ALternatives for the P-38?

[GregP]

Hi Wuzak,

I understand the F4U did, in fact, become operationally qualified a short time after the Hellcat in the US Navy. I never researched the British side, but they conducted landing trials with it as soon as they got some. They found it a challenge to land but acceptable. Wartime has a way of doing that.

In initial carrier trials, the F4U was found to have very stiff (read "bouncy") landing gear, the visibility was extremely poor from a standard carrier approach, the low-speed manners were a bit rough, and the stall was abrupt. Additionally, there were several other normal developmental issues to be solved, such as leaky systems and a few tweaks that were needed. Everything was eventually addressed except the visibility, but they used a curving landing approach to get around that issue later.

The Hellcat was essentially viceless with the exception of being a relatively slow rolling aircraft. That was noticeable but not a serious shortcoming since the chief opponent, the Mitsubishi Zero, was ALSO a slow roller. In point of fact, the slow roll could have been corrected but never was, though it was made better in the F6F-5 series, because it would have interrupted production. The F6F is very robust, has simple, reliable systems, and can sustain a lot of battle damage to boot and still get home.

 

[VBF-13]

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.

Let me assure you that any such inference from that reference of mine is pure fanciful speculation. As a matter of fact I went to extremes to point out that the reference was derived from Roosevelt's background. That was the reason for his hands-on approach. There was nothing political about it and nothing against Chance-Vought about it, as had been earlier erroneously-suggested, at least, not coming from me. Let's stop jumping to conclusions. That would be real sporting of you boys.

 

[gjs238]

Too bad FDR didn't advocate for early and aggressive 2-stage supercharger development.

 

[VBF-13]

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.

But there's more to carrier-readiness than that. That just relates to being able to take the cut from the LSO and land the aircraft. Now take the aircraft below the deck and whip it back into shape. Let's factor that in, i.e., the mechanics' thing.

This F4U was a new manufacturer and new aircraft. There were other aircraft on carriers besides the F4F. The pilots and mechanics were trained on those other aircraft in advance of their being so deployed. There are stiff learning curves for new manufacturers and new aircraft. While the F6F wasn't the F4F, it was still the same stout, rotund body-type, by the same manufacturer, with the same carrier-friendly philosophy, build it strong, and build it simple. The mechanics were familiar with the cut of Grumman's jib, if I may. Although we never hear very much on that, the F6F was a mechanic's dream machine, as much as it was a pilot's dream machine. Grumman had that factor going for it, as well.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

But there's more to carrier-readiness than that. That just relates to being able to take the cut from the LSO and land the aircraft. Now take the aircraft below the deck and whip it back into shape. Let's factor that in, i.e., the mechanics' thing.

This F4U was a new manufacturer and new aircraft. There were other aircraft on carriers besides the F4F. The pilots and mechanics were trained on those other aircraft in advance of their being so deployed. There are stiff learning curves for new manufacturers and new aircraft. While the F6F wasn't the F4F, it was still the same stout, rotund body-type, by the same manufacturer, with the same carrier-friendly philosophy, build it strong, and build it simple. The mechanics were familiar with the cut of Grumman's jib, if I may. Although we never hear very much on that, the F6F was a mechanic's dream machine, as much as it was a pilot's dream machine. Grumman had that factor going for it, as well.

Vought was not a new manufacturer. As far as maintenance - I see no real difference getting familiar with one's manufacturer's machine as opposed to another.

 

[Shortround6]

This F4U was a new manufacturer and new aircraft........There are stiff learning curves for new manufacturers and new aircraft.....The mechanics were familiar with the cut of Grumman's jib, if I may. .

I see, Vought was a totally new manufacturer who knew nothing about navy aircraft or needs, right?

"The Navy eventually ordered 60, one of which was a VE-7SF, which made the first takeoff from America�s first aircraft carrier, USS Langley, on October 17, 1922."

sve-74

"In 1922, the Navy placed an order for 141 UO-1�s the fledging company�s first big military sale."

The series went on to 177 aircraft total. Followed by 379 Corsair I's. The O2U Family. Followed by about 450 O3U Corsiars. 153 of them went overseas as exports. These were followed by about 140 SBUs the last 40 ordered in 1937. These are biplane dive bombers. Vought finishes up with about 260 SB2U Vindicator monoplane dive bombers. Vought delivers the first prototype OS2U Kingfisher float plane in 1938. They will go on to make over 1200 before production stops.

Vought was making Navy planes over 10 years before Grumman opened it's doors (making floats for float planes) and built over twice as many planes as Grumman did up until the F4F went into large scale production.

But I guess it is a new company with a steep learning curve for both the factory and navy mechanics to work on Vought aircraft, right?

 

[VBF-13]

Vought was not a new manufacturer.

Let's keep it in context. They were a new manufacturer for the carrier crews.

As far as maintenance - I see no real difference getting familiar with one's manufacturer's machine as opposed to another.

I agree. But that's after the mechanics get over the learning curve. Right?

 

[VBF-13]

I see, Vought was a totally new manufacturer who knew nothing about navy aircraft or needs, right?

