Corsair and Hellcat in Europe

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Navalwarrior said:
I believe that in 1930s to early 1940 the manufacturers tended to over engineer aircraft.
Click to expand...
Let's not forget that all-metal stressed skin, monocoque, cantilever monoplane technology was a relatively young art at the time. The highly detailed computer based stress analysis we have today just wasn't as robust in the day of the slide rule, so the temptation to add a little extra "beef" for "safety's sake" tended to settle in. Some designers (Horikoshi and Heinneman come to mind) managed to resist this temptation, but so many did not. And this "overbuilding" did in fact often enhance survivability under combat damage conditions. The "Grumman Iron Works" EARNED their title!
Cheers,
Wes
 
Last edited:

Here is the text of a despatch from Admiral Nimitz to
Admiral King sent on 20 June 1942:


So I guess someone in the USN would have been happy to have a Merlin engined fighter, glycol and all. At the time the message was sent CCF was building Hawker Sea Hurricane IIs for Operation Torch.
 
Resp:
Very interesting. I suspect it was one of only a few options at the time. You should note that the initial comment was for Marines at 'outlining bases' which I interpret as land bases (islands). Yes, he did want the Merlin engined P-40F to be considered for carrier use. As you know, P-40s launched from carriers for 'Operation Torch' which was a one way trip; which was successful.
Knowing King, there was no way King would authorize USAAF aircraft for Naval use. King didn't even want the US Army anywhere near the Pacific! Just as Gen Marshall wanted no Marines in the ETO!
However, the Naval msg from Nimitz to King is very interesting. Thanks much.
 
RCAFson said:
So I guess someone in the USN would have been happy to have a Merlin engined fighter, glycol and all. At the time the message was sent CCF was building Hawker Sea Hurricane IIs for Operation Torch.
Click to expand...
They would have been very happy to have a Merlin engined fighter, assuming such fighter could actually take-off from and land on US carriers carrying an operational war load.

See; http://zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/P-40/P-40TOCLC.pdf

and http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/F4F-3_Wildcat_(Land)_PD_-_14_August_1942.pdf
http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/F4F-4_Wildcat_ACP_-_1_July_1943_(Tommy).pdf

The P-40E went about 8255lbs without drop tank.

P-40E needs 800ft to take off with a 17kt head wind at 155lbs under clean gross weight.
F4F-3 needs 359ft clean and 480ft with a pair of drop tanks with 15kt head wind.
F4F-4 needs 410ft clean and 550ft with a pair of drop tanks with 15kt head wind.
An F6F-3 needs 418ft clean and 519ft with a 150 gal drop tank with a 15kt head wind.

You can look at the figures for other speeds and weights (and yes a P-40E is not a Merlin powered P-40) but it just shows pretty much the same thing. The existing liquid cooled USAAC fighters weren't going to operate off a carrier deck very well. Fly off with reduced loads was obviously possible but that is not the same thing. How much modification was needed is certainly subject for debate, bigger wings? different flap systems?
 
Shortround6 said:
They would have been very happy to have a Merlin engined fighter, assuming such fighter could actually take-off from and land on US carriers carrying an operational war load.
Click to expand...
Of course they would, if it was available before the folding wing Wildcat was in widespread fleet service.

Had Packard started making Merlins earlier, the US might have designed the wide track, robust undercarriage, credibly-ranged, folding-wing, single-seat Merlin-powered fighter the FAA never managed to get for itself. And it needn't be a P-40 or P-51 variant, but something entirely new.

But there's no point in the US making a Merlin-carrier fighter by mid 1943 when Wildcats, Hellcats and soon Corsairs will be plentiful.
 
Last edited:

First off, the immediate issue is whether the USN would operate a liquid cooled fighter, and I think the answer is yes, especially since the request for higher performance most likely originated from carrier based line officers, and not by whim from Nimitz.

2ndly Nimitz stated:

"IF P-40F OR COMPARABLE TYPE CAN BE MODIFIED FOR AIRCRAFT CARRIER OPERATIONS PROVIDE THESE
PLANES FOR CARRIER FIGHTING SQUADRONS"

Nimitz doesn't specify US made aircraft.
 
RCAFson said:
"IF P-40F OR COMPARABLE TYPE CAN BE MODIFIED
Click to expand...

Well, we had IF and CAN BE MODIFIED.

and the answer is no, the P-40F or comparable type (say a P-51 with a single stage Merlin) cannot be easily modified to operate off carriers.
Modifications would be extensive, you need a lot more lift to get both the take-off run down and the landing speed down. The Hurricane and Spit worked because they were lighter aircraft than the American planes and had bigger wings.
Yes you could extensively modify the P-40 (or comparable type?) but that wasn't going to solve the problem in the next few months or perhaps even a year. Let's remember that the both the British and the Americans started work on Merlin Mustangs within a few weeks of the Nimitz memo and they went into service when?
 
