Design a USN 2-Seat multirole fighter for service in 1940

Junkers Ju 87 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A Ju 87 achieved the first air victory during World War II on the morning of 1 September 1939, when Rottenführer Leutnant Frank Neubert of I./StG 2 "Immelmann" shot down a Polish PZL P.11c fighter while it was taking off from Balice airfield

Click to expand...

List of German World War II ground attack aces
List of German World War II ground attack aces - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It was common for Fw-190F pilots to score aerial kills but Ju-87 pilots got some too. I suspect several pilots achieved at least 5 aerial kills while flying the Ju-87.

This is pretty much the direction I thought this might go. WRT the Vejtasa story. IIRC, there is evidence that he got none of the A6Ms he fought that day. I think one source (Lundstrom) says IJN sources list no losses that can be correlated with the SBD encounter. Vejtasas account with an organic witness in his radioman/gunner seems to be pretty convincing however. The mere fact of his survival is testment to his skill.

WRT the SBD-6, it came on the scene quite late and while I definitely like the idea of the XF5F, it is a tad late and quite unconventional. OTOH, it appears its performance had enough margin to make it a viable candidate if it had been accelerated to a first fllght a year earlier, in early 1939 contemporary with the F4F-3.

From Wikipedia:

"In 1941, Navy pilots tested the XF5F-1 in a fly-off against the Supermarine Spitfire, Hawker Hurricane, Curtiss P-40 Warhawk, Bell P-39 Airacobra, Bell XFL Airabonita, Vought XF4U Corsair, Grumman F4F Wildcat and Brewster F2A Buffalo.[4]

LDCR Crommelin, in charge of the test, stated in a 1985 letter to George Skurla, Grumman president, "for instance, I remember testing the XF5F against the XF4U on climb to the 10,000 foot level. I pulled away from the Corsair so fast I thought he was having engine trouble. The F5F was a carrier pilot's dream, as opposite rotating propellers eliminated all torque and you had no large engine up front to look around to see the LSO (landing signal officer) ... The analysis of all the data definitely favored the F5F, and the Spitfire came in a distant second. ... ADM Towers told me that securing spare parts ... and other particulars which compounded the difficulty of building the twin-engine fighter, had ruled out the Skyrocket and that the Bureau had settled on the Wildcat for mass production."[4]."

Further comfirmation that the F4F was both a bit problematic and perhaps not a foregone conclusion in late 1940? I wonder how much of those early engine problems with the Martlet were due to the peculiarities of the Wright engine (In addition to the apparent other problems they were exhibiting?) It was accepted in recip. circles that if the engines of the EC-121K, S-2 or T-28 (I believe all Wright products) weren't weeping oil it was because there was none and the engines needed servicing. At least that's what I recall.

Back to the topic, it appears the FAA thought the SB2U might serve although that perception seems to have disappeared with the flight test. The SB2U appeared to be at least partially light weight construction but may have been underpowered. I can't help but wonder if there wasn't an ersatz fighter inside that airframe waiting to be released.

securing spare parts ... and other particulars which compounded the difficulty of building the twin-engine fighter, had ruled out the Skyrocket

Click to expand...

I don't buy that excuse for one minute. The F5F would probably be less expensive to mass produce then P-38s and P-47s. Perhaps also less expensive then the somewhat pricey USN F4U.

Design a USN 2-Seat multirole fighter for service in 1940

Okay - two place fighter/divebomber, Wright 1820-G205 1200 hp at takeoff, Vmax 338 mph, Vnorm 330 mph at 18,000 ft, two forward firing .50's, one rear firing flexible .30 for the rear gunner (sitting practically back-to-back with the pilot), one 500 lb bomb in internal bomb bay, max range (using full 160 gallon tankage) at economy setting 1470 miles, at Vmax 502 miles, all in a compact package of 35 foot wingspan, 26 foot 9 inch length.

This was the Brewster Model 240, a conversion of the F2A-2.

Ahhhh... Salvation courtesy of Brewster's chief designer Dayton Brown. Too bad his company probably couldn't produce more than 1 every 6 months. Thanks Jim, I hadn't hear of this very interesting Brewster effort. Do you have any more information on this aircraft design for example the date of the proposal.? I assume a protoype was never built.

It was designed for the French (the design spec sheet is dated Mach 1940, shortly before irrelevance). Given production facilities, could have been in production in 1940 since it was a modification of the Buffalo, probably with design features from the XSBA or XSB2A like the bomb bay. Nope, never built. Wish I could find a drawing, it would make a geat 'what-if' model.

As far as production, at least through 1940, I think Brewster was building Buffaloes about as well as Grumman was producing Wildcats. 1939-40 Buffalo production was 177. The difference was that (a) Grumman was also building other aircraft, and (b) by 1941 Grumman's better production facilities (a plant on one level!) began outstripping Brewster's bizarre four story plant in Queens. So by refusing Brewster's offer to build the Buffalo under license, Grumman ensured we would have a slightly less advanced Navy fighter in 1942 (I mean, hand cranking landing gear? Seriously?).

jimmaas said:

Design a USN 2-Seat multirole fighter for service in 1940

Okay - two place fighter/divebomber, Wright 1820-G205 1200 hp at takeoff, Vmax 338 mph, Vnorm 330 mph at 18,000 ft, two forward firing .50's, one rear firing flexible .30 for the rear gunner (sitting practically back-to-back with the pilot), one 500 lb bomb in internal bomb bay, max range (using full 160 gallon tankage) at economy setting 1470 miles, at Vmax 502 miles, all in a compact package of 35 foot wingspan, 26 foot 9 inch length.