"The Navy eventually ordered 60, one of which was a VE-7SF, which made the first takeoff from America�s first aircraft carrier, USS Langley, on October 17, 1922."

sve-74

"In 1922, the Navy placed an order for 141 UO-1�s the fledging company�s first big military sale."

The series went on to 177 aircraft total. Followed by 379 Corsair I's. The O2U Family. Followed by about 450 O3U Corsiars. 153 of them went overseas as exports. These were followed by about 140 SBUs the last 40 ordered in 1937. These are biplane dive bombers. Vought finishes up with about 260 SB2U Vindicator monoplane dive bombers. Vought delivers the first prototype OS2U Kingfisher float plane in 1938. They will go on to make over 1200 before production stops.

Vought was making Navy planes over 10 years before Grumman opened it's doors (making floats for float planes) and built over twice as many planes as Grumman did up until the F4F went into large scale production.

But I guess it is a new company with a steep learning curve for both the factory and navy mechanics to work on Vought aircraft, right?

That's not really what I said. But that's an impressive history, nonetheless. Thanks.

 

[Shortround6]

It may not be "really" what you said but the Navy cut it's teeth on Vought aircraft and Vought was a much larger supplier of aircraft to the Navy than Grumman was in the Decade leading up to the war. I would say that the Navy and any carrier crewman past their first enlistment were more than familiar with the cut of Vought's jib, if I may.

The F4U was a new, larger and more complicated plane than many that had gone before it but that was part and parcel of it's generation, Although previous Vought aircraft had used twin row radials, constant speed propellers and retractable landing gear.

 

[wuzak]

Let's keep it in context. They were a new manufacturer for the carrier crews.

SR6 showed that to not be the case.

The F4U was a new airframe. But so was the F6F.

I agree. But that's after the mechanics get over the learning curve. Right?

Why would the learning curve for the F4U be any different than the F6F?

All major systems were the same or very similar. There may have been different locations for the items, such as the oxygen bottle(s), but that's not really going to tax the mechanics is it?

 

[Balljoint]

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

Under the Army Arsenal procurement system a spec for a new plane was issued with a long and comprehensive list of "standard" parts that were to be incorporated into any proposed design. I would expect the Navy did much the same.

 

[VBF-13]

It may not be "really" what you said but the Navy cut it's teeth on Vought aircraft and Vought was a much larger supplier of aircraft to the Navy than Grumman was in the Decade leading up to the war. I would say that the Navy and any carrier crewman past their first enlistment were more than familiar with the cut of Vought's jib, if I may.

You may, indeed. One of those biplanes comes aboard, those crews would be all over it.

The F4U was a new, larger and more complicated plane than many that had gone before it but that was part and parcel of it's generation, Although previous Vought aircraft had used twin row radials, constant speed propellers and retractable landing gear.

I guess that would make it a new learning curve, then. That's not to say the F6F wasn't a new learning curve, but at least that's a familiar manufacturer in monoplane carrier fighters. I don't know. Maybe that's not a very meaningful edge? I'm just asking.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Let's keep it in context. They were a new manufacturer for the carrier crews.

Again not true - Vought was making carrier based aircraft either as a prime manufacturer or a sub-contractor since the mid 1920s. How about the SBU which was serving prior to WW2?

I agree. But that's after the mechanics get over the learning curve. Right?

For an experienced mechanic the learning curve is minimal. Once you learn systems and specifics "a plane is a plane."

 

[VBF-13]

Again not true - Vought was making carrier based aircraft either as a prime manufacturer or a sub-contractor since the mid 1920s. How about the SBU which was serving prior to WW2?

But that and the rest were biplanes which are the easiest planes to adapt to carriers. I'm not saying Vought was a fluke manufacturer, either, not hardly. But a monoplane is a different machine, and adapting it to carrier landings, well, what's with the length of that nose on the 4FU, anyway? The Grummans were stout, I'm suggesting, probably for a reason. Maybe Grumman knew better what it was doing? That's a big pill to swallow, but the question remains, what's with that over-sized snout that got in the way of eyeballing the LSO?

For an experienced mechanic the learning curve is minimal. Once you learn systems and specifics "a plane is a plane."

Yeah, I kind of thought otherwise, until I got the issue out. Now I'm thinking, Ford and Chevy. Is that about it? No big difference, there.

 

[Shortround6]

But that and the rest were biplanes which are the easiest planes to adapt to carriers. I'm not saying Vought was a fluke manufacturer, either, not hardly. But a monoplane is a different machine,......

Strangest looking bi-plane I have ever seen.

The XF4U-1 had better vision over the nose than later versions.

When the change was made from one gun in each wing to 3 the fuel had to go somewhere and that somewhere was into the fuselage. Since the fuel tank has to be on the CG to avoid some MAJOR trim changes as fuel is burned the cockpit had to moved back 3 feet and that is where the "over-sized snout" came from. F6F avoided that by putting the fuel tank/s UNDER the cockpit but that makes for a fatter fuselage with more frontal area.

 

[VBF-13]

View attachment 214301

Strangest looking bi-plane I have ever seen.

