage superchargers. SOmewhere around 2/3ds of Mosquito bombers got 2 stage superchargers and that _started _in 1943 when The US had 8 factories making the two 4 engine bombers.
> Mosquitos were, especially in the beginning, flown by elite crews on special missions that had lots of preparation. They weren't being used on a schedule of flying a raid every decent flying day there was. Open to correction on that (1942 early 43). Granted with European weather even the big bombers had numerous and sometimes long gaps between missions. But they weren't being used the same way.
> ...


I agree S/R. 
All military organisations seem to have to make their own mistakes and even repeat the mistakes of their enemies. The British had to abandon unescorted daylight raids and so did the Germans. The USA tried it based on more defensive fire but that simply ignores the opposition may have more firepower too. The USA also tried unescorted raids with the B-26, which in some ways is similar to a mosquito. 11 B-26 aircraft attacked a power station in the Netherlands and none returned because of anti aircraft fire and FW190s. I am no expert on this (comments welcome) but the wiki article uses this raid as a justification for using the B-26 in a more conventional role, medium height with escorts, and more defensive armament. The power station is a power station and would be defended and it was situated between S/E England and Netherlands but also the Rhine Ruhr area of Germany, at the time it would certainly be defended. I don't believe a mosquito force would have fared any better, maybe one or two may return but it is still a disaster. As part of the suspension of massed attacks deep in to Germany the time was taken to not only re arm but completely change how operations were planned and performed. This is where the Mosquito really did play a part, weather and target information and recon before and after were part of a mission. Everyone wanted more for everything, there were 7,800 produced, there could easily have been 20,000 produced without anyone considering them being used as a strategic weapon when you get to bigger numbers than that where do the engines and wood come from?

quote wiki
. The second mission, an unescorted attack on a power station at IJmuiden, Netherlands, resulted in the loss of the entire attacking force of 11 B-26s to anti-aircraft fire and _Luftwaffe_ Focke-Wulf Fw 190 fighters.[28] Following this disaster, the UK-based B-26 force was switched to medium altitude operations, and transferred to the Ninth Air Force, set up to support the planned invasion of France.[28]


----------



## pbehn (Apr 7, 2018)

tomo pauk said:


> 8 Lancasters = 56 crew lost, major targets destroyed.
> 60 B-17s lost = 600 crew lost, major targets severely damaged
> Losses % is not always a good metrics.


Only two of the three were damaged, and the people in the RAF were elite pilots and crew. who had spent a long time training.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 7, 2018)

Jugman said:


> There are several snags with this idea.
> 
> 1. RR had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the Packard deal. That's why the British government ( and I believe the US government after taking over the contracts) payed RR a whopping three to four thousand dollar per engine royalty.


​I "believe" that Packard were paid a royalty of an equal weight in 24ct gold for every Packard Merlin engine installed in a Lancaster. When you provide proof for your assertion I will provide mine.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 7, 2018)

Going back to an earlier post about using fighter bombers in Europe I remembered an old thread on The US Navy attacking Japan in the closing weeks of the war. 

In about 3 days of operations the US had 102 aircrew lost and 133 planes. This was staring on July 28th of 1945. I would venture to say that the Japanese AA was NOT as good as the German AA and Japanese pilot ability, in general/on average, in the summer of 1945 was not equal to the Germans pilot ability in 1942/early 1943, due to training times during the different years. No reflection on nationalities intended. 

I am not seeing using fighter bombers as a subsitute for heavy bombers even if you keep them on the edges of German Territory.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 7, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Going back to an earlier post about using fighter bombers in Europe I remembered an old thread on The US Navy attacking Japan in the closing weeks of the war.
> 
> In about 3 days of operations the US had 102 aircrew lost and 133 planes. This was staring on July 28th of 1945. I would venture to say that the Japanese AA was NOT as good as the German AA and Japanese pilot ability, in general/on average, in the summer of 1945 was not equal to the Germans pilot ability in 1942/early 1943, due to training times during the different years. No reflection on nationalities intended.
> 
> I am not seeing using fighter bombers as a subsitute for heavy bombers even if you keep them on the edges of German Territory.


I guess it is a question of respect for the enemy and the operation, from what I have read Typhoon fighter bombers routinely had an escort of Spitfires on cross channel operations, not only for air defence but also for AA suppression.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 7, 2018)

The Japanese certainly had lower quality AA guns than the Germans, I have no idea of the scale of issue/deployment in the areas attacked by the Navy in those three days. 
The Japanese army had 20mm AA guns and the Navy had 25mm guns that were also used on land/near navy installations. Neither service had 37-40mm guns in any real quantities and jumped to 75mm guns and larger of decent but not outstanding design. 
German light AA was both better quality and in larger numbers.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 8, 2018)

As a further note on the timeline the XB-24 first flew on Dec 29th 1939 and the First YB-24 flew on January 17, 1941 with delievers starting in March of 1941. The P-47B was ordered off the drawing board in Sept of 1940 and first flew May 6th 1941 on the other side of the country from the consolidated factory (or from the plants making the B-17). I have no idea how the B-17 and B-24 could possibly have delayed P-47s, F4Us or the F6F (first flight June 26th 1942) to point they could have been operational in large numbers 6 months to year before they were. 
Please note the 171 production P-47Bs were not very good airplanes with lots of troubles and none were ever deployed overseas (except _perhaps_ as a training airframe for maintenance personnel?)


----------



## swampyankee (Apr 8, 2018)

Jugman said:


> There are several snags with this idea.
> 
> 1. RR had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the Packard deal. That's why the British government ( and I believe the US government after taking over the contracts) payed RR a whopping three to four thousand dollar per engine royalty.
> 
> ...



I believe RR contacted Ford to produce Merlins before Packard was approached; perhaps they were kicking and screaming, but that fight wad lost before Packard. 

The reports I’ve seen were to the effect that the diffuser for the V1710’s compressor was poorly designed, significantly reducing efficiency. Mechanically, the Allison was quite sound. Interestingly, the V-1710 started as an airship engine. The USAAC got the “V-12s are way better, dudez” too late to get any other ones in service. 

The “Hyper” program was a badly funfed, poorly conceived mess.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 8, 2018)

swampyankee said:


> ...
> The reports I’ve seen were to the effect that the diffuser for the V1710’s compressor was poorly designed, significantly reducing efficiency. Mechanically, the Allison was quite sound. Interestingly, the V-1710 started as an airship engine. The USAAC got the “V-12s are way better, dudez” too late to get any other ones in service.
> ...



The difuser on the V-1710 was probably well designed. What was lacking was impeller's size, diameter of 9.5 in vs. 10.25 in on the Merlin. Size (that diameter is a part of) increases the voulme of air the impeller can compress. The 10.25 in engine-stage S/C was used on some late series of the V-1710s.
Both RR and DB tried to improve the altitude power with installation of a bigger impeller on their most important engines, for example 10.85 in on the Merlin 46 and 47 and 295mm impeller on the DB 605A vs. the old that mesued IIRC 270 mm (on DB 601E it was 260 mm of diameter), thus creating the DB 605AS.
USAAC was the proponent of V12s in late 1920s/early 1930s.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 8, 2018)

I believe Edsel Ford was in favor but His father Henry nixed the Deal, Packard had been sniffing around a bit and when Ford fell through Packard got the deal. Ford got the Deal to make R-2800s with in about 2 months, things were moving fast. 

I don't know all the problems with the Allison supercharger but basically you only have three areas. Inlet, impeller and diffuser. The Allison supercharger wasn't that bad in 1939. It's just that Hooker took things to a whole new level very quickly. To be fair GE had supplied ALL American companies with superchargers not just turbos during the 30s and the GE superchargers weren't all that good, leading Wright and P &W and Allison to design their own in the late 30s. They were all groping in the dark as Hooker also discovered that some of the formulas in text books used to design superchargers had errors in them. 

American military engine policy went through several swings, not helped by extreme economy. V-12s dominated the early and mid 20s with the radial coming on at the end of the 20s. Both Packard and Curtiss dropping out of the engine business due to lack of orders. Wright and P & W take over the market. Wright had merged with Curtiss so it made no sense to compete with themselves. Allison tries to break into the market.

The story that the Allison was designed as an airship engine is false. Preliminary work and a few prototypes of the V-1710 have been built when the army ran out of money. They suggested that Allison approach the Navy as the the Navy did have some money for research/development of airship engines. The Navy and most Congressmen not being happy about using imported German engines. The Navy airships crashed before more than one engine could be installed for testing (if that one even made it), the Army got more funding and the whole airship thing was forgotten. 

The hyper program was long on theory, short on funding, results, practical application and other stuff, including keeping up with what the competition was doing and improvements in fuel.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 8, 2018)

tomo pauk said:


> USAAC was the proponent of V12s in late 1920s/early 1930s.



The trouble was that with the small funding of the time Curtiss and Packard didn't have enough money between the two of them to fund a really good R&D program. Engine design was changing fast and the Radial makers cut into the market. The Civilian market changed to aircooled radials pretty quick. 
With planes like this






It doesn't really matter if you use V-12s or radials and the air cooled engines had one less thing to go wrong. They were also lighter for the same take-off power so you could carry more payload and still get out of the same sized airfield. 

Off course in just a few years monoplanes with retracting landing gear became all the rage (British were convinced it was a fad) and while V-12s might have shown their stuff it was too late. Packard had already closed their aircraft engine division ( already in trouble after chief designer died in a crash) and Curtiss made a last gasp with the engines in the P-30. 




