Meeting production metrics is more important than quality. You can hand out some Six Sigma buttons and everything will be fine.
Another 10000 P-36/40 aircraft?
- Thread starter tomo pauk
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Shortround6
Major General
Yep, they got a train load of Hawk 75 kits (manufactured by Curtiss in the US) that were evacuated from China. Somewhere between 40 something and low 50s kits were on the train in addition to tools and machinery needed to complete the kits. India completed less than 10(?).
Who supplies the machinery and raw materials for India to actually manufacture the airframes from scratch?
This is about like going down to the local hobby store and buying 10 plastic model kits of the Hawk 75, building them and then thinking you can build the complete kit at home, injection moldings and all.
special ed
2nd Lieutenant
- 5,669
- May 13, 2018
I wonder what happened to all the unused Curtiss kits.
Admiral Beez
Major
Indeed, I'd take a hundred roughshod T-34s over a dozen superbly engineered and (assuming no slave labour) excellently assembled Panzerkampfwagen V Panthers.
Thumpalumpacus
Major
Not too many problems 100 T-34s can't fix. A dozen of the best anything is going to be hard put to it, c'mon. That's a lot of bastards running around.
100 T-34s would be a lot more expensive than 12 Panthers. In fact, I doubt if there is much difference in the unit price between both tanks.
In the case of aircraft production, I would imagine that it is just as cost effective and cheap to build an aircraft with exemplary quality control as it is to build it with poor quality control - was an F4U Corsair built in a more cost effective manner when it was put together by Brewster than when it was being built by Vought?
I think you second statement is definitely wrong.
I worked on a GM production line for a while, at Tarrytown, NY.
When GM wanted to increase production, they would lay off some quality inspectors.
People on a production line can get pretty sloppy if you don't keep a check on them, you'll end up with a lot of hidden faults, if you just inspect the final product.
Plus if you take the time to check on unit prices T-34 verses Panther, I think you'll find a great deal of difference.
That's even with the German production using a lot of slave labor, which kept prices low.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Vought Aircraft had been manufacturing aircraft since the late teens, so would have been better suited to mass-manufacturing aircraft in a cost effective way (both in quality and quantity) than the poorly managed and equipped Brewster Company.
Matter of fact, Goodyear's aircraft division, which had airship manufacturing experience, was able to tool up and produce quality F4Us in a short time.
Matter of fact, Goodyear's aircraft division, which had airship manufacturing experience, was able to tool up and produce quality F4Us in a short time.
I've worked mod programs on 30-40 year old transport aircraft and we uncovered a lot of poor workmanship when disassembling major structure. One old mechanic said "This has been flying for years without a problem. Why do you want everything to be so perfect?" I said "We caught it just in the nick of time." and he got a good laugh out of that. Outside of high stress areas of the wing, you can get away with a lot of bad work. If you expect the airplane to be destroyed within a year, quality is even less important. We had a program where none of the management had experience on the aircraft and very few first line supervisors or workers had any experience. All that mattered was meeting schedule and the Air Force Program Office cooperated because they weren't competent to manage the program but knew that they would look bad if the program fell behind schedule.
This is a bit exaggerated. Of course you can take into consideration the production lag, but by 1943 the P-40 was the primary US fighter in the MTO (equipping 5 fighter groups by the middle of that year) and it was the primary land-based fighter in the Pacific and China as well. In other words all three Theaters where the US was active. P-40s were still important for the RAF / DAF all the way through 1943 and in Russia also. The Hawk 75 or P-36 (whatever you want to call it) was still being used in Burma through 1944.
By the time of Anzio (Jan-June 1944) the P-40 was still one of the most important US fighter types in Italy, was still in heavy use by the British as a fighter-bomber, and remained a critical front line fighter and fighter-bomber type in China / Burma, and was still on the front line in the Pacific especially in the hands of the Australians and New Zealanders.
There were also considerably less capable types active in these Theaters including the P-39 and the Hurricane.
So on that basis I'd say there was still considerable demand for more P-40s through the middle of 1944, and in Tertiary Theaters, (Burma) the Hawk 75 was still somewhat in demand.
However timing would be key, because it's true there was very little demand for either by the very end of the war. Accounting for production lag (maybe 3-6 months?) there was probably demand through the middle of 1943.
