8th Dec 1941, USAAF: you are in charge

P-43 plus V-1710, maybe?

Yep they did - but I was thinking that they may have had an in-between version with an R 2600 engine maybe?
This should have given the P 53 genuine performance, if it had self sealing tanks etc - it would have been a good stop gap fighter.

vinnye said:

Maybe you could iron out the issues with the P53 Lancer and use that to hold the line until Merlin P51 arrives in numbers?

Click to expand...

UH, why?

The P-43 Lancer was ordered for the most part, to help Republic expand their factory and work force so as to be able to build the P-47 in the desired numbers. It was never intended to be a large production aircraft even before they discovered the problems. The last 125 built were ordered under lend-lease for the Chinese on June 30, 1941. Please note that this is 9 1/2 months AFTER the FIRST contract for 773 P-47s is placed and 7 weeks AFTER the first flight of the P-47B prototype. COntinued production of the P-43 would be at the expense of P-47-Bs and Cs and lead to a less capable air-force in late 1942/early 1943.

The P-43 is going to need an awful lot of help to "hold the line" even if it's problems were straightened out.

The P 43 was supposedly a better performer than the P 40, so I would have thought an improved version could have improved the chances of the guys who were fighting in the PTO particularly.
just found this on Wiki -

Production aircraft identical to the YP-43 prototypes, were designated "Lancer" and were delivered between 16 May and 28 August 1941. Ongoing delays in the P-47 program resulted in USAAC ordering an additional 80 P-43J, with Pratt Whitney R-2180-1 Twin Hornet engine rated at 1,400 hp (1,000 kW). The engine promised better high-altitude performance, and armament was upgraded with 0.50 in machine guns replacing the 0.30 in in the wings. The USAAC was sufficiently interested to assign the AP-4J variant an official designation P-44 Rocket. Combat reports from Europe indicated that the new type was already obsolete, consequently, the entire order was canceled on 13 September 1940, with no prototypes built.

Alexander Kartveli and his team focused their efforts on the advanced AP-10/XP-47 which eventually became the fabled P-47 Thunderbolt.[1] When the Pratt Whitney R-2800 engine intended for the new P-47 was not yet available, it was decided to order 54 P-43s to keep the Republic production lines operating. An additional 125 P-43A-1s were ordered for China through the Lend-Lease program, originally intended to equip the Third American Volunteer Group (AVG). These initially differed in the Air Materiel Command specification from earlier P-43s in being armed with two 0.50 in machine guns in each wing and no fuselage guns, and having rudimentary armor and fuel tank protection.[5] This would have required a series of serious engineering changes. Reality intervened: actually, as delivered, the P-43A-1 had the same armament layout as the P-43As: four .50 in machine guns, two in the cowl and two in the wings. Externally, they were identical, and only the serial numbers distinguishes a P-43A from a P-43A-1. Many of these aircraft were fitted with cockpit armor before shipment westward from California in crates; evidence is murky whether the cockpit armor came from Republic or was cobbled together after delivery.[6]

By 1942, a total of 272 P-43 and its variants were built, a remarkable number considering the original intention was to not build any.[5]

vinnye said:

Yep they did - but I was thinking that they may have had an in-between version with an R 2600 engine maybe?
This should have given the P 53 genuine performance, if it had self sealing tanks etc - it would have been a good stop gap fighter.

Click to expand...

We have been over this before. Sticking 1900lb engines in planes that had 1450lb engines (plus bigger propellers) and all the other assorted bits a pieces that go with it is NOT a quicky job.

R-2600 is actually bigger in diameter than an R-2800. It needs the size turbo (C series) instead of the smaller "B" series used in P-38s, B-17s and B-24s.

Timing is all wrong. It will only delay the P-47.

The Number of turbo R-2600s was very small, only used on a few A-20s (?) and tended to overheat. Maybe it could have been solved but you are back to development and not production.

vinnye said:

The P 43 was supposedly a better performer than the P 40, so I would have thought an improved version could have improved the chances of the guys who were fighting in the PTO particularly.

Click to expand...

A better performer where?

One source :"Maximum speed was 356 mph at 25,000 feet. An altitude of 15,000 feet could be reached in 6 minutes. Service ceiling was 36,000 feet, and range was 650 miles."

Or from Mike Williams site; P-43 Performance

Please note that the performance figures on Mr. Williams site are for the early planes with no armor, no self sealing tanks and and an armament of two .50 cal guns and two .30 cal guns. Later planes got heavier even if they did get engines that would hold power to higher altitudes.

From Wiki ;
The Republic P-43 Lancer was a single-engine, all-metal, low-wing monoplane fighter aircraft built by Republic, first delivered to the United States Army Air Corps in 1940.[1] A proposed development was the P-44 Rocket. While no world-beater as a fighter, the P-43A had a very good high-altitude performance coupled with an effective oxygen system. Fast and well-armed with excellent long-range capabilities, until the arrival of the P-38, the Lancer was the only Allied fighter capable of catching a Japanese Mitsubishi Ki-46 "Dinah" "recon bird" at the speeds and heights at which they flew. In addition, the P-43 flew many long-range, high-altitude photo recon missions until replaced by F-4/F-5 Lightnings (P-38 variants) in both the USAAF and RAAF.

and ;
The Lend-Lease aircraft were delivered to China through Claire Chennault's American Volunteer Group, the "Flying Tigers". Pilots involved in the ferrying flights commended the P-43 for its good high-altitude performance compared to the Curtiss P-40, good roll rate and a radial engine without a vulnerable liquid cooling system. Apparently, several AVG pilots asked Chennault to keep some P-43s, but the request was denied due to the aircraft's lack of armor or self-sealing fuel tanks. In addition, the turbo-supercharger proved unreliable and the "wet wing" fuel tanks leaked constantly.[7] In June 1942, Robert L. Scott Jr—an AVG pilot—photographed the peaks of Mt. Everest from 44,000 ft (13,000 m), attesting to the strengths of this aircraft. The P-43 performed poorly in combat in the hands of the Chinese Air Force against Japan due to its great vulnerability; it was replaced by other aircraft in early 1944. Rudimentary protection added on the P-43A-1 was insufficient. In addition, the P-43's R-1830 engines were in high demand for the Douglas C-47 transport, effectively grounding the surviving aircraft.

davebender said:

Micro managing Philippine air operations from CONUS is the wrong approach. Appoint a competent general to command FEAF and they will do just fine during December 1941.

Click to expand...

They didn't have much of a chance, regardless of who commanded them. Too little, too late.

Duane