However the engine dated back to 1926 and weighed as little as 770lb for a 1570 cubic in engine. It had been designed for no supercharging and an max rpm of around 2400-2500rpm and was showing it's limits by 1933-34. The Engines for the P-30 were the end of the line.
The Curtiss-Wright corporation being perfectly happy to sell R-1820 Cyclones. 
The Navy had made it clear they weren't going to buy liquid cooled engines except for airships and that was a limited market. The Army wasn't going to use liquid cooled engines in ground attack planes and perhaps low altitude recon planes. The civilian market wasn't interested. 
That doesn't leave much of a market without government (army) assistance.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 8, 2018)

swampyankee said:


> I believe RR contacted Ford to produce Merlins before Packard was approached; perhaps they were kicking and screaming, but that fight wad lost before Packard.
> .


Rolls Royce had its original production facilities at Ormanston, not suitable at all for mass production. First at Derby planning/construction started 1936, then Crewe starting May 1938, Glasgow June 1939. Manchester (Ford UK) May 1940. An agreement was made with Packard in September 1940. There is little time between the summer of 1939 and September 1940 but it covers the outbreak of war through the abandoning or postponing of British engines like the Vulture and Sabre. 

Reading articles like these which come up first on searches I am not surprised why people have the views they have, and I am very concerned about the future.


https://www.hemmings.com/magazine/hmn/2012/04/Packard-Merlin-V-1650/3711471.html
*"America's finest redesigns England's finest and creates a legend"*
The Merlin was a legend before anyone spoke to Packard

www.tested.com/art/makers/492418-packard-merlin-how-detroit-mass-produced-britains-hand-built-powerhouse/
*The Packard Merlin: How Detroit Mass-Produced Britain’s Hand-Built Powerhouse *
Detroit manufactured engines under license to assist the allied effort. Only the very first Merlins, like all other prototype engines were hand built. The UK was producing 1000 aircraft per month in the summer of 1940 with no assistance at all from Packard.

Both articles completely ignore the fact that the vast majority of Merlins were built in the UK and you can only produce a huge number of engines when the use is identified. 

from wiki
Production of the Rolls-Royce Merlin was driven by the forethought and determination of Ernest Hives, who at times was enraged by the apparent complacency and lack of urgency encountered in his frequent correspondence with Air Ministry and local authority officials.[72] Hives was an advocate of shadow factories, and, sensing the imminent outbreak of war, pressed ahead with plans to produce the Merlin in sufficient numbers for the rapidly expanding Royal Air Force.[73] By the end of its production run in 1950, 168,176 Merlin engines had been built; over 112,000 in Britain and more than 55,000 under licence in the U.S.[nb 10][61]

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 8, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> The trouble was that with the small funding of the time Curtiss and Packard didn't have enough money between the two of them to fund a really good R&D program. Engine design was changing fast and the Radial makers cut into the market. The Civilian market changed to aircooled radials pretty quick.
> With planes like this
> View attachment 489029
> 
> ...


In the inter war years the Italians also had promising V12 designs, if the Schneider trophy is credited with Merlin development then the Italians also had the chance.
Macchi M.39 - Wikipedia
Fiat AS.2 - Wikipedia


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 8, 2018)

There are reasons that the early Merlin and Allison weighed between 1300 and 1400lbs. The other, older engines might have been able to be souped up to high power and last for a few hour race but longer lasting engines were wanted and engines with more potential were also wanted. 

Many of these old engines used separate cylinders, that is each cylinder had it's own water jacket, sometimes a cylinder head was used that was 6 cylinders long, sometimes not. An engine that encased all 6 cylinders in one large casting, even if separate from the parts that held the crankshaft, had more bending resistance (strength ) than the separate cylinder engines. it also had less potential for leaks as there could be a lot less coolant lines/connections. 
The Russians were one of the very few companies/nations that redesigned a separate cylinder engine into a cast block engine, just about every body else just started over. 
The older engines often used longer strokes compared to bores which limited RPM. The small bores also restricted valve size. The light weight also meant light crankshafts and light connecting rods. Some of the older engines either had no counter weights or minimal counter weights as they ran at a low enough rpm (most of the time) that the vibrations were not a big problem. 

Trying to make do with older engines was not a good option, please see Hispano V-12 and the Russian VK-105 series. The French Hispano didn't have good overhaul life and as the Russians dragged more power out of it even adding weight it sure didn't get any better.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 8, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> There are reasons that the early Merlin and Allison weighed between 1300 and 1400lbs. The other, older engines might have been able to be souped up to high power and last for a few hour race but longer lasting engines were wanted and engines with more potential were also wanted.
> 
> Many of these old engines used separate cylinders, that is each cylinder had it's own water jacket, sometimes a cylinder head was used that was 6 cylinders long, sometimes not. An engine that encased all 6 cylinders in one large casting, even if separate from the parts that held the crankshaft, had more bending resistance (strength ) than the separate cylinder engines. it also had less potential for leaks as there could be a lot less coolant lines/connections.
> The Russians were one of the very few companies/nations that redesigned a separate cylinder engine into a cast block engine, just about every body else just started over.
> ...


I wasn't suggesting those engines, like the Fiat AS.2 were viable engines in WW2, just that at one time V 12s were under development in many places and for various reasons were let go.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 8, 2018)

pbehn said:


> I wasn't suggesting those engines, like the Fiat AS.2 were viable engines in WW2, just that at one time V 12s were under development in many places and for various reasons were let go.



They were let go for very similar reasons. The early liquid cooled engine _installations_ suffered from frequent leaks. If it wasn't the engine it wsa the radiator/s and the piping leading to and from. Those engines were NOT sewing machine smooth and the resulting vibration shook a lot of things loose. it also took a while to learn how to route pipes to fight this 
_



_
Just about all 1920s liquid cooled engines used water and did not use pressurized systems. This meant draining systems overnight in cold weather, it meant the system was heavy and engine and radiator were heavier than an air cooled engine.
In the early 30s they went to Prestone (Glycol) and this allowed for smaller, lighter radiators and higher boiling temperatures. It also solved the freezing overnight problem.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 8, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> They were let go for very similar reasons. The early liquid cooled engine _installations_ suffered from frequent leaks. If it wasn't the engine it wsa the radiator/s and the piping leading to and from. Those engines were NOT sewing machine smooth and the resulting vibration shook a lot of things loose. it also took a while to learn how to route pipes to fight this
> _
> View attachment 489038
> _
> ...


Great post S/R but you are pointing to why things developed and how they developed, there were many engines/organisations at the starting point and for various reasons they gave up. As for radiators, aviation is always ahead of automotive technology. I have had 4 cars in my life that had radiator problems and leaks, none at all in the last 30 years.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 8, 2018)

A lot of it was markets. 
I believe that the Italian Air Force at some point in the 30s announced that it would only buy air cooled engines from that point on. SO unless the Italian engine companies could convince them to change their minds they had no viable market for liquid cooled engines. 
The market for Italian commercial planes being too small to to support a specialized engine line.
Perhaps one or more companies kept development going at a trickle just to keep up with other nations but that was a risky business proposition. Engines were getting more and more expensive to develop and nobody could sell enough engines to overseas customers to recover the R & D costs of a high powered engine. Keeping an old engine in the catalog was another story. Many smaller European countries were buying aircraft by the dozen in the 1930s and not by the hundred. Africa was buying nothing and South America, if they were buying much of anything were buying things like military Waco's 





China may have been the best military market up until the Spanish civil war started. But neither one offered enough to design and build new engines for.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 8, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> A lot of it was markets.
> I believe that the Italian Air Force at some point in the 30s announced that it would only buy air cooled engines from that point on. SO unless the Italian engine companies could convince them to change their minds they had no viable market for liquid cooled engines.
> The market for Italian commercial planes being too small to to support a specialized engine line.
> Perhaps one or more companies kept development going at a trickle just to keep up with other nations but that was a risky business proposition. Engines were getting more and more expensive to develop and nobody could sell enough engines to overseas customers to recover the R & D costs of a high powered engine. Keeping an old engine in the catalog was another story. Many smaller European countries were buying aircraft by the dozen in the 1930s and not by the hundred. Africa was buying nothing and South America, if they were buying much of anything were buying things like military Waco's
> ...


This is where my frustration with discussions about the Merlin comes from, the Gloster Gladiator was bought by the Chinese, 36 in total, that was the sort of order people dealt with. Even an order of 600 spitfires in the mid 1930s was, by comparison huge.


----------



## wuzak (Apr 8, 2018)

pbehn said:


> This is where my frustration with discussions about the Merlin comes from, the Gloster Gladiator was bought by the Chinese, 36 in total, that was the sort of order people dealt with. Even an order of 600 spitfires in the mid 1930s was, by comparison huge.



Wasn't the initial order for 200 or 300?


----------



## ssnider (Apr 9, 2018)

pbehn said:


> ​I "believe" that Packard were paid a royalty of an equal weight in 24ct gold for every Packard Merlin engine installed in a Lancaster. When you provide proof for your assertion I will provide mine.


This is what Packard historian Robert J. Neal had to say about royalties: 
www.enginehistory.org/members/articles/PackardGasTurbines.pdf
end of page 9 and start of page 10


----------



## wuzak (Apr 9, 2018)

ssnider said:


> This is what Packard historian Robert J. Neal had to say about royalties:
> www.enginehistory.org/members/articles/PackardGasTurbines.pdf
> end of page 9 and start of page 10




Hmm, I only get 4 pages.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 9, 2018)

wuzak said:


> Hmm, I only get 4 pages.


me too, maybe a royalty issue?


----------



## ssnider (Apr 9, 2018)

pbehn said:


> me too, maybe a royalty issue?


maybe it will work this way


----------



## pbehn (Apr 9, 2018)

ssnider said:


> This is what Packard historian Robert J. Neal had to say about royalties:
> www.enginehistory.org/members/articles/PackardGasTurbines.pdf
> end of page 9 and start of page 10


The article is not specific about how much "royalty" was paid or even if one was paid. However it is clear what was paid to Packard and that didn't include any "royalty" payment. In the national interest the UK government took over much of the responsibility for producing engines and licensing production. It is absolutely normal for things made under license to pay per unit for the "intellectual property".