So time period is important. They made about 4250 P-40s in 1943, they only made 2002 in 1944. Had the US wanted them they could have made thousands more in 1944 and a few thousand more in 1945 but they were pretty much scrap metal in 1945 even before the war ended.
To get more in 1941-43 you need a second factory (or two) for the airframes and one or more factories for the engines. From the original post " The 'zero sum' 'rule' should be used - cancel or don't make something else so the resources are available......"
The easiest way to get more P-40s is to make fewer P-39s
2nd easiest way is to make fewer P-38s.
But that approach certainly doesn't do much for America's fighter situation in general.
Which leaves converting one or more bomber factories and using radial engines for some sort of Hawk 75/radial P-40 Hybrid.
ANd a single stage R-1830/R-1820 really isn't that good a plane once you stick in armor, self sealing tanks, better armament (unless you are happy with six .30 cal guns) beef up the structure accordingly.
I would say you could steal some (maybe half) P-39 production and North American Hurricane production, as well as (more controversially perhaps) in Britain, as well as some production capacity in Australia from the wirraway etc.
The combat history of the P-39 was bad in the MTO, fair to mediocre in the Pacific, and marginal in Burma. If you compare US kill claims in those Theaters,
P-40s accounted for 592 in the MTO, 660 in the PTO, and 973 in the CBI, for a total of 2225.
P-39 / P-400 accounted for 25 in the MTO, 288 in the PTO and 5 in the CBI, for a total of 320.
Clearly the P-40 was more useful for the USAAF, and you can extend that to our new Allies in the Med like the French and Italians who lost many pilots to accidents in the P-39s and had little luck with them.
However the P-39 was quite useful for the Soviets, so every one shipped to Russia was probably worth building. Same for the P-63. So I'd say stop production of the P-39s going to US, Free French or Aviazione Cobelligerante Italiana units, and redirect whatever capacity that left over to build P-40s, or P-47s or Mustangs... but keep making the ones which got sent to Stalin.
They were producing quite a few Hurricanes in Canada, and many of those got Merlin XX or equivalent engines. The engines alone would have definitely been much more useful in P-40s and far more in demand both by the Americans and by the Brits, had they been available, because that would have easily meant another 700+ P-40F or L models which were definitely in demand in the MTO through mid 1944. I gather making a Hurricane is easier and less demanding of materials (alluminum alloy) than a P-40 so I don't know how efficiently that production could have been adjusted. From what I gather few of those Canadian Hurricanes made it into combat, and some of them may have been used for things P-40s probably couldn't do (i.e. Catapult fighters or Sea Hurricanes).
I would not cut P-38 production in favor of P-40s, in spite of all the problems with the early P-38s, because they were still useful particularly in the Pacific (but they claimed 1431 kills in the MTO as well).
Anyway, that's my $.02 on this one.
Last edited:
P-39 Expert
Non-Expert
No Allison P-40 was as fast or climbed as well as any contemporary P-39. A Merlin P-40F/L had about the same performance as a P-39D/F/K/L but not nearly as good as a P-39N. A clean (no drop tank) P-40E/K could just barely reach 20000'. A P-40 was a dangerous airplane when it had top cover, but alone it was always looking up at its opponents.
I don't see how a P-39 didn't have the same problem of 'looking up' at opponents - but I'm not going to take that bait. I agree the P-39 had a good initial climb rate. They seem to have worked around the well known performance ceiling problem with the P-40s and they routinely did well with them wherever they were used without any top cover. I'm not referring to stats like climb rate here just the combat record, which speaks for itself.
It's also a fact that British, Australian, New Zealand and American commanders were still asking for P-40s long after all of the above had lost any interest in P-39s. So on that basis, there was demand for more of them up to say, mid- to late- 1943, if they could have made more (I'm not sure if they could have or not).
The P-39 was at best a severe disappointment in the MTO. They eventually managed to use them as fighter bombers in Italy, prior to that their dismal combat record had led them to being assigned to 'coastal patrol'. After a very brief and disappointing combat trial, P-39s were not used as figthters in that Theater. It was marginal in the PTO, shooting down some enemy aircraft though performing relatively poorly overall and unliked by both pilots and commanders, and it was basically irrelevant in the CBI Theater. So far as I know, there was only ONE P-39 Ace in the USAAF.
For whatever reason, neither the USAAF nor any of the Western Allies were able to take advantage of whatever performance or other traits were that you think made the P-39 so great, so (at least in hindsight) it's a cinch to say cancel all US orders for the P-39.
