1941: the best case for 350+ mph CV fighters?

[Shortround6]

Hmmmm, A5M4 was in a whole different class than the 109. A wing a speckle bigger than wing on a 109T and weight of around 62% (both clean) means a much lower stalling speed. Wing loading of a 109T was 32.7lb per sq fr clean. the A5M4 was under 20. Even a late model F4F-4 was under 31 lb/sqft clean.

Some things are scaled due to the size/weight of the fighter and somethings are not. A small plane needs a proportionally larger hook on the arresting gear because the cables are a standard size and standard height above deck. Catapult attachment points are standardized. Yes the reinforcement on a lighter plane might be lighter.

as for the controlled crashes. The main landing gear on a P-40 had 7in of travel. the P-51 had 8in, the F4F had 12.5in of travel.
Other planes had????

Different countries may have had different radius requirements due to the size of the carriers and doctrine. The US operate large carriers with large strike groups.(or multiple carriers per carrier task force) As did the Japanese. the majority of early war British carriers, the only French carrier, the planned Italian carrier and the German carrier/s (planned/converted) operated small air groups and didn't have to speed as much time forming up or recovering strike groups. Of course some of these carriers would only have a nominal effect on a battle. For the Germans it doesn't matter if the carrier fighters do 330mph or 360mph. With only 12 fighters planned to be embarked they hardly have enough for a CAP let alone an escort group for the strike planes.
The Spitfire/ 109 Hurricane and any like conversions may have enough range/endurance for use in European waters but would be short of range/endurance for pacific operations.

 

[pinsog]

Back to my point: The only LAND based planes of the time that could legit do 350 mph were the Spitfire and ME109
No Japanese fighters could. Only US fighter that was 350 capable and in service in any numbers by 1940 was maybe P40? P38 wasn't, P39 wasn't and P43 wasn't even going to be produced

 

[GrauGeist]

The P-43 had a max. speed of 356 and while that may seem impressive, it's 650 mile range becomes a liability.

How do you guys think an ME109 would handle controlled crash landings on a carrier day after day?(Spitfire didn't like it)
How well would that tiny little fighter handle the weight gain of being navalized?

The Bf109's gear was actually designed to handle unimproved (grass) operations, this attribute would certainly mean it was rugged enough for carrier ops.

And the P-43 was produced: 272 units built and put into service in various capacities.

 

[tomo pauk]

Back to my point: The only LAND based planes of the time that could legit do 350 mph were the Spitfire and ME109
No Japanese fighters could. Only US fighter that was 350 capable and in service in any numbers by 1940 was maybe P40? P38 wasn't, P39 wasn't and P43 wasn't even going to be produced

The thing with Japanese is that engine chosen to power production Zeroes was perhaps 5th power-wise choice. For 1941, stick the Ha-41 on Zero and engine power goes up by 1/3rd.

The P-43 had a max. speed of 356 and while that may seem impressive, it's 650 mile range becomes a liability.
...

The P-43 seem to make 1000 miles on 145 gals and 227 mph. Max fuel (no drop tank yet) was 218 gals.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-43/P-43_Official_Summary_of_Characteristics.jpg
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-43/P-43_Official_Performance_Summary.jpg

 

[Shortround6]

You have different loads between carrier operations and even grass fields.
Carrier landings usually involve higher sink rates or higher vertical impact speeds.
Once "down" or on take off the surface is much smoother.
There is also a world of difference between a prepared grass or dirt field and an "unimproved" one. Think of hitting speed bumps at 50-70 mph. There is not only a vertical movement but a rearward twist/load.
Spitfires were designed to operate from grass fields but they were hardly "unimproved".

 

[tomo pauk]

Here is a "what if". What if the R2800 had been a failure like several of the British engines and some of the American engines? Then you don't have a Hellcat in mid 1943, or a Corsair.

We do have the Hellcat, it would've been powered by 2-stage R-2600, just like it's 1st prototype. Probably good for 360+ mph in 1943.

The Skyrocket and the Hellcat have the same top speed at sea level 312. At 17,000 feet, the Skyrocket is doing 357 on LESS hp than the Hellcat. At 17,000 the Hellcat is doing 357 on 1825 hp Military power while the Skyrocket is doing 357 on less than that because the Wright 1820-G231 were only rated 900 a piece up to 14,000 feet. So if the Skyrocket would do 357 on less than 1,800 hp, what would top speed be with 2,400 total hp (turbocharged 1820's) at that altitude? What would top speed be at 25,000 feet with 2,400 hp?

Truth to be told, the Hellcat was fully armed and protected when doing that turn of speed, unlike the XF5F. The Skyrocket will need to go for Twin Wasp (more power, smaler frontal area) in order to reclaim speed lost once armament & protection is installed.
The 'turbo Skyrocket' with 2400 HP will probably see 380 mph with radials?