----------



## pbehn (Apr 9, 2018)

wuzak said:


> Wasn't the initial order for 200 or 300?


The first order was for 310, this was later increased, however production was so slow to start with it was almost cancelled completely. At the outbreak of war I believe just over 100 Spitfires were actually in service from about 130 produced. Things changed very quickly once war was declared.


----------



## Jugman (Apr 9, 2018)

Shortround6 that figure is way to optimistic. The figures I have are as follows:
Power/Boost/RPM/altitude

Merlin 46 1100/+9/3000/22,000ft This is with ram and the larger 10.85" supercharger
V-1650-1 1120/48.2"/3000/18,500ft this is in high blower without ram.

V-1710-39/F3R 1150/42"/3000/12,000ft No ram or backfire screens
V-1710-81/F20R 1125/44.5"/3000/15,500ft No ram or backfire screens

That's only three thousand feet higher. In comparison to the competition, as well as two-stage V-1710 development (a point I seemed to have forgotten), that's just not all that much of an improvement.

Tomo and pbehn First off let me apologize for the hyperbole that statment really isn't painting a fair picture of RR. That being said RR did have reservations about licensing the Merlin that was alleviated by the royalty fee.
I had a source with more details surrounding the circumstances than the Neal article above, but for the life of me, I can't find the damn thing. Dan Whitney also mentions that royalties we're payed to RR. Then there's the AAF budget office figures which are consistent with a royalty in the $3000 to $4000 range. 

Tomo the V-3420 was sitting on the shelf by mid 1940 so it's not really relevant. The actual orders that were in place before Jun of 1940 were insufficient to keep production going to 1942. Even the orders placed right after the fall of France would just take production in to 1942. Keep in mind that none of the R40-C winners were powered by an Allison and the AAF saw the existing types as only interm aircraft. Bleak my have been to stong of a word but the outlook for future orders was most certainly not an optimistic one. Not all the poins I listed earlier were concurrent or applied for the whole period in question. But I would say that there was enough of them at any given time to make the correct development path of the V-1710 nothing but difficult choose. With hindsight I think it's clear that they should have made some different choices but they just couldn't know that at the time.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 9, 2018)

Jugman said:


> Tomo and pbehn First off let me apologize for the hyperbole that statment really isn't painting a fair picture of RR. That being said RR did have reservations about licensing the Merlin that was alleviated by the royalty fee.
> I had a source with more details surrounding the circumstances than the Neal article above, but for the life of me, I can't find the damn thing. Dan Whitney also mentions that royalties we're payed to RR. Then there's the AAF budget office figures which are consistent with a royalty in the $3000 to $4000 range.
> 
> .


Jugman, the document linked by ssnider actually gives a long explanation of the setting up of the contract. Packard and any wartime manufacturer has to be very careful with the contract simply because the war can stop at any time or another engine favoured. I fully expect RR were paid a royalty, it is normal, but also it wouldn't be Packard that paid it because as the article says "He did not object to paying RR a royalty since it would merely be added to the cost of the engines".

Often lost in the discussion is how much things changed in a short space of time. Maximum production at Packard reached 2,000 per month, but the first enquiries for Packard to build 1,000 to 6,000 engines. By June 1942 Packard were receiving contracts for 14,000 engines which allowed them to gear up to produce 24,000 engines in 1944.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 9, 2018)

The initial contract called for 9000 engines with a peak production of 800 engines per month. Of these only 3000 were slated for US use. 
I have no idea how the British government felt about paying 3-4000 dollars to Packard to pay to RR for engines going into British/Canadian aircraft?
Or if Royalties were only paid on Engines accepted by the US government? Contract was signed pre-lend lease. 
By the end of 1944 Packard had built 26,759 of the single stage engines and the US had taken delivery of less than the 3,000 in the initial contract. 
I have no idea if the royalty payments were modified in later contracts due the British/Canadians getting 100% of the single stage engines from the later contracts.
There is plenty of room for confusion.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Husky (Apr 10, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> The initial contract called for 9000 engines with a peak production of 800 engines per month. Of these only 3000 were slated for US use.
> I have no idea how the British government felt about paying 3-4000 dollars to Packard to pay to RR for engines going into British/Canadian aircraft?
> Or if Royalties were only paid on Engines accepted by the US government? Contract was signed pre-lend lease.
> By the end of 1944 Packard had built 26,759 of the single stage engines and the US had taken delivery of less than the 3,000 in the initial contract.
> ...


Ahhhh. Isn't hindsight so wonderful. Or not, we can just make up and alter history on conjecture, supposed, ifs, and other abstractions. History is what it is.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 10, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> The initial contract called for 9000 engines with a peak production of 800 engines per month. Of these only 3000 were slated for US use.
> I have no idea how the British government felt about paying 3-4000 dollars to Packard to pay to RR for engines going into British/Canadian aircraft?
> Or if Royalties were only paid on Engines accepted by the US government? Contract was signed pre-lend lease.
> By the end of 1944 Packard had built 26,759 of the single stage engines and the US had taken delivery of less than the 3,000 in the initial contract.
> ...


As far as Packard were concerned their clients were the UK and USA governments with RR acting as technical consultants. Whatever the royalty issue was it was none of Packard's business or interest. There was some separation on the accounts of who gets what I suspect. As an example 1,200 Spitfires were sent to Russia mainly with Packard engines. So in the scheme of things, USA supplied 1,200 free issue engines to RR who supplied the airframes.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 10, 2018)

Jugman said:


> Shortround6 that figure is way to optimistic. The figures I have are as follows:
> Power/Boost/RPM/altitude
> 
> Merlin 46 1100/+9/3000/22,000ft This is with ram and the larger 10.85" supercharger
> ...



If I may.
The main advantage the Merlin XX have had over the V-1710 with 9.69:1 S/C drive is timing - it was in production more than 2 years earlier. For a war that spanned 4-5-6 years, two years is a major chunk of time. Even the V-1650-1 predates the 'better' V-1710 versions by almost a year. That is not just some academic question, but a fact (boy, do I hate the word 'fact' by some two weeks now) that P-40s and P-39s were often found wanting in 1942, when all the Allied war effort was under the major push by Axis forces.



> Tomo the V-3420 was sitting on the shelf by mid 1940 so it's not really relevant. The actual orders that were in place before Jun of 1940 were insufficient to keep production going to 1942. Even the orders placed right after the fall of France would just take production in to 1942. Keep in mind that none of the R40-C winners were powered by an Allison and the AAF saw the existing types as only interm aircraft. Bleak my have been to stong of a word but the outlook for future orders was most certainly not an optimistic one. Not all the poins I listed earlier were concurrent or applied for the whole period in question. But I would say that there was enough of them at any given time to make the correct development path of the V-1710 nothing but difficult choose. With hindsight I think it's clear that they should have made some different choices but they just couldn't know that at the time.



There is no wonder that V-3420 was on the back-burner in 1940 - Allison was swamped with re-designing the C series engines into the F series, the E series was being developed, turbo supercharged versions were also developed, plus some flirting with pusher installations, all while we have 4 1st-line fighters in pipeline that will need a trouble-free installation. Allison was not RR, that sports major experience with military V12 engines, with appropriate backing from respective government.
With that said, the 1st priority, after the C series of engines is out from design shop, should've been the simple thing of making the 'faster' S/C drive, like it was the 9.60:1.

We can also recall that Merlin was supposed to be superseeded by 2000 HP+ class of engines in the UK, while in Germany there was also such a push with Jumo 222 and similar engines that went nowhere, that were to replace the DB 601 and Jumo 211. At the end of the day, the plain vanilla V12 engines proved to have much more stretch than originally envisioned due to engineers doing their job and acces to a 'better' fuel. We also need to consider that those improved V12 engines don't dictate brand new airframes, that came out with their own risks and price tag that easily went to be twice of previous designs.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Apr 10, 2018)

Jugman said:


> Keep in mind that none of the R40-C winners were powered by an Allison and the AAF saw the existing types as only interm aircraft.



The R40-C winners were to be powered by even more experimental engines than the V-3420, though some variants were to have Allison power.

The XP-54 and XP-56 were to be powered by the Pratt & Whitney X-1800, while the XP-55 used the V-1710.

There were 3 submissions by Vultee to R40-C, all powered by the X-1800. These were ranked 1st, 2nd and 6th.

The XP-54 would be powered by the equally experimental H-247-, which did not feature in any initial submissions.

There were 5 versions of the proposal by Northrop:
N-2 - R-2800
N-2A - X-1800
N-2B - X-1800
N-2C - V-1710
N-2D - R-1830

These were ranked 9th, 8th, 5th, 15th and 18th, respectively. The project chosen for development had to use the R-2800 instead of the preferred X-1800.

3 versions of the Curtiss XP-55 proposal were submitted - the P-249T, P-249A and P-249C, powered by the Wright Tornado, Allison V-1710 and Continental IV-1430. They were ranked 3rd, 12th and 4th, respectively.

Due to delays with Tornado and IV-1430 development, the V-1710 found its way into the XP-55.

Curtiss also proposed 2 other projects for R40-C, with 2 versions for one and 3 for the other. Of these, 3 were to be powered by V-1710s.