The Soviets liked it and appear to have done well with it (Luftwaffe fanboys notwithstanding) so the ones made for Soviet use should have still been made.
It's also a fact that British, Australian, New Zealand and American commanders were still asking for P-40s long after all of the above had lost any interest in P-39s. So on that basis, there was demand for more of them up to say, mid- to late- 1943, if they could have made more (I'm not sure if they could have or not).
The P-39 was at best a severe disappointment in the MTO. They eventually managed to use them as fighter bombers in Italy, prior to that their dismal combat record had led them to being assigned to 'coastal patrol'. After a very brief and disappointing combat trial, P-39s were not used as figthters in that Theater. It was marginal in the PTO, shooting down some enemy aircraft though performing relatively poorly overall and unliked by both pilots and commanders, and it was basically irrelevant in the CBI Theater. So far as I know, there was only ONE P-39 Ace in the USAAF.
For whatever reason, neither the USAAF nor any of the Western Allies were able to take advantage of whatever performance or other traits were that you think made the P-39 so great, so (at least in hindsight) it's a cinch to say cancel all US orders for the P-39.
The Soviets liked it and appear to have done well with it (Luftwaffe fanboys notwithstanding) so the ones made for Soviet use should have still been made.
P-39 Expert
Non-Expert
Half the top 10 soviet aces flew the P-39 in combat with the LW at all altitudes. They preferred it over the P-40, Spitfire and all the other AAF and British fighters furnished to them under lend-lease.
Nobody wanted the P-40 if they had access to anything else. Production of both the P-39 and P-40 were cancelled in fall 1944.
Nobody wanted the P-40 if they had access to anything else. Production of both the P-39 and P-40 were cancelled in fall 1944.
Most (not all) Western Allied pilots and commanders preferred the P-40 to the P-39 or the Hurricane. For obvious reasons.
I agree the Soviets preferred the P-39 over all other Lend Lease types and did well with it. They did also have Aces who flew other types though.
The mystery of precisely why the P-39 did so poorly in say, Guadalcanal or Libya vs. Ukraine or Crimea is just that - a mystery. I have my theories as to why the Soviets did so much better with it, as I'm sure you do as well, but the combat record in Western Allied service speaks for itself.
Getting deeper into the pros and cons of the p-39 is not the subject of the thread.
I agree the Soviets preferred the P-39 over all other Lend Lease types and did well with it. They did also have Aces who flew other types though.
The mystery of precisely why the P-39 did so poorly in say, Guadalcanal or Libya vs. Ukraine or Crimea is just that - a mystery. I have my theories as to why the Soviets did so much better with it, as I'm sure you do as well, but the combat record in Western Allied service speaks for itself.
Getting deeper into the pros and cons of the p-39 is not the subject of the thread.
Shortround6
Major General
Not much of an exaggeration. The production/shipping lag explains quite a bit. The rest can be explained by projected production figures.
There is also a large difference between still doing useful work and being the fighter of choice.
At some point in 1943 the US Army decided that no NEW fighter groups would be formed using P-40s as equipment and that existing P-40 Groups in combat theaters would be re-equipped as supplies of P-47s and P-51s allowed. P-40s were sent to training schools, sent to allies under lend lease, which is how it wound up flying for something like 28 countries.
P-40s were also sent sent overseas to combat units already equipped with P-40s to keep up strength While new units were equipped with P-38s, P-47s and P-51s. As I already said, as supplies of the better fighters improved it was planned to convert the existing P-40 fighter groups to the newer types.
Since you mentioned it. Production of the 4 types of fighters from Jan through June of 1944.
type...................P-40..........................P-38......................P-47.............................P-51
Jan....................275.............................317.......................651................................370
Feb...................241.............................313.......................633................................380
March.............283.............................352.......................648.................................482
April................203..............................342.......................623.................................407
May.................200..............................352......................601..................................580
Jun....................73...............................355.......................600.................................581
The peak month for production of the P-40 was Aug of 1943 with 463 built, so the low numbers in 1944 don't have anything to do with production capacity.
The P-40 may have been a very important fighter (or fighter bomber) in Italy in the first 1/2 of 1944 but it was NOT what the Generals wanted to be using if they could get other aircraft.
wuzak
Captain
Which manufacturers would build the P-40 in Britain?
