ALternatives for the P-38?

[Shortround6]

Without the turbos it won't do the P-38s job. Yes you save 900-1000lbs which is about 6-7% of the loaded weight of P-38 (using 16,000lbs). but at 25,000ft you have about 600hp per engine on a -39 Allison (no RAM) so you have about 54% of the power of a P-38 with even 1125hp engines. And the six machine guns have to go out in the wings.

 

[Shortround6]

The F4F was a monoplane version of the F3F, basically, and together with the F4U, those were the only two monoplane fighters the Navy had approved before the F6F.

That rather ignores the F2A (buffalo) doesn't it?

And while the Navy only bought one (and rejected it) the Bell XFL Airabonita helped show the Navy what they wanted or didn't want.

 

[drgondog]

I hate to break this to you but Roosevelt wasn't playing hypothetical games as you are here when he made the decision to go with the F6F over the F4U. The F4U had big problems in adapting to carrier-duty that still had to be worked out. While it was certainly designed as an Essex-class carrier-fighter, it was a complicated machine, and very difficult to manage, in combat, on a carrier, operating under those constraints. Grumman, on the other hand, had the F6F in concept well before Pearl, and, simply put, considering everything, was hands-down the right manufacturer for the job. I went over those reasons, therefore, in another thread, and I'm not going to repeat them, here, and throw off this technical discussion. But, that's the short of it, right there.

You got my attention regarding your sources.

Who says Roosevelt made the decision regarding the F6F? And why would he intervene personally on a technical decision and over-ride his CNO, Adm King? If he in fact did so, was it because he owed favors to Grumman and not Vought, rather than spend the necessary time to ignore WWII for awhile and dive into F6F vs F4U?

It is an astonishing claim but I wouldn't dismiss as impossible - just no rational reason on the surface for Roosevelt to engage on a DoD domain on which weapons to fight a war.

 

[tomo pauk]

OK, that's better. Now I understand what your beef is. Again, I don't want to take this hypothetical discussion off track and come under fire from you for that like others here have.

I cannot agree with the claim that others came under fire from me. I did have some good debates with people here, but nothing that would invoke attention from moderators.

But to address your issue on my sourcing, let me put it this way. Your sources are published materials, my sources are unpublished materials.

Okay. Perhaps you could scan or photo the materials and post them here, or at the place you choose to do so?

Your sources are persons with primary and secondary knowledge,

Here you got it wrong: my sources are the works (books mainly in this thread) based on documents. I do favor original documents, though, as you can find out in many of my posts. For some things, there is plenty of creditable web sites, and it's easy for other people to find those at the 'net.

my sources are persons with primary and secondary knowledge.

In this board, there are some people that take Pierre Clostermann as an overclaimer (not to say a harsher word). There are the ones that think of Eric Brown as a biased person. There are others that don't believe that Eric Hartmann actually scored, what, 325 kills. Adolf Galland claimed that P-38 was an easy prey; when challenged by the people actually flying the P-38 over Germany, he admitted being wrong. There are many people at West that still believe that P-39 was killing tanks in Eastern front, or that USA was not willing to sell turboed P-38s to Britain. There are some who think of French as cowards, despite dying in combat, in thousands in 1940 alone.
So tell me why would I believe the persons (not to take away their part of fighting in the ww2)? Were the persons you've talked present when Roosevelt was making decisions on who builds what?

Your knowledge is based on what you read from said sources, my knowledge is based on what I discussed with said sources. Let me ask you something, and think about this hard. What makes your sources more creditable than mine? What makes your knowledge taken from said sources better than mine? Please don't tell me it's because your sources are published and mine aren't, because I'm just not going to swallow that.

My sources are based on documents, yours are based on talk. The documents weight more than talk, in any debate.