2 of Bell's 5 submitted designs were to be powered by the V-1710, while the V-3420 was to power one of McDonnell's 4 Model 1 variants.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 10, 2018)

A lot of the stretch came from the better fuels developed as the war went on.
Some came from better metallurgy which allowed the engines to stand up to the higher boost and sometimes higher RPM. 
And some came from total redesigns that just kept earlier designations. 
Pratt & Whitney _started _work on the "C" series R-2800 in 1940. It didn't go into production until 1944. 
Allison in 1939-40-41 was not only designing multiple versions of the same engine (only possible due to it's modularity, the same thing that made it hard to change superchargers) but was expanding from a job shop that could make 1-2 engines a week to a factory that could make over a 1000 engines a month in Dec 1941. 
There may have been a period in 1940 when Allisons future as a major engine builder was in doubt but that had pretty much ended by 1941.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MiTasol (Apr 10, 2018)

pbehn said:


> The first order was for 310, this was later increased, however production was so slow to start with it was almost cancelled completely. At the outbreak of war I believe just over 100 Spitfires were actually in service from about 130 produced. Things changed very quickly once war was declared.



And changed even quicker once Lord Beaverbrook became Minister for Aircraft Production.
To summarise Wiki
*Castle Bromwich Aircraft Factory*
*Nuffield: 1936–1940*
In 1936, the British government had formalised a plan under the Air Ministry called the Shadow factory plan to increase capacity within Britain's aircraft industry. Headed up by Herbert Austin, the plan was to create nine new factories and add additional capacity and facilities to Britain's existing car manufacturing plants to enable them to quickly turn to aircraft production should the political situation in Europe change towards war.

In 1936, the Air Ministry purchased a parcel of land opposite Castle Bromwich Aerodrome which encompassed an old sewage works. Developed and managed by the Nuffield Organisation, owners of Morris Motors, they were briefed to manufacture Supermarine Spitfire fighters and later Avro Lancaster bombers. The theory was that the local Birmingham skills-base and production techniques used in the manufacture of motor vehicles could be transferred to aircraft production.

CBAF ordered the most modern machine tools then available which were being installed two months after work started on the site.[1] Although Morris Motors under Lord Nuffield (an expert in mass motor-vehicle construction) managed and equipped the factory, it was funded by government money. When the project was first mooted, it was estimated that the factory would be built for £2,000,000, however, by the beginning of 1939, this cost had doubled to over £4,000,000.[2]

However, even as the first Spitfires were being built in June 1940, the factory was still incomplete and there were numerous problems with the factory management which ignored tooling and drawings provided by Supermarine in favour of tools and drawings of its own designs.[4] Meanwhile, the workforce, while not completely stopping production, continually threatened strikes or "slow downs" until their demands for higher than average pay rates were met.[5] By May 1940, Castle Bromwich had not yet built its first Spitfire in spite of promises that the factory would be producing 60 per week starting in April.[2]

It is worth noting, however, that key players, such as Alex Henshaw, viewed the problems as primarily those of poor management during the initial phase.

*Vickers-Armstrong: 1940–1945*
After the fall of the government of Neville Chamberlain, the new Prime Minister Winston Churchill appointed press tycoon Lord Beaverbrook as the Minister of Aircraft Production. On 17 May, Beaverbrook telephoned Nuffield and manoeuvered him into handing over control of the Castle Bromwich plant to Beaverbook's Ministry.[6] Nuffield was furious and reported the incident to Churchill, but Beaverbrook countered by sending in aircraft expert Sir Richard Fairey who wrote a secret report which detailed how expensive machinery had been unused, the assembly line in chaos, and the employees not doing their work:[7]

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 10, 2018)

MiTasol said:


> And changed even quicker once Lord Beaverbrook became Minister for Aircraft Production.
> To summarise Wiki
> *Castle Bromwich Aircraft Factory*
> *Nuffield: 1936–1940*
> ...


I agree, although Neville Chamberlain gets a bad "rap" much of the above especially the ordering of shadow factories for the Merlin and Spitfire, done in peace time under his watch were what allowed the UK to survive. Beaverbrook achieved a lot, but under a national government he had powers no one has in peace time.


----------



## soaringtractor (Apr 12, 2018)

Schweik said:


> P-40's with Merlin's would have helped a lot in 1942.
> 
> The Fulmars should be replaced for the FAA by Martlets, which is what they basically did anyway. Maybe keep a few (10% of the number produced) for recon, for which they were reasonably well suited, but most of those engines should go to better planes. FAA seemed to have a lot of problems making specs for airplanes - they probably needed a purge too. How else do you explain atrocities such as this
> 
> ...





Shortround6 said:


> The trouble with a lot of these suggestions is that they require not a different decision made at point in time X but time machines and inter dimensional transporters
> 
> For instance the first 723 Defiants used Merlin III engines and these offer no real improvement over the Allisons in the early P-40s. It is only the last 350 or so Defiants that have the Merlin XX.
> 
> ...

Reactions: Old Old:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RpR (Apr 12, 2018)

As far as V-1710 and Curtiss.
The engine was made by Allison but for all practical purposes was a government engine.
What gov. dick head wanted was what was done

Curtiss was run by money fools with quantity over quality, which is why all the half-arsed P-40 improvements (P-60) except for the Q were an embarrassing waste of time.
You would have to remove those in charge before any changes could be made; combine with those in charge of the Allison, one giant cluster-f.
Oh and do not forget the super duper engine the gov. had others wasting time on, which the first P-60 was supposed to have.


----------



## Motorsport Micky (Apr 12, 2018)

parsifal said:


> Ki 100 with Kinsei as opposed to the Ha 112 (the same engine but approved for army use). easily the best conventional Japanese fighter of the war and probably the best of any nation during the war. A single Ki100 once took on no less than 12 Hellcats simultaneously and survived.



As a newbie please excuse my contribution unannounced, but worthy as the Ki100 feat mentioned above is there is another which could be thought of as being the epitome of derring do and mix of man and machine. The story of the P51 and 30 Luftwaffe fighters comes to mind

One Man Fighter Squadron: Held off 30 German fighters from attacking a squadron of B-17 bombers for over half an hour

Wildly applauded at the time it certainly is worthy of mention as maybe the most extreme...unless somebody else knows different ?
Motorsport Micky

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Jugman (Apr 18, 2018)

Tomo the first production V-1650-1 rolls off the line in November, 1941. The first 9.60:1 Allisons were built in October of that year. Now these 9.60:1 models couldn't pass the type/model test but neither could the V-1650-1 at this time. It took until March or April before the V-1650 was considered suitable. The V-1710-E18/F20R were rolling off the line in August. So not that much difference in time.

In hindsight I think Allison should have designed the accessory section of the E/F with the wider gears needed for the higher ratio in the first place.


----------



## YF12A (Apr 18, 2018)

And some things never change. Read a book called "The Great Aircraft Engine Wars" about the hassle the USAF had with P&W when the first F-15's were flown and the problems started. Glad Herman the German was at GE, and developed an alternate engine which forced P&W to "play fair" on a more level playing ground with a now real competitor. My Father always loved "round props and round engines" and worked on every one up to the R-4360 and respected P&W just a touch more than C/W, but to say he was p****d at P&W after reading this book was an understatement. This was someone who had lived and breathed Aviation from 1942 until he retired in 1987, had seen it all and done it all, from the Flying Boats to the Concorde. Told me it just wasn't the same anymore. My life in the Auto Industry has followed similar parallels as well.

On one funny note; as stated Pops loved the sounds of the Giant Recips, but he did allude to loving the "music" coming from the sound of 4 R/R Merlins in the Canadair DC-4M's he saw!


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 18, 2018)

See Merlin DC-4 fit here: http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1946/1946 - 1455.html

That V12 seated there - sure looks like slim hottie, svelte in a chair, designed for a fat chick..

But that bellowing inline, with boost pumped up & running hard, loud & proud.. was a tad intense for passengers,
so an exhaust manifold was fitted, & yeah it cut the db some, but more importantly, hid the visible flame at night...


----------



## parsifal (Apr 18, 2018)

Schweik said:


> The Fulmars should be replaced for the FAA by Martlets, which is what they basically did anyway. Maybe keep a few (10% of the number produced) for recon, for which they were reasonably well suited, but most of those engines should go to better planes. FAA seemed to have a lot of problems making specs for airplanes - they probably needed a purge too. How else do you explain atrocities such as this



Which would mean the FAA would have been without a reliable fighter for over a year, a year of critical events at sea and a year in which 30 fulmars shot down well over a 100 Axis aircraft. Without those fulmars with all their faults, which I am not denying, it would have not been possible to keep the crucial lines of communication to the critical base of malta open, it would not have been possible to deliver pinpoint attacks that led to the loss of the BISMARCK, or undertake last minute recons of the Italian battlefleet at various times, particularly at Matapan. Losses over crete to the LW would have been even more crippling than they were.

Martlets were available to the FAA from March 1941, after the fuel line and armamanet problems had been solved, but it would take several more months of development work before the wing folding issue was solved. until then, Martlets aboard RN carriers were strictly deck cargo and this severely limited the air group capacities even more than they were already aboard the RN armoured carriers.

Judging FAA requirements against assumed USN capabilities is a common mistake. The RN never had the luxury of massed firepower in the form of large deck stroke capability. Only the USN in the latter stages of WWII, then korea and finally in Vietnam had the capability of conducting saturation carrier based airstrikes. Even during the invasions of Iraq there wasn't the lift capacity in the USN to conduct the same operations as had traditionally been the case since the latter part of WWII. The RN during WWII managed to develop its carrier based assets to the point of being able to deliver surgical strikes against point targets, which it carried over into the post war era. This was the basis of high success at locations like Taranto and against the Bismarck, and later over the Korean peninsula where the CW naval force showed itself capable of punching well above its weight in terms efficiency, as compared to the USN effort. . . When the RN attempted US style saturation attacks, such as those against the Tirpitz, it was far less successful. The style of RN carrier based combat can be traced back to the early days of WWII. With an annual acceptance of just 16 pilots per year in 1939, the RN, already short of aircrew, but with the added problem of limited carrier decks and an abysmal replacement rate, simply could not afford any losses until much later. This also meant stand up fights with LW SE fighters were to be avoided at all costs. What they needed was a stable gun platform, with an emphasis on firepower (read that as "fleet defence" capability) hence the favoured 6 gun Martlet and 8 gun Fulmar, and night strike capability so that the fleet could stay away from the short range LW bombers and fighters. It was a successful recipe except on a few occasions like January 10 1941.

