1943: USN's ideal dynamic duo?

[tomo pauk]

...the duo comprising from an attack bomber (both dive bomber and torpedo 'carrier') and a fighter plane. Members are encouraged to propose something other than, say, 'Avenger Corsair'
Only historically, for the USN available bits pieces for the 'projects', please; the link for the document listing the US engine production is posted many times in the Forum. The planes need to be in service at least from April of 1943.

 

[davebender]

Does it need to be CV capable or can we give the USN a proper land based air fleet similiar to Japan?

 

[RCAFson]

I guess they'd have to build the Fairey Barracuda under license if they want a combined dive bomber and torpedo bomber by April 1943...

 

[ShVAK]

Could a SB2C drop torpedoes?

 

[gjs238]

Could an F4U do it all?

 

[RCAFson]

Could a SB2C drop torpedoes?

yes, and by late 1944, with the introduction of the SB2C-4, there were calls to beach the Avenger and carry only the Sb2C. Prior to the SB2C-4 it took many hours to convert the Sb2C to a torpedo bomber, but a rapid conversion kit was apparently introduced with the Sb2C-4 and then it became a true combined dive/torpedo bomber.

 

[ShVAK]

yes, and by late 1944, with the introduction of the SB2C-4, there were calls to beach the Avenger and carry only the Sb2C. Prior to the SB2C-4 it took many hours to convert the Sb2C to a torpedo bomber, but a rapid conversion kit was apparently introduced with the Sb2C-4 and then it became a true combined dive/torpedo bomber.

Interesting. Wonder why the Curtiss was so poorly regarded by some, it definitely was faster and more survivable than an Avenger by all accounts.

My 1943 fighter of choice of course would either be F4U or F6F. Probably leaning toward F6F if only because early Corsair marks weren't ideal as carrier planes.

 

[stug3]

Hellcat Helldiver

 

[parsifal]

maybe a two place Corsair with reduced forward firing armamanet, relying on external hardpots for ordinance and fitted with dive brakes. by 1943 needed to be fitted with ASV radar. Depending on speed, rear mounted armament may or may not be needed

 

[davebender]

Same reason P-39 and Me-210A were poorly regarded. Tricky / dangerous handling characteristics.

 

[VBF-13]

My 1943 fighter of choice of course would either be F4U or F6F. Probably leaning toward F6F if only because early Corsair marks weren't ideal as carrier planes.

It's interesting to note that the F4U was in the production stage while the F6F was still for the most part in concept. Why, then, didn't the Navy just go with the F4Us? There were a number of reasons for that. One probably was, the F4Us were a little more complicated of an aircraft, not only from a production standpoint, but from a maintenance standpoint. Probably the biggest reason, however, had to do, simply, with that Grumman plant. If ever there was a model of assembly-line efficiency and organization in a plant manufacturing carrier-qualified fighter-bombers, that plant was it, hands down. Couple with that Grumman's philosophy, build it simple, and build it strong, and it's hardly a surprise they manufactured some 12,000 of these in just three years. You ask anybody who actually flew or serviced the F6Fs and I'm sure they'll attest, they not only performed like gems, they rarely, if ever, experienced any mechanical problems, much less, breakdowns. Gumman also knew exactly what it was doing with the retractable wing designs, as it already had those on the F4Fs. I believe the Navy early on even considered the P-51, as it was that dead-set against the F4Us. The P-47, too, I believe. But, of course, neither did those qualify for the job, and, well, as they say, the rest is history.

My pick in this thread for the duo? Isn't it obvious? Two F6Fs.

 

[ShVAK]

Same reason P-39 and Me-210A were poorly regarded. Tricky / dangerous handling characteristics.

I think the P-39's reputation for that was overblown, surely the Soviets wouldn't have kept using it over their own designs or had that many P-39 aces if it was that much of a dog.

Yeah I remember reading now that the Curtiss' problem was poor longitudinal stability and being underpowered in earlier marks, a big problem for a carrier aircraft. Shorter range than the Dauntless too. The USN made it work well enough and it was fairly capable but they were never entirely happy with it compared to the good ol' SBD. Having more survivable fighters that could carry similar bomb payloads I'm sure didn't help, even though the Helldiver could put those bombs on target more accurately and was less vulnerable in the face of fighter opposition than a TBF was.

 

[davebender]

surely the Soviets wouldn't have kept using it over their own designs or had that many P-39 aces if it was that much of a dog.