What would the RAF have to do without?
Where are the engine coming from for an extra 10,000 P-40s? Especially for those built in Australia?
Use the Merlins from CCF Hurricanes? CCF built a little over 1,400 Hurricanes, finishing production in 1942. Seems you will be 8,000+ engine short.
The most likely way 10,000 more P-36/P-40s could have been built was, as I said earlier, that the Mustang doesn't go ahead and the P-40 is built by NAA.
If that happens then the mix of 2 stage/single stage Merlins built by Packard would likely skew more to single stage production. 2 stage production would be for Spitfires and Mosquitoes only.
Well the US built roughly 9,500 P-39s. Roughly 4,700, almost exactly half, went to the Soviets. The other half of that production run probably could have better gone to P-40s (with the benefit of hindsight). And assuming there was some way to actually do it, i.e. get Bell aircraft and their suppliers geared up to make P-40s instead. I don't think that would have been impossible but it would have taken some doing.
Those 1,400 Hurricanes built in Canada, plus a lot of Merlin XX's or equivalent that went into them, both represent useful capacity. Theoretically that production capacity could have gone into making more P-40F or Ls. In fact you could just take the engines out of half of those Hurricanes and put them right into the roughly 6-700 excess P-40F/L run that lacked engines (these were called P-40Rs and relegated to training duties).
Add to that 700 Wirraway and 250 CAC Boomerangs and you have potentially another 900 aircraft. That puts you at almost an additional 7,000 aircraft.
Of course, P-39 let alone Hurricane or Wirraway doesn't necessarily translate plane for plane into P-40s. And in particular, it doesn't necessarily get you the aircraft you want in time. But this does start to get into the ballpark.
You could also probably add most of the Allison Engined P-51s as they weren't much good as fighters, though perhaps there was some use for the A-36.
I agree by mid-1943 the excess production capacity, assuming there was any, is better going into P-47s and P-38s, though the early versions had their flaws, and as soon as Merlin engine P-51s become available that is the only single-engined fighter they should make. I would say rather than NAA making P-40s, Curtiss should make Mustangs but Curtiss was having problems by then and might have messed it up.
As for Britain, I know even speculating about it will boil some peoples blood, but I do think some of the Hurricane production run, not to mention Defiants, Fulmars, and a few other failed or marginal designs we've discussed before. If that production could be directed into Spitfires it would have been best. I can't see P-40s being built in Britain but some of those Merlins could have been useful in a P-40 airframe. Or even in British tanks.
Those 1,400 Hurricanes built in Canada, plus a lot of Merlin XX's or equivalent that went into them, both represent useful capacity. Theoretically that production capacity could have gone into making more P-40F or Ls. In fact you could just take the engines out of half of those Hurricanes and put them right into the roughly 6-700 excess P-40F/L run that lacked engines (these were called P-40Rs and relegated to training duties).
Add to that 700 Wirraway and 250 CAC Boomerangs and you have potentially another 900 aircraft. That puts you at almost an additional 7,000 aircraft.
Of course, P-39 let alone Hurricane or Wirraway doesn't necessarily translate plane for plane into P-40s. And in particular, it doesn't necessarily get you the aircraft you want in time. But this does start to get into the ballpark.
You could also probably add most of the Allison Engined P-51s as they weren't much good as fighters, though perhaps there was some use for the A-36.
I agree by mid-1943 the excess production capacity, assuming there was any, is better going into P-47s and P-38s, though the early versions had their flaws, and as soon as Merlin engine P-51s become available that is the only single-engined fighter they should make. I would say rather than NAA making P-40s, Curtiss should make Mustangs but Curtiss was having problems by then and might have messed it up.
As for Britain, I know even speculating about it will boil some peoples blood, but I do think some of the Hurricane production run, not to mention Defiants, Fulmars, and a few other failed or marginal designs we've discussed before. If that production could be directed into Spitfires it would have been best. I can't see P-40s being built in Britain but some of those Merlins could have been useful in a P-40 airframe. Or even in British tanks.
Ok, but that is indeed a significant nuance there (left out of your post, unless I missed it), and part of the reason for making that decision was the lack of available (Merlin XX type) engines and the (wise) decision to have Packard focus on making the Merlin 60 series engines for Mustangs. If on the other hand another source of engines was available, they very well might have made some more P-40 fighter groups (US) or squadrons (British).