Shortround6 said:
How much modification was needed is certainly subject for debate, bigger wings? different flap systems?
Click to expand...
Modifications to get a P40 flight deck compatible certainly wouldn't get away with the designation "minor". This raises the old bugaboo of delays while the modifications are incorporated into production. I'm thinking Fowler flaps, drooping ailerons, perhaps an airfoil change, and (per Nimitz) reduce to four .50s with more RPGs. Also, some judicious weight reduction might be in order, and maybe a more efficient prop. (Ditch that gaudawful Curtiss electric)
It's still going to be a big deck bird, and after being butchered up like this, may not have the performance margin to be worth the effort. As I remember, the F4F wasn't much of a climber, but then again, neither was the E-hawk.
Cheers,
Wes
 
Nimitz's telegram seems to be going a long way to say a couple of things:

1. We need Army planes for the land based Marines so we can put all available Wildcats on carriers. Okay. Not that there were any Army planes available in June '42, but not impossible depending on the number of land based Marine squadrons.
2. We need to lighten the Wildcats and increase ammunition capacity. Okay, that could have been done immediately aboard the carriers. Remove two of the six guns and put more ammunition in the Wildcat's four remaining ammo boxes in the wings.

Converting P-40s for carrier use may have been an impossible job. Folding wings, tail hook, big weight reduction (P-40F weighed 8500#), strengthened landing gear and who knows what else.

Corsair didn't get into combat until Feb '43 and that was for Marine/land use. Hellcat didn't get into combat until fall of '43. Probably could have had the Corsair ready for carrier use before a reworked P-40.
 
Resp:
The Naval msg also shows that Nimitz was aware of measures taken in theater to improve the F4F's ability to combat enemy aircraft. One example; removing two wing guns to provide additional space for ammo for remaining 50 cal MG, etc.. To me this is significant in that local squadrons were experimenting in trying various methods to improve performance in air combat. I like initiative!
 

I recall reading that the gap in training and experience between IJN/USN pilots during the first 12 months in the Pacific was a greater issue than the gap between the Zero and the Wildcat. As experience grew, American pilots fairly quickly developed effective tactics against the A6M. Nimitz' cable also comes shortly before a Zero was captured in the Aleutians and testing added to the development of combat tactics as well as informed the development of the Hellcat.

To me, Nimitz' cable is written at a time when the war is still a toss up and American combat skill has not fully developed in experience, training, and numbers.
 
If any naval aviation force needed access to land aircraft it was the IJN. The IJAF progressed from the A6M's contemporary Ki-43 to the Ki-44, Ki-61, Ki-84, Ki-100, etc. while the IJN had to settle for the Zero for the entire war.

The IJN had superlative single engine fighters like the Kawanishi N1K and Mitsubishi J2M. But these were land based.
 
Navalwarrior said:
To me this is significant in that local squadrons were experimenting in trying various methods to improve performance in air combat. I like initiative!
Click to expand...
Initiative is a great thing, when done properly, but it has great potential to throw a wrench in the works if done in "black market" fashion.
When I was in, during waning years of VN war, one of the NARFs (Naval Air Rework Facilities) that overhauled war weary USN/USMC F4s created a flap when they complained to BUAER that they were getting in a lot of "jury rigged" planes with undocumented and unauthorized field modifications. It turns out that squadrons in the field had figured out "better" ways to rig and wire such things as bomb rack intervalometers and fuel tank sequencing valves. The "underground documentation" of such mods didn't make it to NARF along with the plane, making for labor intensive detective work if or when the mods were discovered. If not detected, said mods could wreak havoc when the repaired bird was test flown. One such plane was reputed to have jettisoned its wing pylons when the pilot retracted the landing gear. Another was said to have jammed open its fuel dump valves when afterburner was selected for takeoff. I remember the consternation in our local fighter squadron when the nastygram from BUAER arrived, followed by a brass-heavy inspection team.
Cheers,
Wes
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

S
Corsair
Replies
1
Views
644
tomo pauk
The data behind the bombing war in Europe
Replies
3
Views
844
GregP
A
The Myth of the British "Fixing" The Corsair
2 3 4
Replies
76
Views
3K
NTGray
O
F4U-4 Corsair contribution in WW2
2
Replies
32
Views
3K
nuuumannn
M
Flying The B-26 Marauder Over Europe
Replies
0
Views
590
MIflyer
M
Menu
Log in
Register