There is and was nothing wrong with the RN procurement policy. Aircraft like the gannet were developed for long endurance and cheap construction using existing technologies. Gannets were far superior to TBFs from the USN which were used until the 1950s, but not as capable as the Grumman S2s, mostly because of lesser endurance. The RN showed in spades in the post war period that it was still a front line innovator . One only needs to look at the achievements of its sea harriers during the falklands to see that.

I served for 8 years in the RAN in the late 70's and early 80s, aboard our carrier HMAS Melbourne. by the time I was on her wer were equipped with a mix of US and british equipment and a small amount of Australian designed stuff as well. I exercised alongside both the brits and the yanks in various exercises. USN was still very good at air defence and airstrike operations, but generally poor in ASW and ship to shore logistics. I remember in simulated attacks on a US submarine one excercise the poor b*gger being "sunk" 6 times in two days. They had no answer to our combined tracker/Sea king/NCDS/Mulloka/Ikara defences and were easy meat. Againt their own kin, the USS constellation from memory, they easily pentated the screen and "sank" the carrier. .

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (May 10, 2018)

1. P51 Allison, max production, no delays, as soon as possible. Merlin following as soon as possible.

2. P43 built with actual fuel tanks from the start instead of wet wing. When production is started, keep it going as long as possible without interruption. 4 50's. Use it with US forces in the Pacific until P38 arrives. Would be helpful at Midway, Guadalcanal and in Australia.

3. P36, make them replace that ridiculous high drag landing gear with standard inward folding gear to clean up the wing and reduce drag. Add 2 speed P&W 1830 when available (not 2 stage, it is too late) Put it in a wind tunnel and work on the cowling. A P36 with a P&W 1830-23 engine could do 317 in september 1939, so if the landing gear is replaced, cowling tweaked a bit and a 2 speed P&W1830, I see no reason why the P36 couldn't/shouldnt be a 340 mph fighter in 1940. The P66 could do 340.

4. P40, put the same normal inward folding landing gear as P36, should add what 15mph to the top speed throughout the whole series? No more than 4 50's, ever. 6 50's can wait for the P51, Hellcat, Corsair, P47 etc.

5. B26, add P47 turbochargers to B26 for better performance (when historically available) since Mosquito production can't be increased. 

6. Build the P39 with turbo. Period. Wing for fuel only, 2 50's in nose along with a British made 20mm

7. Wildcat, Drop tanks on the very 1st aircraft. 4 50's period. Could Grumman build folding wing -4's and non folding wing -3's on the same line? Doesn't seem like it would be a huge problem to me. At the point where wings are installed, they have 2 different sets to choose from. If so, I would build both models. No folding wing -3 might be irrelevant if a 340 MPH P36 is available.


----------



## Shortround6 (May 10, 2018)

pinsog said:


> 1. P51 Allison, max production, no delays, as soon as possible. Merlin following as soon as possible.
> 
> 2. P43 built with actual fuel tanks from the start instead of wet wing. When production is started, keep it going as long as possible without interruption. 4 50's. Use it with US forces in the Pacific until P38 arrives. Would be helpful at Midway, Guadalcanal and in Australia.
> 
> ...



2. P-43. Every additional P-43 is a delay in getting P-47s. 
they ordered 733 P-47B & Cs in Sept 1940
last order for P-43s was for 125 on June 30th 1941
Oct 14th 1941 saw 850 P-47Ds ordered
March 1942 saw the last P-43 completed and 5 P-47Bs rolled out the door. 

3.P-36. Every P-36, no matter how changed or streamlined is a P-40 not built. 
A P-40 is a P-36 from the firewall back (at least the early ones), any and all modifications (increases in weight) to the P-40 in terms of increased armament, protection and changes in operational equipment would be mirrored by the the hypothetical P-36. Since the Allison powered P-36 (P-40) could already do over 350mph why fool around with the P-36? They would be built on the same production lines and it would take over year to get a new factory on line, perhaps closer to two years. 

4. P-40s, even with crappy landing gear (and I would love to see an actual test result or wind tunnel data) were faster than the smaller 109E with the same power and just about as fast as early Spitfires at altitudes where the Allison was making about the same power. I would note that the F6F used very similar landing gear except that they had a partial door/cover attached to the strut to cover part of the wheel when retracted, but so did the P-36, the wheel cover was deleted on the P-40 but I will bet they had a pretty good idea what the difference in drag/speed was, 






5. B-26. Adding turbos isn't as easy as it sounds. You are going to need 15-20 cubic feet of space in each nacelle or adjacent wing area for the turbo, the intercoolers and the associated ducting. Please look at pictures of the NA XB-28 engine nacelles and air intakes in the outer wing. It can be done but it is not easy.

6. P-39. general estimates were that a turbo P-39, no matter how good at 25,000ft, was going to be 20-30mph (or more) slower under 15,000ft than a non turbo P-39. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. Remember that "in the beginning" there was no 100/130 fuel. British had 100/115-120 and the US had 100/100. The US couldn't use the turbo to overboost the engine to higher power levels at low altitude.


----------



## pinsog (May 11, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> 2. P-43. Every additional P-43 is a delay in getting P-47s.
> they ordered 733 P-47B & Cs in Sept 1940
> last order for P-43s was for 125 on June 30th 1941
> Oct 14th 1941 saw 850 P-47Ds ordered
> ...



2. I can't tell if the contracts for the P43 were run consecutively without interruption or not. Looks like they might have. They did convert 150 P43's to recon aircraft due to the leaking wet wings, so if designed with proper fuel tanks from the start, at least these 150 could have been used in the pacific, in combat, as fighters. I believe (with proper tanks instead leaking wet wings) they would have been a welcome addition to land based pilots who usually gave up the altitude advantage to the Japanese fighters and bombers. Guadalcanal and Australia both come to mind. It's initial climb was 2850 fpm which would have been a welcome increase at Guadalcanal over the 1500 fpm of the Wildcat. 

3. If the P36/Hawk75 landing gear had been designed properly from the beginning, then engine upgrades (which all aircraft Spitfire, Hurricane, 109 were also getting continuously) should have easily kept it competitive. The P36 the British tested against the Spitfire had 1 problem, top speed. The only way the Spit could shake the P36 was to outrun/outdive it. The P36 could easily shake the Spitfire with a hard turn. The Hawk75 tested weighed 6025 pounds with 6 light machine guns. A P36B with the 1830-23 engine would do 317. Clean up the wing by changing to a standard inward retracting landing gear, use a P&W 1830 2 speed engine (smaller diameter than the Wright). The Hawk75 in the test should gain 300 pounds with the engine change so it would weigh 6325 and have good high altitude speed and climb. 

4. So P40's were faster then a 109 and almost as fast the Spitfire, ok I get that. But if you can clean up the wing and lower drag (you ALWAYS bring up drag when someone wants a different engine in something) by using a regular landing gear, why wouldn't you? Many people on this forum, when talking of X or Y test plane, will say "that top speed wasn't for an operational airplane, it didn't have the drag of gun barrel openings in wings, ejection openings, radio antenna" or "the tailwheel didn't retract causing drag". Look at the P36/P40, the bulges for the landing gear were freaking huge. You can't tell me that didn't slow them down by a LOT. (I would love to see wind tunnel tests to, just to know how much it slowed them down) Just belly tank shackles on a P39 slowed it down by 10 mph










Think the P36/P40 would be faster if the bottom of the wing look like that? (Yes I know it is the prototype with no guns)







The P39 guns pods are thinner and probably much less drag than the P36/P40 landing gear

5. B26 with turbos, may not have been easy, but I think they should have worked on it. A B26 with turbos at mid to high altitude would have been a very difficult intercept in Europe and probably impossible for Japan.

6. I have read what you said about the P39 being much slower at low altitude with turbo. I know drag would go up. Without a turbo it was fast down low and had less drag than (I think) anything before a P51. I think it would've had a better career/reputation with a WELL DESIGNED turbo setup. If nothing else, it could have climbed up to altitude and fought like a P47, dive shoot and zoom, or maybe just fly top cover over low altitude planes like the P40


----------



## Shortround6 (May 11, 2018)

The P-36 tested by the British had a few other problems. No self sealing fuel tanks and no armor. This is the problem with trying to build upgraded P-36s instead of P-40s. 
The very early P-40s had a fuel system (tanks, pumps, lines drains, etc) that weighed 171lbs (at least on the 5th production example) this increased to 254.4lbs on P-40B #11 and then to 420lbs on the P-40C where it pretty much stayed (within 10lbs or so) for all the rest of the P-40s except the ones they yanked the forward tank on. the very early P-40s had no armor. the B & C got 93lbs of armor and BP glass. On the later ones the armor and BP glass were lumped in with armament provisions making it hard to track. communications equipment went from 71lbs to around 130lb and then to 233lbs on the P-40N (typo?). Electrical went from 193lbs to between 230-240lbs (at least on the ones that had full electrical) 

Adding around 400lbs to the empty weight of the P-36 is going to hurt performance. As will filling the fuel tank/s. On the P-36 the tank behind the pilot was a Ferry/overload tank and was not supposed to be filled when performing maneuvers. There may be some confusion when the test of the P-36 with the -23 engine refers to full gas and oil as other paperwork the 57 gallons in the rear tank is called auxiliary fuel. 
If you fill the rear tank, fill the oil tank with 14 extra quarts of oil for the extra fuel, fit a couple of landing flares and a gun camera you are _200lbs _over the weight limit for safe flight and have to fly under restrictions. This is for a two gun P-36A. 