Even the merlin engined P-40 was inferior to the Spit V or the early P-47 or P-38 in many ways, but they also had some advantages. Range over the Spitfire and comparative ease of maintenance / training, not to mention shorter airfields, compared to the latter. For some Theaters like Burma and parts of the Pacific, the P-40 seemed to be more useful than either P-38 or P-47, and the British opted to continue equipping several of their FB units with P-40s until Mustangs became available.
Some of the Fighter groups sent to CBI (notably the 80th, and I think maybe one or two other FGs) seem to have switched from P-47 back to P-40 in September 1943 (maybe due to limited availability for the former and it's higher priority for Europe) when they were sent to India. They then switched back to P-47s some time in late 1944.
I agree by 1944, the role for the P-40 is rapidly diminishing, for a variety of reasons, though they apparently still had a role maybe until the end of the year.
Perhaps, but I mean, they may have wanted Spitfire IXs or F-86s but one dealt with what was actually on hand. Priority for the P-51s and P-47s was going to 8th AF etc. in England, and most of the P-38s were going to the Pacific where they were much more successful than in the Med. Part of the problem they had in 1944 was that they still had a bunch of P-39s and Hurricanes etc. around which weren't very useful at that point.
I think part of the point of the OP is that while P-40s could have been very helpful in say, 1942, there was also still a role for better second tier fighters given that there were time constraints on ramping up production (and smoothing out wrinkles) of some of the newer 1st tier aircraft. I'd say built 5,000 P-38s instead of 10,000 P-40s but the P-38 had to be fine tuned for a while before it was really optimal. Same for the P-47 if to a somewhat lesser extent, and the Corsair too. Maybe you could build more Hellcats that might be an improvement on the P-40 in a number of ways.
Last edited:
Shortround6
Major General
Not all aircraft are equal as you have stated.
Wirraways used steel tube fuselages and fabric covering.
The Wirraway was deliberately chosen as easy to build.
perhaps the Australians could build P-40s but it wouldn't be on a one for for one basis and the timing might be a bit late.
And you have the engine problem.
As for Allison engine Mustangs. The Aileron problem might have prevented them for being great fighters but P-40s using the same engines could never have provided the photo recon capability the Mustangs provided. British still were operating two squadrons of Allison powered Mustangs on VE day.
The need for time machines also starts to come into play.
Which P-40 do you want them to build?
The first order for Wirraways was placed in June of 1938. The First order for P-40s was placed in April of 1939.
Similar problems with some of the other time lines. The First production P-40 doesn't fly at the Curtiss factory until April 4th 1940, 36 days before the Germans attack France.
The Army doesn't start accepting production P-40s until May (11 of them) so while a lot is known about the Hawk 75 any countries setting up to build Hawk 81s is doing so on faith, not a proven product.
Timing is everything and the Hawk 75, while good, was not good enough to displace any of the British designs form production, neither were the early P-40s.
Which leaves you with trying to change over exiting production lines rather than starting P-40 production as the production facilities are designed and built.
you are going to get more P-40s but perhaps hundreds fewer aircraft in total over the years. Is that a good trade?
Wirraways used steel tube fuselages and fabric covering.
The Wirraway was deliberately chosen as easy to build.
perhaps the Australians could build P-40s but it wouldn't be on a one for for one basis and the timing might be a bit late.
And you have the engine problem.
As for Allison engine Mustangs. The Aileron problem might have prevented them for being great fighters but P-40s using the same engines could never have provided the photo recon capability the Mustangs provided. British still were operating two squadrons of Allison powered Mustangs on VE day.
The need for time machines also starts to come into play.
Which P-40 do you want them to build?
The first order for Wirraways was placed in June of 1938. The First order for P-40s was placed in April of 1939.
Similar problems with some of the other time lines. The First production P-40 doesn't fly at the Curtiss factory until April 4th 1940, 36 days before the Germans attack France.
The Army doesn't start accepting production P-40s until May (11 of them) so while a lot is known about the Hawk 75 any countries setting up to build Hawk 81s is doing so on faith, not a proven product.
Timing is everything and the Hawk 75, while good, was not good enough to displace any of the British designs form production, neither were the early P-40s.
Which leaves you with trying to change over exiting production lines rather than starting P-40 production as the production facilities are designed and built.
you are going to get more P-40s but perhaps hundreds fewer aircraft in total over the years. Is that a good trade?