This was the Brewster Model 240, a conversion of the F2A-2.

Click to expand...

A two seat aircraft with an internal bomb bay, that can do 338 mph with an engine that puts out less than 1200 hp at altitude! I wonder why the F2A couldn't do that with basically the same output...?

I have to admit that it's one helluva sales pitch...I'm surprised that the Brooklyn bridge wasn't part of the deal!

Yep, it looks too good to be true

davebender said:

I don't buy that excuse for one minute. The F5F would probably be less expensive to mass produce then P-38s and P-47s. Perhaps also less expensive then the somewhat pricey USN F4U.

Click to expand...

And why would you believe that?

apart from your apparent dislike of practically anything the Americans actually built in WW II?

Wing was within 1-2% of the F4U wing area. A combat ready F4U weighed 8,982 lb empty, a prototype F5F weighed 8,107lbs, no guns or mounts or ammo boxes or?? self sealing tanks? armor?
TWO 9 cylinder engines instead of ONE 18 cylinder engine. TWO propellers instead of one ( and propellers were not cheap).
The prototype F5F was slower and shorter ranged than the XF4U-1 although it climbed better at low altitude. Higher altitudes might be a different story. Engines only had two speed superchargers, not two stage.

Building less capable planes just because they are cheap ( and with no real idea if they are) is false economy.

FLYBOYJ said:

Not really - if the plane is trimmed for level flight in cruise with little turbulence, this can be easily done - HOWEVER

Click to expand...

Thank you for the link.

Since one of the missions for there " multi-role" aircraft was reconnaissance one might assume that the aircraft might be trying to send a spotting report while taking evasive action. Depending on non-turbulent air might be asking a bit much too

jimmaas said:

" ...it was a modification of the Buffalo, probably with design features from the XSBA or XSB2A like the bomb bay.... "

Click to expand...

Do you get the impression or was there any evidence that, based on the Brewster's apparent willingness to spin designs off its F2A-2 experience that the whole issue of chronically weak landing gear didn't arrive until the advent of the -3, or was Brewster betting on reinforced struts to solve a problem of which it was fully aware and had solution in hand?

jimmaas said:

So by refusing Brewster's offer to build the Buffalo under license, Grumman ensured we would have a slightly less advanced Navy fighter in 1942 (I mean, hand cranking landing gear? Seriously?).

Click to expand...

Well that's a perspective that I've never heard expressed Although, I don't recall anyone crediting the F2A-2 with hydraulic landing gear. Was that something I missed in your treatise on the Buff and if so, I assume it was hydraulically raised. Another first for Dayton Brown

oldcrowcv63 said:

Do you get the impression or was there any evidence that, based on the Brewster's apparent willingness to spin designs off its F2A-2 experience that the whole issue of chronically weak landing gear didn't arrive until the advent of the -3, or was Brewster betting on reinforced struts to solve a problem of which it was fully aware and had solution in hand?

Click to expand...

In the Brewster material I have, I haven't seen anything about a landing gear problem. Apparently, the same gear was to be used for the Wright 2600 folding wing development of the F2A propopsed to the Navy. So my suspicion is that the landing gear was no worse than other aircraft of the same era (hint - how many Bf-109's down at the wing have you seen?) until the overloaded F2A-3, and that black mark was retroactively applied to the entire series.

oldcrowcv63 said:

Well that's a perspective that I've never heard expressed Although, I don't recall anyone crediting the F2A-2 with hydraulic landing gear. Was that something I missed in your treatise on the Buff and if so, I assume it was hydraulically raised. Another first for Dayton Brown

Click to expand...

Yes, the Buff gear was hydraulic, and the USN pilots I communicated with regarded that and some other features (like visibility) to be more advanced than the F4F - one said the F4F was in some respects a step backward. The attempt to get Grumman to subcontract was in a telephone conversation between Brewster's preseident, James Work, and Leroy Grumman on April 29, 1938, evidently when Brewster got preliminary word of the contract for 54 F2A-1's. I mentioned it in the Summer 1985 article for the AAHS Journal as footnote 20.

Plenty of reason to suspect something was wrong with it.

Both Brewster and Grumman were small operations in the 30s. Brewster had built wings for some of the Grumman F3F Biplane series so there was some sort of working relationship between the two companies. Who was going to subcontract to who might have varied from month to month let alone year to year. When Grumman came up with the F3F-3 Brewster was now busy with the early F2A-1s and Grumman had to find another wing maker as their own factory was still too small. The factories that churned out all those aircraft in 1942-44 were often bare plots of land in 1938-39 and early 1940.