I'm out of the office right now and on an iPhone and this is a pain in the ass typing on one of these things so you'll excuse me for being brief, but I'll just say this. The F4F was a monoplane version of the F3F, basically, and together with the F4U, those were the only two monoplane fighters the Navy had approved before the F6F. On the F4U, specifically, it was on the drawing board for a very long time, and it had problems, especially in terms of fitting it to carrier-operations under combat conditions. I'll go over those apprehensions relative to the F4U and why Roosevelt went with the F6F in more detail when I get to a computer, if you think it's necessary, and you want it in this thread, no problem. For now, however, this will just have to hold you.

F4F was NOT a monoplane version of the F3F, but an entirely new airplane. My source: 'US Hundred thousands' by Francis H. Dean, pg. 477. I'm politely asking you to post yours re. F4F being a monoplane version of the F3F.
As for the F4U being a second monoplane fighter for the USN CVs: you've missed the F2A, made by Brewster.
It took 2 years for the Vought to put the Corsair's 1st prototype in the air, after it entered the competition, and another 2 years to commence with serial production. Same as P-38, and a half a year more than F4F. It took the Curtiss almost 3 years to modify the P-36 for the V-1710 and to start production, after it was awarded with contract. All of those are conceived prior ww2, Vought being the smallest of the companies whose fighters are mentioned in above sentences.
So saying that F4U was very long at the drawing board is hardly a truth.

It would be cool if you can post that Roosevelt F6F story, any time you can manage.

 

[tomo pauk]

Without the turbos it won't do the P-38s job. Yes you save 900-1000lbs which is about 6-7% of the loaded weight of P-38 (using 16,000lbs). but at 25,000ft you have about 600hp per engine on a -39 Allison (no RAM) so you have about 54% of the power of a P-38 with even 1125hp engines. And the six machine guns have to go out in the wings.

Think that we could discuss arithmetics. The usual talk is that Lockheed did not have any 1500 HP engine to design an fighter around it, so they went for 2 x 1000 HP. So here 2 x 1150 need to be reduced by 25%, making the total of 1690 HP, making no usable exhaust thrust.
The 2 centerline mounted engines should be regarded as one big engine, so here the above logic does not apply IMO. So it's 2 x 680 HP (not 2 x 600 HP), acting as one 1360 HP engine. Using the cube root law, the real P-38 with 25% more power (1690 vs 1360) should be flying some 2,8% faster. On 400 mph basis, it's a 11 mph difference? Then we calculate in the exhaust thrust, and P-38 is just as fast (maybe slower?).

The late 1942 brings the 9.60:1 engines, so that's 1500 HP total at 25000 ft, with further benefits re. exhaust thrust.

We can also take a look at other height 'belts', namely the 10000-20000 ft one. Here the turboed plane holds no cards, and even less under 10kft.

About the weight: the weight savings at the power section allow for other parts to be of lower weight/smaller. Namely, the wings, U/C, empenage. So there is another, 500-600 lbs to be saved (P-38J had a wing 400 lbs heavier than of the P-47D). So we are 10% lighter, total. The 10% smaller wing empenage should allow for extra speed.

BTW, the F4U was managing 395-410 mph with 1650 HP. The push-puller has 1600 HP (8.80:1 engines) or 1840 HP at 21000 ft (9.60:1 engines), along with better suitability to harvest the exhaust thrust and ram effect. The drag is also to be lower, both due to the inline engines used, and thinner wing.

 

[VBF-13]

You got my attention regarding your sources.

Who says Roosevelt made the decision regarding the F6F? And why would he intervene personally on a technical decision and over-ride his CNO, Adm King? If he in fact did so, was it because he owed favors to Grumman and not Vought, rather than spend the necessary time to ignore WWII for awhile and dive into F6F vs F4U?

It is an astonishing claim but I wouldn't dismiss as impossible - just no rational reason on the surface for Roosevelt to engage on a DoD domain on which weapons to fight a war.