You don't refuse 4,719 (per Wikipedia) free fighter aircraft when fighting a major war. I'd hazard a guess Germany, Japan or Italy would have flown P-39s too if over 4,000 were delivered free of charge.

 

[tomo pauk]

VVS was using also the P-40s, but were clamoring for the P-39s anyway. Or, it took the Soviets until 1944 to produce better fighters than P-39.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Douglas was attempting to address this equasion in 1941...

General characteristics

Crew: One
Length: 38 ft 7 in (11.76 m)
Wingspan: 45 ft 0 in (13.72 m)
Height: 13 ft 7 in (4.14 m)
Empty weight: 11,561 lb (5,244 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 19,000 lb (8,618 kg)
Powerplant: 1 × Wright R-3350-14 Cyclone 18 radial engine, 2,300 hp (1,715 kW)
Performance

Maximum speed: 334 mph (290 kn, 538 km/h) at 16,100 ft (4,900 m)
Service ceiling: 23,600 ft (7,195 m)
Armament


2 × 20 mm (.79 in) cannons
Up to 3,200 lb (1,450 kg) of bombs in the bomb bay or a single torpedo

 

[ShVAK]

You don't refuse 4,719 (per Wikipedia) free fighter aircraft when fighting a major war. I'd hazard a guess Germany, Japan or Italy would have flown P-39s too if over 4,000 were delivered free of charge.

True enough, but out of the Lend-Lease fighters the Soviets regarded the P-39 as the most desirable. Moreso than the less radically designed P-40, which was itself favored over the Hurricane. When you're hard up for planes you take what you can get, but in Soviet service and even early USAAF service there's very little suggesting it handled poorly or was unsafe (other than bailing out). It just lacked the high altitude performance necessary to be competitive.

 

[Thorlifter]

While the front looks like a Helldiver, the rest looks like Mr. Magoo designed it.

 

[tomo pauk]

For the fighter, the best engine available is the 2-stage R-2800. Fuselage akin to the FW-190A, the fuselage fuel tank being of L shape (so the pilot sits above behind of it) - say, like FW-190 that uses fuselage ammo bays space for fuel. Intercoolers oil cooler akin to F6F. 6 HMGs. Wing not too tick, but equipped with Fowler flaps, so the speed can be good, along with fine low speed handling.

 

[gjs238]

It's interesting to note that the F4U was in the production stage while the F6F was still for the most part in concept. Why, then, didn't the Navy just go with the F4Us? There were a number of reasons for that. One probably was, the F4Us were a little more complicated of an aircraft, not only from a production standpoint, but from a maintenance standpoint. Probably the biggest reason, however, had to do, simply, with that Grumman plant. If ever there was a model of assembly-line efficiency and organization in a plant manufacturing carrier-qualified fighter-bombers, that plant was it, hands down. Couple with that Grumman's philosophy, build it simple, and build it strong, and it's hardly a surprise they manufactured some 12,000 of these in just three years. You ask anybody who actually flew or serviced the F6Fs and I'm sure they'll attest, they not only performed like gems, they rarely, if ever, experienced any mechanical problems, much less, breakdowns. Gumman also knew exactly what it was doing with the retractable wing designs, as it already had those on the F4Fs. I believe the Navy early on even considered the P-51, as it was that dead-set against the F4Us. The P-47, too, I believe. But, of course, neither did those qualify for the job, and, well, as they say, the rest is history.

My pick in this thread for the duo? Isn't it obvious? Two F6Fs.

Vought's construction capacity was always low. Would have been interesting if Grumman was instructed to produce the F4U under license.
As for Grumman's strong capacity and capabilities, I've asked in other threads if they would have/could have been an excellent supplier for the Army.

 

[Shortround6]

You might be stretching things too far. America built over 100,000 fighter aircraft of the 8 major models. Grumman achieved some of their production totals with the help of "Eastern Aircraft" A group of General motors car factories, workers and management who took over Wildcat production and built the majority of the Avengers.

See: http://www.history.navy.mil/download/ww2-37.pdf

Take nothing away from Grumman but in the years since Grumman started up until WW II Grumman probably never built more than 200 planes a year. To do what Grumman did even without Eastern Aircraft was a tremendous feat.
To task them with trying to do even more ( even if only swiping some management personnel to oversee another factory) might have brought negative results. While Grumman's track record was certainly better than Brewster's by 1941 I doubt it was such that it so overshadowed the rest of the industry that the Army would have had any reason to go to them. Perhaps in 1944 but by then it is too late. You have to break ground on new factories ( or start converting old ones) a couple of years before you see aircraft in large numbers coming out the doors.