They could have had F6F performance with current, proven engines in 1941 with the Skyrocket and should have been able to substantially exceed Hellcat performance if they had installed the turbocharged Wright 1820. Im sure performance would have gone up even more if they had chosen P&W 1830's instead of the Wright 1820 because of less drag, the Wildcat and P36 were both better with the P&W.

This can help us compare the sizes of nacelles required for the F5F with Twin Wasp vs. with Cyclone (just 2 wievs, not 5):

The engine power goes up by 100 HP pre engine in 1941.

 

[pinsog]

The P-43 had a max. speed of 356 and while that may seem impressive, it's 650 mile range becomes a liability.

The Bf109's gear was actually designed to handle unimproved (grass) operations, this attribute would certainly mean it was rugged enough for carrier ops.

And the P-43 was produced: 272 units built and put into service in various capacities.

I knew they made 272 P43's, but we didn't use them as a fighter. (Chinese did)
No way was I suggesting the P43 be used on a carrier. P43 would never have worked on a carrier. I DO think it should have been produced in some quantity (with a redesigned wing that had fuel tanks, not a wet wing) as a stop gap fighter in the Pacific until the P38 arrived in numbers.

My point, and I didn't type enough detail, was that there were only MAYBE half a dozen 350 mph LAND BASED fighters in the world at the beginning of 1941 and only 2 (Spit, 109) were even in mass production. SO the possibility of a carrier based 350 mph fighter was virtually 0.

Again, I think the only real possibility of a 350 mph carrier based fighter at the beginning of 1941 would be the XF5F and that is only if Grumman had completely dropped the Wildcat and only focused on the Skyrocket. Maybe the Skyrocket would have been a total failure, maybe it would have been a game changer from December 1941-June 1943 (or when ever the Hellcat finally showed up). I think it would have, with P&W 1830's, given Hellcat performance 1 1/2 years earlier, but we will never know.

 

[Shortround6]

Thank you for the pictures. The smaller nacelle may be for the Twin Wasp Junior R - 1535 and not the Twin Wasp R-1830.
The F5F was conceived around the R-1535.
The pictures do drive home the point that a pair of R-1820 Cyclones need a fair amount of power to drive through the air.

 

[pinsog]

No doubt they should have been using the P&W 1830's instead.

 

[Conslaw]

If the goal would be to have a 350-mph fighter on carrier decks du 1941,IMHO the best bet would have been to rush out a production version of the XF4U without making the changes they actually made. Of course this wouldn't have been a very good aircraft, and it would have been an even worse carrier aircraft, but it would have been at least as good as its competitors, the navalized Airocobra and the F5F, because those aircraft would have had uncorrected problems of similar or greater magnitude if rushed into service in
A short note about the P-43: The P-43 had roughly a 20-MPH speed advantage over the F4F.-3 with the same engine. This difference is in line with the difference in speed between the Spitfire and the Seafire, and it is roughly equal to the difference in speed between contemporary F4Us and P-47s. A navalized P-43 would have been no faster than the F4F-3.

The F4F-3 was a state-of-the-art carrier fighter in 1941. The A6M Zero was too. The designers of both aircraft just made different choices. The two-staged supercharger on the F4F-3 was an advanced technology of the time, and the Navy couldn't get enough of the two-staged engine to power all the planes Grumman could produce, hence a few planes were built as F4F-3A with a single-stage engine. As of December 7, 1941, the U.S. Navy was still in the process of replacing the F2A Buffalos on its carriers with F4Fs. In late 1941 Grumman shifted from building the F4F-3 to the F4F-4. Instead of going for a faster aircraft with the F4F-4, the Navy wanted a better protected, harder hitting fighter, so the F4F-4 was slower, had less range, and was much worse in a climb than the F4F-3. On the other hand, with folding wings, more F4F-4s could be carried on each carrier which made up for the loss in performance.

 

[Shortround6]

No doubt they should have been using the P&W 1830's instead.

The R-1830s were several hundred pounds heavier than the R-1820s and since the plane had initially been designed around R-1535s they may have been running into CG problems.

 

[stona]

The Bf109's gear was actually designed to handle unimproved (grass) operations, this attribute would certainly mean it was rugged enough for carrier ops.

So was the Spitfire's and it clearly was not.

Cheers

Steve

 

[pinsog]

The R-1830s were several hundred pounds heavier than the R-1820s and since the plane had initially been designed around R-1535s they may have been running into CG problems.[/QUOTE

Very true, they might have had to move radios or something farther back in the fuselage. Didn't they add lead weight to the tail of one Spitfire model after adding a heavier engine?