Roosevelt was more personally involved in that decision than you may know. Everybody at the time knew it. Are you that unfamiliar with his background? Look it up. He was a Navy boy. Look up what he did in the Navy. Look up what his personal responsibilities and personal experiences were. There's your rationale for his personal involvement as Commander-in-Chief on this key question relative to the outcome of that War. This was the fundamental question in the Pacific. And the F4U, it was a complicated aircraft, it was still on the drawing board, it still had its problems, and it still wasn't ready to commit to carrier-operations under combat exigencies. If it was, why do you think the Navy didn't go with it? I'll give you some reasons. How many Navy pilots do you think had training much less experience on the F4U in 1941? How many carrier-mechanics do you think had training much less experience on it? But all those had the requisite training and experience on the Grumman fighter, the F4F, didn't they? And when Grumman promised to let go of everything in his plant for the production and delivery within a year's time of the F6F, it was a no-brainer, I say, giving him the green light on that.

EDIT: Tomo Pauk, I'm still on my iPhone and these replies are coming in too quick for me to handle. My sources are Navy and Army Air Force Pilots with first-hand knowledge. It's their impressions that I'm drawing from. Primarily, anyway. Most of these pilots were Navy. They were all retirees. They formed a club and would meet periodically and relate their experiences. This was over the course of maybe 20 years, understand. For what it may be worth...

 

[drgondog]

Roosevelt was more personally involved in that decision than you may know. Everybody at the time knew it. Are you that unfamiliar with his background?

Yes that he was a 'Navy man in WWI. No with respect to being personally invloved in 'that decision' and who is 'everybody'. Are they part of the 'all of them thar folk clan'.??

Look it up. He was a Navy boy. Look up what he did in the Navy. Look up what his personal responsibilities and personal experiences were. There's your rationale for his personal involvement as Commander-in-Chief on this key question relative to the outcome of that War.

Not my rationale - why is it yours??

Why do you think that the F4U as a replacement for the F6F was a lesser choice regadring the 'outcome' of the war' and why would Roosevelt make a decision about an aircraft Not in production over one that was in production - and deem one a war saver far better than the one in hand?

This was the fundamental question in the Pacific. And the F4U, it was a complicated aircraft, it was still on the drawing board, it still had its problems, and it still wasn't ready to commit to carrier-operations under combat exigencies. If it was, why do you think the Navy didn't go with it?

The F6F flew for first time around the Battle of Midaway while the F4U flew first in May, 1940 and was in production a year before the first F6F test flight and Operational in Dec 1942. The Hellcat did not see combat until September 1943.. Somehow the USN and USMC managed to survive until the F6F made it to the Pacific. Was the F4U more complicated than the P-47 or P-51 and why do you think so?


I'll give you some reasons. How many Navy pilots do you think had training much less experience on the F4U in 1941?

Not many but a lot more (2-3?) than F6F. Or by May 1942 when the F4U was operational and the F6F has not flown yet. What is your point?
How many carrier-mechanics do you think had training much less experience on it? But all those had the requisite training and experience on the Grumman fighter, the F4F, didn't they? And when Grumman promised to let go of everything in its plant for the production and delivery within a year's time of the F6F, it was a no-brainer, I say, giving him the green light on that.

So You say. Great!

Now document Roosevelt's personal intervention into the Procurement process of Naval aviation aircraft....?

 

[wuzak]

How is the F4U more complicated than the F6F? It can't be the engine, as that is essentially the same (downdraft vs updraf carby).

 

[drgondog]

Wuzak - I had actually the same question..

 

[Milosh]

How is the F4U more complicated than the F6F? It can't be the engine, as that is essentially the same (downdraft vs updraf carby).

I don't know but the wing folding of the F6F was more complicated than the it was on the F4U.

 

[gjs238]

More complicated to land on a CV?

 

[wuzak]

More complicated to land on a CV?

That isn't what he said:

And the F4U, it was a complicated aircraft, it was still on the drawing board, it still had its problems, and it still wasn't ready to commit to carrier-operations under combat exigencies.

The carrier landing difficulties were due to the long nose, but techniques were soon evolved to overcome this disadvantage.

 

[wuzak]

Wuzak - I had actually the same question..

Sorry, I missed that.