Basically, if you add armor and self sealing tanks and extra guns you either have to really cut into the fuel supply to have a safe airplane or you have to go back and beef up certain parts ot get back the the 12G ultimate load the US wanted and the weight spiral has begun.


----------



## pinsog (May 11, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> The P-36 tested by the British had a few other problems. No self sealing fuel tanks and no armor. This is the problem with trying to build upgraded P-36s instead of P-40s.
> The very early P-40s had a fuel system (tanks, pumps, lines drains, etc) that weighed 171lbs (at least on the 5th production example) this increased to 254.4lbs on P-40B #11 and then to 420lbs on the P-40C where it pretty much stayed (within 10lbs or so) for all the rest of the P-40s except the ones they yanked the forward tank on. the very early P-40s had no armor. the B & C got 93lbs of armor and BP glass. On the later ones the armor and BP glass were lumped in with armament provisions making it hard to track. communications equipment went from 71lbs to around 130lb and then to 233lbs on the P-40N (typo?). Electrical went from 193lbs to between 230-240lbs (at least on the ones that had full electrical)
> 
> Adding around 400lbs to the empty weight of the P-36 is going to hurt performance. As will filling the fuel tank/s. On the P-36 the tank behind the pilot was a Ferry/overload tank and was not supposed to be filled when performing maneuvers. There may be some confusion when the test of the P-36 with the -23 engine refers to full gas and oil as other paperwork the 57 gallons in the rear tank is called auxiliary fuel.
> ...



The first P36/Hawk 75 tested by the British had 4 guns and was tested at 6025 pounds and it was flown against a Spitfire I which also would not have had armor or self sealing tanks. Adding 400 pounds to the P36 will hurt performance IF YOU DONT ADD POWER. This is where the P&W 1830 2 speed comes in. The Spitfire gained weight also, so did the 109, but they added power as it did. Even the Zero got heavier but they added power along with it.

Again, look at the bottom of the wing of this P40 (as you said, firewall back its a P36). If an empty drop tank shackle cost a P39 10 mph, what did that landing gear disaster cost the P36/P40? Did it cost it 20mph? An empty drop tank shackle cost 10 mph for a P39 and there are 2 of these. So a 2 speed engine, clean this disaster up and a P36 should gain how much? (A P66 with a 2 speed P&W 1830 did 340 mph with a nice clean wing)






That’s a 340 mph P66

I read that a Zero had 12% lower drag than a P40. A Zero was in the 315-330 mph range with a 950 hp engine so.....

And the rear fuselage tank being full putting a P36/Hawk 75 overgross and can't fight???? Come on Shortround, a Mustang couldn't fight with the back tank full either. It was for long missions or ferrying.


----------



## Shortround6 (May 12, 2018)

A P-66 used a wing 83.4% the size of the P-36 wing which sure didn't hurt drag. 








Hawks and P-36 used a fairing plate/door over the wheels and to eliminate the abrupt end to the landing gear strut fairing. I have no idea why it was dropped from the P-40 as they surely must have known the difference in drag. Not as good as a smooth wing as you say but not as bad as a P-40 set up? 

Unless you can shrink the P-36 it is not going to get down to the drag of the P-66.

Point of the fuel was that you don't get a big boost in range over other fighters using the P-36. 105 US gallons is less than a Hurricane. 
Things changed on the P-40. The CG moved a bit forward and the wings were beefed up. wings went from around 835-845lbs to just over 1000lbs (and over 1100lbs on the 6 gun D/E and up) and there was no restriction on flying with fuel in the rear tank, in fact on the P-40F and L the pilot was _supposed_ to keep around 35 gallons in the rear tank at all times and use it as the reserve in comparison to the P-40E where the rear tank was supposed to drained first (after the drop tank) and the forward tank used as the reserve. The Merlin was several hundred pounds heavier than the Allison. 

Slick as the Zero may be, the P-40 was supposed to have 22% less drag than a P-36. This is borne out by figures from early testing from here.
P-36 Flight Tests

and 
P-40 Performance Tests

some of the early tests, even with different propellers and/or wing leading edge blisters. The P-40 needed less power to fly the same speeds even if heavier. 

as for a Zero being 12% lower in drag than an early P-40????
"High speed at 15,000 ft. at wide open throttle was 352 mph at 1090 bhp at 3000 rpm, radiator shutters neutral."
"High speed at 2600 rpm at 15,000 ft. at wide open throttle, was *331.5 mph at 920 bhp*, radiator shutters neutral."
Cruising data at 15,000 ft; 310 True Speed MPH......2280 R.P.M. .....720 B.H.P. ......75 % Rated BHP

Excuse me, but I am not seeing it. 

BTW the 2 speed engine in the P-66 was good for 1050hp at 13,100ft military power (2700rpm) no ram. 
About the best performance from a 2 speed R-1830 is going to be 1000hp at 14,500ft no ram at 2700rpm. 

Allison gets a useful amount of exhaust thrust which may skew things.


----------



## pinsog (May 12, 2018)

My apologies on giving Zero 12% lower drag than P40. After reading so many different references, numbers can get jumbled. They say Zero is ‘marginally’ lower drag than P40C. Here is the reference. It’s at the bottom of the page.





Interesting the 2 speed P&W would have a lower altitude rating than the 1830-23 which was 950 at 17,000. That being the case, I would use the 1830-23 instead, that would give it a 15 mph faster top speed 3,000 feet higher. It does not say say in the British test if that plane had pilot armor, but some of the French accounts of the Battle over France indicate that the P36/Hawk 75 they used had armor behind the pilot (I would bet they did not have armored glass or self sealing tanks)

BTW, nice P36/Hawk 75 pics.

So if we have a 317 [email protected],000 P36/Hawk75 with just an engine change to a 1830-23, wouldn't you think you could squeeze out at least 10 mph more by cleaning up the landing gear (and while we are at it, the bulges for the exhaust)? (again, if an empty drop tank shackle cost a P39 10 mph, what does the landing gear and exhaust bulges cost the P36/Hawk75 and P40?)

Quick note on rear tank. You said P36/Hawk75, without rear tank, held less fuel than a Hurricane. BUT, as I have seen it pointed out in other discussions, just to start, warmup and climb to 25,000 feet will use X (15-25 gallons?) amount of fuel. Even in a BoB type scramble, as long as they weren't over your field, you could use the rear tank for starting, warmup and climb,(putting just enough fuel in rear tank for that) then switch to wing tanks for the fight.


----------



## Shortround6 (May 12, 2018)

The thing with the P-36 is not that it was a bad plane, it is just that anything short of a total redesign doesn't offer anything over what was already available or being introduced.




Perhaps you can move the landing gear attachments out closer to the guns and when they fold inwards house the wheels in wing root extensions like the P-51 (and others).




The P-36 and P-40 used what they "called" a 5 spar wing although a couple of those appear to be little more than attachment points for the flaps and ailerons. 

It is not too hard to move things around when you are dealing with prototypes. It is something else when you have already built the jigs and fixtures and have hundreds of parts in the supply line. Curtiss built over 1100 domestic P-36s and export Hawk 75s from March/April of 1938 till Jan of 1941 (?).
At the end of 1940 Curtiss was building over 150 P-40s a month. A P-36 with six guns and a two speed R-1830 may have been a nice plane but what was it going to do that the P-40B &C could not do once you fitted self sealing tanks, armor and BP glass?


----------



## pinsog (May 12, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> The thing with the P-36 is not that it was a bad plane, it is just that anything short of a total redesign doesn't offer anything over what was already available or being introduced.
> View attachment 493080
> 
> Perhaps you can move the landing gear attachments out closer to the guns and when they fold inwards house the wheels in wing root extensions like the P-51 (and others).
> ...



I guess if “right from the beginning” then the P36 would have had a clean, flush, inward retracting landing gear from the beginning.
I don’t dislike the P40, I think it did fantastic considering the weight it lugged around with the available hp, but they went crazy with the weapons weight and it should have been a cleaner
I like the P36, short nose, outturn anything in Europe except the biplanes, great climb rate until air got thin.

I actually listen to much you say. Did you notice I did not advocate 50’s on the P36?
I was mistaken earlier, the 1939 Hawk75 weighed 6025 but it had a 1050 hp P&W and 4 guns. I imagine top speed was 290 ish at 15,000. Add 2 more RCM at 111 pounds makes it 6136, another 70 pounds of self sealing tanks put it up to 6,200 or so, 1830-23 so it’s at 317 mph at 17,000 with better climb. I think that plane had back armor, French pilot encounters I have read indicated they had back armor. Clean up the wing (landing gear and exhaust) to add another 10-20 mph and I think it would have been a handful at least through BoB in Europe and through 1943 in Pacific.

Also notice I’m not using time travel by trying to use heavy 2 speed 2 stage Wildcat engines, but instead using 1830-23 engines, when it became available, keeping weight down with 6 30 caliber machine guns


----------



## The Basket (May 12, 2018)

I wonder what an earlier better Spitfire could have been...or at least a better Seafire.
Bubble canopy or at least better all round visibility canopy like the Zero.
Wider track undercarriage.
20mm cannon.
More fuel tankage.
Fuel injection Merlin.
All certainly was possible by 1930s tech so not been overly anachronistic.
Even some kind of compressed air ejection seat was not impossible.


----------



## Shortround6 (May 12, 2018)

pinsog said:


> I guess if “right from the beginning” then the P36 would have had a clean, flush, inward retracting landing gear from the beginning.
> I don’t dislike the P40, I think it did fantastic considering the weight it lugged around with the available hp, but they went crazy with the weapons weight and it should have been a cleaner
> I like the P36, short nose, outturn anything in Europe except the biplanes, great climb rate until air got thin.
> 
> ...