 

[pinsog]

Top speed shouldn't change much. F4F3 at sea level 500 pound difference between fighter and overload was 1 mph, 278-277. Skyrocket had 871 pound difference between fighter and overload, also 1 mph speed loss, 312-311




A P43 would do 356 at 25,000 on 1,200 hp. I know a Skyrocket drag is higher but I think it would be considerably faster with double the power.

 

[pinehilljoe]

I remember reading in Wings that Kelly Johnson had sketched a Naval P-38, but the tail hook was problematic. Anyone know if it got past concepts on the drawing board?

 

[XBe02Drvr]

Thank you for the pictures. The smaller nacelle may be for the Twin Wasp Junior R - 1535 and not the Twin Wasp R-1830.

What's the diff? Frontal area of the 1535 was so close to the 1830 as to be practically insignificant. The 1820, on the other hand, was a barn door, besides being a boneshaker. I've ridden behind both 1820 and 1830. I'll take a Pratt any day.
Cheers
Wes

 

[pinsog]

If the goal would be to have a 350-mph fighter on carrier decks du 1941,IMHO the best bet would have been to rush out a production version of the XF4U without making the changes they actually made. Of course this wouldn't have been a very good aircraft, and it would have been an even worse carrier aircraft, but it would have been at least as good as its competitors, the navalized Airocobra and the F5F, because those aircraft would have had uncorrected problems of similar or greater magnitude if rushed into service in
A short note about the P-43: The P-43 had roughly a 20-MPH speed advantage over the F4F.-3 with the same engine. This difference is in line with the difference in speed between the Spitfire and the Seafire, and it is roughly equal to the difference in speed between contemporary F4Us and P-47s. A navalized P-43 would have been no faster than the F4F-3.

The F4F-3 was a state-of-the-art carrier fighter in 1941. The A6M Zero was too. The designers of both aircraft just made different choices. The two-staged supercharger on the F4F-3 was an advanced technology of the time, and the Navy couldn't get enough of the two-staged engine to power all the planes Grumman could produce, hence a few planes were built as F4F-3A with a single-stage engine. As of December 7, 1941, the U.S. Navy was still in the process of replacing the F2A Buffalos on its carriers with F4Fs. In late 1941 Grumman shifted from building the F4F-3 to the F4F-4. Instead of going for a faster aircraft with the F4F-4, the Navy wanted a better protected, harder hitting fighter, so the F4F-4 was slower, had less range, and was much worse in a climb than the F4F-3. On the other hand, with folding wings, more F4F-4s could be carried on each carrier which made up for the loss in performance.

I never suggested the P43 as a carrier plane. Wasn't ever going to happen, no way, not ever. My point was, there were only 2, 350 mph land based fighters in the world that were being mass produced, the Spitfire and ME109. The US had a few in the pipeline, P38, P39 and P40. The P43 could have been ready earlier but they decided against even using it and only built a few and gave most to the chinese even though we had nothing to compete with it above 15-20,000 feet until the P38 FINALLY arrived in numbers.

F4f-3 was a pretty solid little fighter with good performance for it's time. F4F-4 was a pig. Period.
The P43 had a 20 mph speed advantage over the F4F-3, but they weighed exactly the same when they did the tests. Of course the P43 had 1,200 hp from SL to 25,000 so the higher it went the more the gap opened up. I am quite surprised that the P43 was 20 mph faster than the F4F-3 at sea level. They were exactly the same weight, so that would mean the Wildcat had more drag than the P43?????

 

[tomo pauk]

...
A short note about the P-43: The P-43 had roughly a 20-MPH speed advantage over the F4F.-3 with the same engine. This difference is in line with the difference in speed between the Spitfire and the Seafire, and it is roughly equal to the difference in speed between contemporary F4Us and P-47s. A navalized P-43 would have been no faster than the F4F-3.
...

The P-43 and F4F were not with same engine. Difference in wing size and P-43 available thrust above 20000 ft made the difference.

F4f-3 was a pretty solid little fighter with good performance for it's time. F4F-4 was a pig. Period.
The P43 had a 20 mph speed advantage over the F4F-3, but they weighed exactly the same when they did the tests. Of course the P43 had 1,200 hp from SL to 25,000 so the higher it went the more the gap opened up. I am quite surprised that the P43 was 20 mph faster than the F4F-3 at sea level. They were exactly the same weight, so that would mean the Wildcat had more drag than the P43?????

WIng area of F4F was 260 sq ft, that of the P-43 was 222 sq ft; both employed reasonably thin wing profile. So the P-43 will make less of the drag (expressed as a force, not as coefficient). The P-43 concieved without turbo, but with 2-stage R-1830 should've been faster than F4F-3/-4.

 

[pinsog]

I'm not surprised the P43 was faster above 15,000, but I was surprised that the P43 was 20 mph faster at sea level than the F4F-3 given that they were the same weight and same basic shape (short and fat)

 

[tomo pauk]

As above - much bigger wing of the F4F is mostly to blame.