So, to summarise:

• Same engine (F6F has downdraft carby, F4U has updraft carby)
• Both needed and used intercoolers - engine was 2 stage unit
• They used the same guns - Browning 0.5" - and the same number of guns - 6
• I would imagine they used the same radio gear, IFF, and other electronic equipment
• Both were aluminium semi-monocoque airframes
• Both had wing folding mechanisms - both manual folding (?)

So what exactly is the difference that makes the F4U more complicated than the F6F?

 

[VBF-13]

Roosevelt was more personally involved in that decision than you may know. Everybody at the time knew it. Are you that unfamiliar with his background?

Yes that he was a 'Navy man in WWI. No with respect to being personally invloved in 'that decision' and who is 'everybody'. Are they part of the 'all of them thar folk clan'.??

So you looked it up, huh? Good. Where did you find it, anyway, Wikipedia? Yeah, if you did, that's a great source.

OK, can I get away with saying it was common knowledge Roosevelt pushed through the F6F? Can I get away with saying it was common to characterize the F6F as "Roosevelt's baby," or "Roosevelt's darling," or in some such terminology like that? The only reason I so inquire is because as a matter of fact it was. Even the few Army Air Force pilots in my Dad's club of anywhere I'll estimate from around 20 to 40 pilots at any given meeting knew it well. Hell, how do you think I know it? Perhaps you thought it came to me in a dream.

But, just for you, I won't say it. All I have for you is a plausible inference from facts. If that's not good enough for you, it's not good enough, I can live with that. What else would you have me do? I can't dig up these pilots from their graves for you.

Oh, and you do know that's the spot I'm in, don't you? Sure you do. Let's at least concede that much.

Look it up. He was a Navy boy. Look up what he did in the Navy. Look up what his personal responsibilities and personal experiences were. There's your rationale for his personal involvement as Commander-in-Chief on this key question relative to the outcome of that War.

Not my rationale - why is it yours??

Why do you think that the F4U as a replacement for the F6F was a lesser choice regadring the 'outcome' of the war' and why would Roosevelt make a decision about an aircraft Not in production over one that was in production - and deem one a war saver far better than the one in hand?

Can I be frank? You don't put an aircraft on a carrier just because it has a tail-hook. There's a lot more that goes into that consideration than that. Grumman was greased into those carrier crews. Chance-Vought was, well, chancy. Grumman delivered on a carrier-ready fighter. Chance-Vought was, well, still dragging its ass on one. Sure, the F4U was a great fighter. There were several pilots in the club who had hundreds of hours on them. That wasn't the question.

This was the fundamental question in the Pacific. And the F4U, it was a complicated aircraft, it was still on the drawing board, it still had its problems, and it still wasn't ready to commit to carrier-operations under combat exigencies. If it was, why do you think the Navy didn't go with it?

The F6F flew for first time around the Battle of Midaway while the F4U flew first in May, 1940 and was in production a year before the first F6F test flight and Operational in Dec 1942. The Hellcat did not see combat until September 1943.. Somehow the USN and USMC managed to survive until the F6F made it to the Pacific. Was the F4U more complicated than the P-47 or P-51 and why do you think so?

Oh, now you're being full of news. I knew that. On the P-47 and P-51, those were legendary aircraft, that's how good they were. What, it's a big engineering achievement to stick a hook in the tail of those aircraft? In other words, why did the Navy bypass those, as well as their F4U? There's a lot that goes into carrier-readiness, isn't there? I'll just let that go at that. I said enough in this thread on it, already.

I'll give you some reasons. How many Navy pilots do you think had training much less experience on the F4U in 1941?

Not many but a lot more (2-3?) than F6F. Or by May 1942 when the F4U was operational and the F6F has not flown yet. What is your point?

Darn, don't you get it, yet? Ask yourself why only two or three F4Us were flown. Maybe we'll be fortunate enough to have those two or three pilots on these carriers? Why wasn't that aircraft a regular part of Naval aviation training by then? How long were they going to take? How much time did they think we had? Maybe we could call a time-out from the hostilities until they get their act together? I'm being unduly harsh, and I know it. But those aircraft should have been on those carriers by the Coral Sea. Why weren't they? They weren't ready. After all that time, they weren't ready, they still had issues.