I don't dislike the P-36, it's just once they put the Allison in it the R-1830 and R-182 engines dropped to substitute standard. 
Yes they might have done much better with the P-40s if they hadn't demanded some rather excessive gun and ammo set-ups. A P-36 carried 200 rounds for it's single .50 (Yaks and Lagg-s carried 180-220 rounds for their 12.7mm guns) The Army went to 380rpg for the cowl .50s on the P-40. Which with the under 600rpm rate of fire for the synchronized guns was an absurd amount of ammo. The P-40B was carrying 228lbs of .50 cal _ammo alone_ if the ammo boxes were full. A P-36C with one .50 and three .30s was carrying about 296lb of GUNS AND AMMO. Cut back to 200rpg and you could save about 105-110lbs and still have enough ammo to shoot for over 20 seconds. You could also cut 600 rounds ( about 36-38lbs) of the wing gun ammo and still fire longer than a Spit I or Hurricane I. 

Lets also remember that the P-36 had some pretty good looking landing gear compared to the P-35





or the infamous Gloster F.5/34 that some people are enamoured of. 




P-36 exhaust look pretty good in comparison too.


----------



## Zipper730 (May 12, 2018)

*Regarding the P-47*



tomo pauk said:


> My idea: plumb the wings of the P-47C/D for drop tanks from day one. 600 gals of fuel, no sweat


There wasn't really any major problem with drop-tanks by the way, physically.


----------



## pinsog (May 12, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> I don't dislike the P-36, it's just once they put the Allison in it the R-1830 and R-182 engines dropped to substitute standard.
> Yes they might have done much better with the P-40s if they hadn't demanded some rather excessive gun and ammo set-ups. A P-36 carried 200 rounds for it's single .50 (Yaks and Lagg-s carried 180-220 rounds for their 12.7mm guns) The Army went to 380rpg for the cowl .50s on the P-40. Which with the under 600rpm rate of fire for the synchronized guns was an absurd amount of ammo. The P-40B was carrying 228lbs of .50 cal _ammo alone_ if the ammo boxes were full. A P-36C with one .50 and three .30s was carrying about 296lb of GUNS AND AMMO. Cut back to 200rpg and you could save about 105-110lbs and still have enough ammo to shoot for over 20 seconds. You could also cut 600 rounds ( about 36-38lbs) of the wing gun ammo and still fire longer than a Spit I or Hurricane I.
> 
> Lets also remember that the P-36 had some pretty good looking landing gear compared to the P-35
> ...



Agreed on the P35 landing gear. Dang. Nice big jump over to the P43 which was so nice and clean.

Also, to your point, so much easier to do this in hindsight when we know what they faced and how well they historically did.

Wish we had more tests and info on the less well known planes. I’d love to see some full on more thorough test data on P43 and P36 with 1830-23 like time to climb to 30,000, top speed all the way up to 30,000 etc


----------



## Shortround6 (May 13, 2018)

The -23 was not some wonder engine. it was a normal -17 in which they swapped the normal 7.15 supercharger gear for an 8.0 supercharger gear. After tests it was converted back to a -17 engine. The two speed engines (aside from any experiments?) used the normal 7.15 for low gear and an 8.47 gear for high. A few engines were built using the 8.47 as the only gear (-31 engine) , these had extended shafts and were used in the Curtiss XP-42 and Seversky XP-41. They offered no more power at altitude than a two speed engine and less at low altitude/take-off. The -17 made 1200hp at 2700rpm (using US 100 octane) the -23 was limited to 1100hp at 2700rpm and the -31 was limited to 1050hp at 2550rpm, all at take-off. Because of the different gear ratios the -31 engine was turning the impeller at 21,598 rpm while the -17 was turning it at 19,305 rpm despite the different take-off rpm. 
P & W may have done very little development on the R-1830 engine as they concentrated on the R-2800. I don't have a definitive timeline but it looks like they were working on the two stage R-1830 well before they built any two speed single stage engines. 

Had the Allison flopped or Allison had more difficulty in ramping up production then perhaps more effort would have been put into a better P-36. 
Please note that an R-1830 making 1200hp for take-off was running at 48in MAP or about 9lbs of boost which was pretty extreme for 1940/41. It was 4in more than the Allison used and 6in more than a Merlin at 6lbs. (rounded off, not getting into fractions here


----------



## The Basket (May 13, 2018)

Gloster F5/34 Zero?
Can you imagine if the RAF or FAA had them in the Pacific? You would have to shoot down your wingman just to be sure.


----------



## Zipper730 (May 16, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> The -23 was not some wonder engine. it was a normal -17 in which they swapped the normal 7.15 supercharger gear for an 8.0 supercharger gear.


How much did the critical altitude improve?


----------



## Shortround6 (May 16, 2018)

The -17 could make 1050hp at 6500ft at 2550 rpm.
The -23 could make 950hp at 14,500ft at 2700rpm. 

In test flight/s the -17 made about 1000hp hp at 10,000ft in level high speed flight with RAM,and 
about 850hp at 15,000ft level high speed flight with RAM.

In test flight/s the -23 made 950hp at 17,000ft in level high speed flight with RAM,and
a

In test flight/s the -23 made 950hp at 17,000ft in level high speed flight with RAM,

An early P-40 could make 1090hp at 15,000ft in level high speed flight with RAM.
A Hurricane I could make 1030hp at 16,500ft or above level high speed flight with RAM.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (May 16, 2018)

*Regarding USAAF Two-Stage Supercharging*



gjs238 said:


> Tell Allison from Day 1 to design the V-1710 with 2-stage supercharging.


Well the design was configured with a bolt-on for either a turbocharger or supercharger. It's just the USAAF had far more interest in turbos than twin-superchargers


----------



## Zipper730 (May 16, 2018)

*Regarding the P-61*



wuzak said:


> My first thought is the P-61. Instead of the original concept of the 3 man crew with powered turret with 4 x 0.50s
> 
> It should have been built with a 2 man crew, single canopy (or dual if the canopy is too large for 1942/43), keeping the nose radar and teh 4 x 20mm belly cannon. It would have looked a lot like the P-61E day fighter.


That has been thought of before by an aviation buff I know online, I also thought it would have been a good idea even despite the fact that the RAF wanted a turret-fighter for the P-61.

Far as I know the specification might have been inspired by a comment by Jack Northrop or somebody he worked for, based around his thought that you should have a plane that could stay over the battlefield (which in this case, was often a city) all night. The British were fixated with the idea of turrets, far as I know because

The night-fighter can attack bombers higher than itself by shooting up at them: This shouldn't be necessary provided...
The aircraft are performing standing-patrols: Eliminates the need to climb up to altitude and speed
The aircraft has a suitably high cruising-altitude
There are multiple aircraft on station: Eliminates the issue of having one aircraft chase a bomber to lower altitudes, then have to climb-back

The guns can be aimed independent of the heading of the aircraft: Not sure how important that is as the plane could maneuver almost as good as some day-fighters.
I'm not sure it was really needed because

The aircraft was quite maneuverable: The rated g-load was 7.3 which makes it almost the same as some day fighters (7.33g to 8g)
The aircraft wasn't doing point-defense intercepts: They did standing patrols which probably consisted of several aircraft covering a given area at a time, with some aircraft on the ground to relieve as necessary.
The early turrets had buffeting problems when they were moved in either elevation and azimuth; this was later fixed, but it often flew without them
While the turret only added a few mph to the aircraft, possibly some improvements in climb and acceleration, but it also allowed additional fuel-capacity
The only drawback I could see is that the A-26 had a competitor for the night-fighter role and might have won as it had a pair of turrets


> It may have also been fitted with turbos, as per the P-61C, from the start - depending on turbocharger availability.


The reason for them forgoing the turbocharger was

The turbocharger would have increased cruising-altitude about 10,000 feet
It also would have required for the same indicated airspeed, a higher true airspeed, and by extension a higher overall speed; this would have required a shorter endurance even if range was increased
Interestingly, I'm not sure if *any* P-61's could do 8 hours endurance



model299 said:


> The 4 gun top turret proved problematic in early models with severe buffeting when trained anywhere besides straight forward.


That's right, though these problems were largely fixed: It's just the same technology employed in the turrets was used on the B-29's


----------



## davparlr (May 22, 2018)

Interesting discussion on cancelling high altitude strategic bombing for smaller fast bombers and fighters. Fighters were none starters. Loaded down with only the ability to carry few bombs, airspeed and maneuverability was severely reduced (see problems with the F-4 and F-105s in Vietnam) and would be sitting ducks to defense if total air control could not be maintained as in the Battle of Britain. The only fast bombers that could survive in that environment would be the Mosquito and an up-powered short wing B-26s, both with limited bomb loads, and then only with air cover or surprise. In any event, fighting over a tactical battle field is a dangerous situation; you can’t give the enemy a safe haven, like in Korea. My opinion.

My recommendation on what should have been done.

1. Expedite and clean up ground handling issues of the P-66 and install the F4F-3 PW-1830-76 engine, 1000 hp at 19K. Should be equivalent to 1940 versions of Bf-109s and Spitfires. And/or, AAF gets Vought to develop straight wing lighter land based F4U.

2. As said elseware, get that Allison a high performance supercharger.

3. If possible, get that uprated engine in the P-51 in 1942.

4. Incorporate the low drag P-51 type wing in the Spitfire, Bf 109 and Fw 190.

5. Incorporate the P-51 type radiator in the Spitfire and Bf 109.

6. Incorporate more internal fuel on the early P-47s (there’s gotta be room somewhere, maybe right behind the pilot.

7. Incorporate drop tanks on the early P-47s.

8. I hate to say this, but cancel the B-26 and build the B-33A to have ready by 1943. I want 50 mph cruise increase over the B-17/24 to reduce exposer to defenses and 300 mph dash to escape target area.