The XF4U-1 had better vision over the nose than later versions.

View attachment 214302

When the change was made from one gun in each wing to 3 the fuel had to go somewhere and that somewhere was into the fuselage. Since the fuel tank has to be on the CG to avoid some MAJOR trim changes as fuel is burned the cockpit had to moved back 3 feet and that is where the "over-sized snout" came from. F6F avoided that by putting the fuel tank/s UNDER the cockpit but that makes for a fatter fuselage with more frontal area.

We were discussing the SBU and the aircraft before the F4U although that test model and your explanation on the nose are interesting and thanks for that.

 

[Shortround6]

The First picture is of the Vought SB2U, "The first deliveries to the fleet took place on December 13, 1937" that is the plane I listed as 260 of the series built in total, please look up Vought Vindicator. I believe I also mentioned the Kingfisher floatplane which was a monoplane. There were also the V-141 and V-143 fighter monoplane prototypes. The F4U was Vought's 4th monoplane design to FLY, not necessarily their 4th monoplane design.

Your position that Vought was a new manufacturer or had limited experience designing either Navy or carrier planes doesn't stand up. Trying to say they had little or no experience with monoplanes doesn't stand up either as they had about as much as Grumman did in 1941/42.

I am not anti-Grumman. They did a fine job and designed many good airplanes but one doesn't need to run down Vought's experience or expertise to make Grumman look good. The First XF4U-1 had the same armament as a Brewster Buffalo. It was a Navy requirement and not Vought's idea or place to say yes or no to. A fair amount of the delay between the XF4U-1 flying and the production F4U-1s flying (and going into service) was the changes made between the prototype and the service versions. The XF4U-1 first flew on May 29, 1940. The Navy issued a letter of intent to purchase on March 3, 1941 and finally places the contract on June 30th 1941. In contrast the Navy BuAer gives a contract to Grumman for R-2600 powered XF6F-1 on June 30, 1941 (same day as contract for the F4U-1s), They award a large production contract on Jan 7 1942. May 23 1942 sees a production order placed (or previous one changed) to the F6F-3 with the R-2800 engine. This is just about two months before the R-2600 powered prototype makes a 25 minute flight.
Please notice the difference. The F4U was ordered into production over a year after the prototype first flew, The F6F was ordered into production months before the prototype flew. Fortunately Grumman had gotten their sums right or there could have been hundreds of thousands of dollars of very expensive scrap coming out of the Grumman doors.

 

[fastmongrel]

This has gone ever so slightly off thread hasnt it

Interesting stuff though if Roosevelt was making procurement decisions for the Navy was he doing the same for the Army and who was being the President in the meantime.

 

[VBF-13]

This has gone ever so slightly off thread hasnt it

Let the record reflect, I was respectful of that possibility. Read my first replies in this thread to Tomo Pauk, you'll see that.

Interesting stuff though if Roosevelt was making procurement decisions for the Navy was he doing the same for the Army and who was being the President in the meantime.

Let me put it this way. Grumman was the president of Grumman. He had an engineering background. Naturally, he took a hands-on approach on the engineering of his aircraft. Roosevelt was the President of the United States. He had a Navy background. Fill in the rest, it's not hard.

 

[VBF-13]

The First picture is of the Vought SB2U, "The first deliveries to the fleet took place on December 13, 1937" that is the plane I listed as 260 of the series built in total, please look up Vought Vindicator. I believe I also mentioned the Kingfisher floatplane which was a monoplane. There were also the V-141 and V-143 fighter monoplane prototypes. The F4U was Vought's 4th monoplane design to FLY, not necessarily their 4th monoplane design.

Your position that Vought was a new manufacturer or had limited experience designing either Navy or carrier planes doesn't stand up. Trying to say they had little or no experience with monoplanes doesn't stand up either as they had about as much as Grumman did in 1941/42.

I am not anti-Grumman. They did a fine job and designed many good airplanes but one doesn't need to run down Vought's experience or expertise to make Grumman look good. The First XF4U-1 had the same armament as a Brewster Buffalo. It was a Navy requirement and not Vought's idea or place to say yes or no to. A fair amount of the delay between the XF4U-1 flying and the production F4U-1s flying (and going into service) was the changes made between the prototype and the service versions. The XF4U-1 first flew on May 29, 1940. The Navy issued a letter of intent to purchase on March 3, 1941 and finally places the contract on June 30th 1941. In contrast the Navy BuAer gives a contract to Grumman for R-2600 powered XF6F-1 on June 30, 1941 (same day as contract for the F4U-1s), They award a large production contract on Jan 7 1942. May 23 1942 sees a production order placed (or previous one changed) to the F6F-3 with the R-2800 engine. This is just about two months before the R-2600 powered prototype makes a 25 minute flight.

Please notice the difference. The F4U was ordered into production over a year after the prototype first flew, The F6F was ordered into production months before the prototype flew. Fortunately Grumman had gotten their sums right or there could have been hundreds of thousands of dollars of very expensive scrap coming out of the Grumman doors.

Duly noted. Again, this is very interesting detail. I'm hearing you. Thanks. I have to shove off for now.