How many carrier-mechanics do you think had training much less experience on it? But all those had the requisite training and experience on the Grumman fighter, the F4F, didn't they? And when Grumman promised to let go of everything in its plant for the production and delivery within a year's time of the F6F, it was a no-brainer, I say, giving him the green light on that.

So You say. Great!

Now document Roosevelt's personal intervention into the Procurement process of Naval aviation aircraft....?

Now you know I can't do that, so what do you propose I do? Do you want me to go build model airplanes and leave you boys and girls alone? If you question what I say, shoot it down, what's the big deal? I will offer this to you, though. Was Kennedy hands-on on the Cuban Missile Crisis? And what experience did he have, an officer on a PT boat, in comparison to Roosevelt, an Assistant Secretary of the Navy? But there are times when our Commanders-in-Chief take command, aren't there? And, don't underestimate the imperatives confronting us in the Pacific, at that time. Everything had to be right. We're talking everything from the retractable wing designs, to the ease on the carrier maintenance crews, to the organization, capacity, efficiency and track-record of the manufacturing plant, itself, to everything else in between. And Grumman had that. Why is that so difficult to accept? I don't know.

 

[wuzak]

Ask yourself why only two or three F4Us were flown. Maybe we'll be fortunate enough to have those two or three pilots on these carriers? Why wasn't that aircraft a regular part of Naval aviation training by then? How long were they going to take? How much time did they think we had? Maybe we could call a time-out from the hostilities until they get their act together? I'm being unduly harsh, and I know it. But those aircraft should have been on those carriers by the Coral Sea. Why weren't they? They weren't ready. After all that time, they weren't ready, they still had issues.

Perhaps the #1 issue the F4U had was that the production of 2 stage R-2800s was still in its infancy. ie, there weren't very many engines available to put into prototype aircraft, let alone production aircraft.

 

[VBF-13]

Perhaps the #1 issue the F4U had was that the production of 2 stage R-2800s was still in its infancy. ie, there weren't very many engines available to put into prototype aircraft, let alone production aircraft.

Wuzak, I can't answer on any of those technicalities, I'm sorry. I wish I could. There are reasons that aircraft was held up, though. That's all I know.

Look, you all have a good night.

 

[Shortround6]

You have to tool up factories. Companies do not produce aircraft without contracts. Vought gets the first contract June 30 1941, first production plane flies June 25th 1942 (12 months) , with hundreds of changes from the prototype.* Brewster is named as second source on Nov 1 st 1941, first Brewster built plane flies April 26th 1943 (18 months) , Goodyear was named as 3rd source in Dec of 1941, first Goodyear Corsair flies Feb 25, 1943 Goodyear is 3 months quicker than Brewster in getting first production plane in the air. For comparison the British order 320 Mustangs off the drawing board on May 29, 1940, 5 months before the prototype flies. Orders for the Mustang are at 620 aircraft at the time the prototype flies. It will be another 6 months before first production example flies.

* Some of the changes include going from 2 cowl guns and two wing guns to 6 wing guns, deleting bomb cells inside the wing for 20lb bombs to be dropped on enemy bomber formations, Lengthening the Fuselage and installing the fuselage fuel tank, moving cockpit by 3 feet much more. Production tooling cannot be completed until the modifying is done (agreed upon) or the tooling has to be redone.

 

[GregP]

This is getting funny!

I've been a pilot since 1980, been a WWII warbird fan since the early 1950's at a VERY early age (according to my mom), and have been working on warbirds as a volunteer at a flying museum for more than 6 years and attending regular event about our planes that include a Corsair and included a Hellcat until just about a year ago or so. I've heard WWII pilots talking about Corsairs, Hellcats, Bearcats, Wildcats (yes we fly one of those, too ... fairly regularly). We've even had Corky Meyer, Grumman's chief test pilot in WWII, give a talk about flying both the Corsair and the Hellcat side by side. We also regularly fly Tigercats, another spectacular Grumman product that is wonderful to watch doing aerobatics.