9. Navy to start design of slanted deck carriers. Massive increase in safety and hitting power. Problem, Panama Canal.

10. For Germany, invest in radial compressor jet engine. Much less hoops to jump through to get much more powerful engines, ala Nene and J-33.

11. For Germany, don’t invade Russia. I know, not technical.

12. For Germany, don’t declare war on US. Ditto.


----------



## Shortround6 (May 22, 2018)

Some of those are a lot easier than others 

Not sure what the fascination is the P-66. It is a modified trainer and it is only going to take you so far. Not only that but you need a time machine to get R-1830-76 engines in 1940 in any quantity. The only built 98 two stage engines in 1940 and 81 of them were in the last 4 months. 

The P-47 could easily hold more fuel, they got it up to 370 gallons in the later ones without a behind the seat tank. Trouble is trying to fight with an extra 65 gallons (390lbs) and bigger tank with the original engine and propeller. P-47s first went into action in April 1943, water injection doesn't show up until Oct/Nov? and the paddle blade props start showing up in Dec. 43. 

I am not sure that angled flight decks would Help the US that much with piston engine aircraft. The US, in general, had much larger flight decks than the RN and tended to fly off the majority of the aircraft when launching a strike, only catapulting enough aircraft to get enough deck length to enable the rest to fly off. 

It would have been safer but the US often used a crash barrier to keep planes that missed the arresting gear from hitting the planes parked on the forward deck.


----------



## wuzak (May 22, 2018)

davparlr said:


> 2. As said elseware, get that Allison a high performance supercharger.
> 
> 3. If possible, get that uprated engine in the P-51 in 1942.



Unless the uprated Allison supercharger is a 2 stage unit, it won't last long before being replaced with Merlin P-51s.




davparlr said:


> 4. Incorporate the low drag P-51 type wing in the Spitfire, Bf 109 and Fw 190.



There are many areas in the Spitfire where the drag could be reduced at lower cost.

Fit and finish is one. Detail design around things like the canopy (the front part was too steep, costing, IIRC, about 8-10mph in speed).

Also, does changing the wing section change the way it performs? Would the Spitfire lose some of its best characteristics to gain some speed?




davparlr said:


> 5. Incorporate the P-51 type radiator in the Spitfire and Bf 109.



Apparently Supermarine suggested such a course of action, but was rejected because production was more important than the performance increase.

It must be noted that the Spitfire's radiators were designed around the same principle as the Mustang's, but the inlet and outlet sizes, and the expansion ratios weren't well designed. Additionally, the control flap on the radiator only had two positions, at least on early models.

A fuselage mounted radiator matrix may have allowed some extra fuel storage in the wings, but at the cost of rear fuselage fuel tanks.

Not sure that the Bf 109 was big enough for such a radiator type.

Incidentally, the Spiteful utilised a low drag wing and BF 109 style radiators, and was about 50mph faster than a Spitfire XIV with the same engine.


----------



## tomo pauk (May 23, 2018)

davparlr said:


> My recommendation on what should have been done.
> 
> 1. Expedite and clean up ground handling issues of the P-66 and install the F4F-3 PW-1830-76 engine, 1000 hp at 19K. Should be equivalent to 1940 versions of Bf-109s and Spitfires. And/or, AAF gets Vought to develop straight wing lighter land based F4U.
> 
> ...



2 & 3. Yes, indeed.
4. Much easier said then done. Probably not that worth for Spitfire (already with a thin, low drag wing), while the Germans are more in need of 2-stage supercharged engines?
5. Gains would've probably best felt on Spitfires with 2-stage engines, meaning that Spitfire IX/VIII is close to the Merlin Mustang? For early Spitfires (I-VI), easy gains can be attained via use of better carb & exhausts, fully covered U/C, better fit & finish, internal BP glass vs. external.
6 & 7. Bigger main tank is easy to do, so are drop tanks. 
8. B-26 indeed looks like an un-needed bomber (Greg is going to hate me for saying this).
9 & 10. Agree.


----------



## Shortround6 (May 23, 2018)

I am not at all sure that angled flight decks would be that much of an improvement for WW II carriers. While _perhaps_ safer for landing (?) I am not sure that the benefits outway the problems. 
Most piston engine planes had enough acceleration in hand that wave-offs were not a big problem. This was not the case with jet aircraft in the 40s and 50s and indeed the Ryan Fireball was one attempt to get around this.





The other thing is the relative speeds and angles involved. Carriers tried to steam into the wind but yes, gust could and did change the actual direction of the wind. at least to some extent. 10-15mph wind fighting the 30kt speed of the carrier means an off the bow wind vector is what? 
Landing your 70-80kt airplane on the angled 30+ kt carrier deck with that slight cross wind component may be a bit trickier than landing a faster, heavier jet on the same deck. Or 1950s piston engine planes. Some of the early jets stalled at around 100kts. (or over 110kts when loaded). 

And as I said before, the Americans could launch the majority of a strike group without using catapults so going from 2 to 3/4 doesn't speed things up much.


----------



## davparlr (May 23, 2018)

All good comments by knowledgeable contributors.



Shortround6 said:


> Some of those are a lot easier than others
> 
> Not sure what the fascination is the P-66. It is a modified trainer and it is only going to take you so far. Not only that but you need a time machine to get R-1830-76 engines in 1940 in any quantity. The only built 98 two stage engines in 1940 and 81 of them were in the last 4 months.


I like it!  It was designed by the same designer of the Hughes H-1, so he certainly knew how to make fast airplanes. It was much faster than the Curtiss Hawk or the XP-41 and, with the new engine, could possibly be as fast as the P-40D, and would probably put it in the speed range of the Bf 109E and Spitfire II. It also seems that the pilots liked it. Oh, recommendation 13. Expedite the introduction and manufacturing of the R-1830-75 engine.

Side thought: Since the P-66 was 30-40 mph faster than the similar engined P-36A, how much faster would an Allison powered P-66 be over the P-40. As is, the streamlined Vanguard prototype was faster than the more powerful P-40 (1 mph).




> The P-47 could easily hold more fuel, they got it up to 370 gallons in the later ones without a behind the seat tank. Trouble is trying to fight with an extra 65 gallons (390lbs) and bigger tank with the original engine and propeller. P-47s first went into action in April 1943, water injection doesn't show up until Oct/Nov? and the paddle blade props start showing up in Dec. 43.


You are correct but it’s turbo-supercharged horsepower would still command the air above 25k, being 800 hp more than the Bfs and Fws. In addition, just the psychological impact to the defenders that there could be eight fifty cals above them ready to swoop down with a lot of energy and firepower, could be very distracting and would make attacking the bombers more complex and dangerous. Without this, history shows that the bombers would be very vulnerable.



> I am not sure that angled flight decks would Help the US that much with piston engine aircraft. The US, in general, had much larger flight decks than the RN and tended to fly off the majority of the aircraft when launching a strike, only catapulting enough aircraft to get enough deck length to enable the rest to fly off.


I must admit that I am not an expert in this area but there is several areas in which the angled deck would be a significant advantage. One, of course is safety. The landing aircraft is moving away from the island providing a bit more error tolerance (there’s that video of an F6F crashing into the island). Also, I suspect that running into the net could cause damage to the aircraft, including engine, and, failure of the net could cause catastrophic damage to other aircraft and possibly the ship.

The ability of landing aircraft at the same time launching activities are occurring appears to be a significant advantage, especially in air to ground support where an aircraft makes one or two passes and then needs to rearm while other launches are occurring, or, aircraft are returning from a mission low on fuel and combat air patrol needs to launch to address and incoming threat, which was a major problem with the Japanese at Midway.

I don’t know if this was possible for ww2 operations, but if simultaneous (or alternating) launches of aircraft from straight and angled deck were possible, strike airborne assembly time could be almost halved, reducing fuel consumption, extending range/time on target and strike timing.



> Most piston engine planes had enough acceleration in hand that wave-offs were not a big problem. This was not the case with jet aircraft in the 40s and 50s


I don’t think wave offs were a particular issue. I suspect both jets and props flew at similar approach speeds based on the aircraft, probably something like 1.3 Vstall so their safety margins were the same. Early jet engines did spin up much slower than props but they were very draggy on approach and probably had a pretty high throttle setting. I think they were well trained on wave-offs all the way down to cut throttle signal. If either messed up after that, neither was likely have a successful bolt. I think the main problem was missed or broke arresting wire.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Oct 22, 2019)

The Basket said:


> Gloster F5/34 Zero?
> Can you imagine if the RAF or FAA had them in the Pacific? You would have to shoot down your wingman just to be sure.


Then we’d better hope no one brings the Caproni Vizzola F.5.







At least SAAB’s L-12 never made it, keeping any neutral Swedes out of harm’s way.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Oct 23, 2019)

The Basket said:


> Gloster F5/34 Zero?
> Can you imagine if the RAF or FAA had them in the Pacific? You would have to shoot down your wingman just to be sure.


Did I write that? 
Wow. Shakespeare. 
I ain't laughing at my own jokes because I have zero recollection of writing that. 
So I can appreciate it on a new level.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Oct 24, 2019)

wuzak said:


> Another what if subject allowing us to use the great benefit of hindsight.
> 
> The idea is simple - list aircraft that were built/used during WW2 which could have been built better had they used ideas from later. These changes would have to be technically feasible in the time frame of the original aircraft, with engines historically available at the time (ie you can't say the Spitfire should have been the Mk XIV at the time of the BoB).
> 
> ...



This is September / October 1940. So what you see is what you get, a bigger better Beaufighter with a turret.


----------

