Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Bringing us back to the F5F. Stressed for fighter combat, 4 .50 machine guns, VERY good rate of climb, weight around 10,000 maybe 11,000 after all the other stuff is added. It would have to perform better than a Wildcat.
Bringing us back to the F5F. Stressed for fighter combat, 4 .50 machine guns, VERY good rate of climb, weight around 10,000 maybe 11,000 after all the other stuff is added. It would have to perform better than a Wildcat.
Looking at the 'Shattered sword', at the pg. 547 is written that 'torpedoes could not be brought back aboard the ship once their plane was launched', source for this being being Michael Wenger. I assume this is only for the IJN?
Wonder whether anybody knows if the RN requirement was to bring back an un-expended torpedo?
I know I must be having a senior moment but I don't get this. According to the data sheet provided the X5F-1 weighs 10,892lb as an overload weight which is normal weight with an extra 100 gallons. That excludes the guns, ammo, armour, self sealing fuel tanks and other assorted equipment needed for combat.
Assuming that you keep to the overload weight as a max you are going to lose a lot of fuel as I am confident the extras listed above will come to more than 800lb. As for this fast climb statements its time to 10,000 ft is exactly the same as the Beaufighter VI which never claimed to be a good climber. If and I admit in my mind its a big if, it did have a sweet spot where it climbed at 4,000 ft/min for a minute, it must have crawled the rest of the time at an average of about 1,800 ft/min.
To say that its better than a Wildcat I also don't get. The F4F3 time to 10,000 ft is 3.5 min (compared to 4.6 min) and to 20,000 ft 7.6 min (compared to 10.5 min). From what I can see the Wildcat F4F3 was a much better performer. The F4F4 was a poor performer I will agree, even the much maligned Beaufighter could leave it behind in a climb.
It would also take some or all carriers out of action for a number of weeks if not a few months each (can be done in rotation so only one or two are out of service at once) in order to upgrade the elevators and landing systems ( and you have done nothing for the catapult/s).
You have two A-20 "prototypes"
The R-1830 powered version and the R-2600 powered version
The R-1830 versions may actually "fit" better being only 15' 10" high at the tail and weighing around 12,000lb empty depending on exact model. data form Joe Baughers web site.
For example French spec DB-7;
Not all of the 1941 Navy aircraft had armor or self-sealing tanks. Certainly the F4F-3 did not start upgrading until the end of the year. The TBD-1s probably did not, but I don't know. The SBD-3s did have self-sealing tanks and maybe armor. In any event, these needed to be included.This is without self sealing tanks, no armor and a few things that are not quite right.
Like while the contract called for a landing speed of 81mph actual flight testing resulted in the landing speed being 88mph. About an 18% increase in energy needing to be absorbed in the carrier arresting system.
Going to the R-2600 gives you a couple of choices. You now have the power and speed but you have more weight, a higher tail fin (17' 7") that you may be able to trim/fold or extend in cord to reduce height?
The Early R-2600 powered aircraft kept weight down by keeping the original fuel tanks (325 gallons max and 205 gallons "normal") which resulted in 1/2 the range of the R-1830 powered aircraft.
Height may be wrong.
Please note 2200lb empty weight increase. Getting a landing weight even close to 15-16,000lbs is going to be VERY difficult once you add 400lbs crew, guns, radio, oil and even minimal oil and fuel.
BTW, 2nd DB-7A with R-2600 was first flown Oct 10th 1940 but it took until late November to fix cooling problems with the engine.
By early 1941 you are into the A20-C model:
Without some MAJOR weight reduction I am just not seeing this as a viable fighter plane. 1. It is not not stressed for fighter type maneuvers. 2, Both the climb rate and Ceiling to be polite, S**K.
A single R-2600 can suck down over 200 gallons an hour (3.4-3.5 gal min) at Military power or take-off power and around 150 gallons an hour (2.5 gal/min) max continuous. You are going to need 500-600 gallons to get any kind of range.
As usual, I appreciate your thoughtful and knowledgeable comments. I really didn't think about the catapults! My concept was based on the purchase of the DB7A by France. The order was placed in October, 1939. If this had been a Navy contract (too bad for the French), I think they would have had plenty of time, two years, to upgrade the carriers as required prior to Pearl Harbor.
This is not a recommendation for a fighter type aircraft but a replacement for the TBD/TBF and SBD/SB-2C. At this time period, or maybe any time in WW2, I don't think a twin engine Navy fighter can justified its expense, except as a night fighter, whereas a fast twin engined bomber could possibly be effective enough to justify its presence. For a low altitude bomber, maybe 10 minutes, or 25 gallons, at max continuous power?
Now the Lex and Saratoga may very well have been refitted with newer, larger elevators before the war. Or at least the forward one changed. All seven (not counting Langley) early war carriers could fit the R-1830 powered DB-7 height wise but 4 of them would require a bit of a trim ( a few inches ?) for the R-2600 powered versions.
The Navy had just changed the required stall speed from 62-66mph to 70 mph in the 1938-39 program aircraft, While they might accept minor variations (72-76mph?) asking them to go to 85-90mph may be too much at this time. What they would find acceptable in 1943/44 is another story even on the same basic sized carriers. I guess it depends on how far you push a "what if" as in "what if" the Navy and company XX did such and such in 1939/40 while trying to meet current requirements or "what if" the Navy and company XX did so and so but relaxed certain requirements to what was acceptable near the end of the war 2-4 years sooner.
I would note that "as built" the best place to fold the wing on an A-20 was at a break 5 feet out board of the engine nacelle. This was an existing joint in the wing and the outer wing/s were often detached for transport by ship. This allows for easy prop clearance on the elevator but means you need an elevator around 32-33 feet wide, which seems to have been meet but does leave you with a sizable parking area. It might be possible to move the hinge point inboard several feet but that means e-engineering that area of wing/flaps in addition to engineering the hinge.
In this case, technically, I believe a fast twin engine bomber could have been built that would have been the most powerful carrier aircraft in the world in 1941-2, but, realistically it could never happen. Both the Navy and AAF, which was faced with a similar issue with the B-26 and didn't know how to deal with it, were for the most part right out of biplanes and had a biplane mentality. I am sure that when the Navy looked at the A-20 they quickly dismissed this Army bomber as too big and too heavy and landed too fast without really thinking what it could do. And besides, I am sure they thought that what they had could handle the enemy.
If built from the ground up as a Naval bomber, these issued could be addressed during design. However, the 5' outboard may be required anyway to allow wing folded aircraft down in the hanger, unless, of course, they use a Grumman F6F type fold design.