Oh yeah, the Corsair and Hellcat also used the same propeller (same federal part number) in addition to the same engine, armament, etc. I'm not sure about the radio gear ... all our warbirds have modern radios in them.

Nobody and no place except this post ever said yet that the Hellcat was "Roosevelt's bird." All the real, live WWII pilots have told us MANY reasons why the Corsair was not accepted for carrier service earlier. They are pretty well-known reasons and were NOT political, they were operational. In fact, one of the reasons, but not the only one, we DID accept the Corsair for Naval service is that the British were have success with it and we were pretty embarrassed about it since we needed Naval fighters as badly as they did.

By the way, the Hellcat has some of the best manners in and around a carrier of ANY Naval aircraft in existence during WWII. The visibility over the nose is fantastic, the low-speed handling is impeccable, the stall is gentle with plenty of warning, and it is a stable gun platform with the biggest wing area of any Naval single-seat fighter, which makes it turn well. Since the Hellcat met the specifications, it is hard to see why it would NOT be accepted into Naval service during wartime, especially since it was the first US Navy plane in carrier service that could outclimb a Zero, was faster than a Zero, and came within a small amount of being able to turn with a Zero.

Nothing wrong with the Corsair (though it wasn't nicknamed the Ensign Eliminator for nothing ...), mind you, but nothing wrong with the Hellcat (nicknamed the Ace Maker ...) either.

So, this is pretty entertaining ... please continue ...

 

[wuzak]

Oh yeah, the Corsair and Hellcat also used the same propeller (same federal part number) in addition to the same engine, armament, etc. I'm not sure about the radio gear ... all our warbirds have modern radios in them.

Another item to add to the list of the parts common between the two of them.

All the real, live WWII pilots have told us MANY reasons why the Corsair was not accepted for carrier service earlier. They are pretty well-known reasons and were NOT political, they were operational. In fact, one of the reasons, but not the only one, we DID accept the Corsair for Naval service is that the British were have success with it and we were pretty embarrassed about it since we needed Naval fighters as badly as they did.

When did the Corsair become operational on USN carriers? UK?

What about the F6F?

My understanding is that the F4U became operational on USN carriers mere months after the F6F did.

By the way, the Hellcat has some of the best manners in and around a carrier of ANY Naval aircraft in existence during WWII. The visibility over the nose is fantastic, the low-speed handling is impeccable, the stall is gentle with plenty of warning, and it is a stable gun platform with the biggest wing area of any Naval single-seat fighter, which makes it turn well. Since the Hellcat met the specifications, it is hard to see why it would NOT be accepted into Naval service during wartime, especially since it was the first US Navy plane in carrier service that could outclimb a Zero, was faster than a Zero, and came within a small amount of being able to turn with a Zero.

Which is probably why it passed its carrier qualifications more easily, and more quickly.

 

[drgondog]

Sorry, I missed that.

Lol - I meant I had the same question in my mind as you proceeded to document my thought..

So, to summarise:

• Same engine (F6F has downdraft carby, F4U has updraft carby)
• Both needed and used intercoolers - engine was 2 stage unit
• They used the same guns - Browning 0.5" - and the same number of guns - 6
• I would imagine they used the same radio gear, IFF, and other electronic equipment
• Both were aluminium semi-monocoque airframes
• Both had wing folding mechanisms - both manual folding (?)

So what exactly is the difference that makes the F4U more complicated than the F6F?

From the accounts I have heard the primary issues with Carrier Qual for the early F4U's were twofold, a.) long nose/poor vision on carrier landing, b.) some low speed/stall characteristics which led to a fence on the left (?) wing to get both wings to stall at the same airspeed.

As noted in the previous comments, there ain't much about the Corsair from a complexity standpoint that favors the F6F and the combat suitability of the F6F against the zero was probably higher whereas the F4U was probably a better choice against late war Japanese fighters.