Groundhog Thread Part Deux - P-39 Fantasy and Fetish - The Never Ending Story (Mods take no responsibility for head against wall injuries sustained) (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter greybeard
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Shortround6
Major General
Unless they call it quits in 1939 they are stuck. It seems take around a year to go from an order for an existing, flying prototype to starting production (5th to 10th aircraft not 1 or two 2 and then as several month gap.) In Dec of 1940 AHT claims that Bell had 1600 P-39s (of whatever kinds) on order (or at least letters of intent?) but they had only delivered 13 aircraft in 1940 and 10 of them were in Dec, You already have hundreds of sets of parts for things like landing gear, brakes, radiators and whatever forgings/casting are done by outside contractors and not in house. This parts may not be complete but are in process. Switching to a different aircraft means re-ordering all these parts from perhaps hundreds of outside suppliers.
Bell did manage to build 926 P-39s in 1941 and 1932 in 1942 so adjust production as you see fit even if they made somebody else's plane. Hundreds of planes not built during this time?
Bell built 4947 P-39s in 1943 so again, how long do you shut down the factory to switch over to something else?
fubar57
General
They were working on another doozy in '42 Bell XP-77 - Wikipedia
Shortround6
Major General
Which strangely came in overweight and underpowered........... go figure
Bell was not entirely to blame, see,
XP-48
Not funded after review and
I don't know designed it but the company was headed by Preston Tucker of Tucker car fame.
Power was to come from an eight cylinder Miller engine (he had sold his 4 cylinder engine to Offenhauser) company went bankrupt before construction really began.
drgondog
Major
By 1942, the closest fit to any mission role for AAF for the P-39D was tactical recon/ground support. Low ceiling, heavy (unreliable 37mm M-4) armament, dubious low speed handling, short range - but it was fast and in serial production. It slotted better in SWP (fewer options for AAF, so go with what you have) than ETO and not deemed comparable to either the Spit In interceptor, or Hurricane (or Mustang or Typhoon) in Ground Support/recon. It would marginally out turn and outclimb the Mustang so it was preferable to VVS in their battlefield air supremacy role - and it was in serial production. When the P-40E emerged it was deemed more suitable as an all around fighter, When the P-47C emerged it was deemed more suitable as an all around fighter - with a ceiling and speed comparable to the P-38F. In 1942 when the A-36 and P-51-NA/Mustang IA emerged both were deemed more suitable to Ground Support and TacR role, better all around fighters. With wing racks on the A-36 and P-51A -combined with maueverability/speed and range - they were better than the P-40 and both P-40 and P-39 orders wound down very rapidly in 1943 - also impacting Allison. Had the VVS not sent some top engineers to Bell for P-63 improvements, it would have been a failure in context of 'better than P-39Q. The AAF did Bell huge favors by shuttling P-39/P-63 off to Lend Lease for Russia. As a track record for both design and R&D, Bell and Curtiss both were major disappointments to AAC and that is the reason they were forever out of the fighter business by the end of 1944 - as a consideration for future requirements.
P-39 Expert
Non-Expert
Excellent idea with 20/20 hindsight.
While we're at it, let's pull the plug on all of them except the P-51.
Who ordered these planes anyway? The P-40 was slower, climbed slower and had a lower ceiling (and a narrow landing gear). The P-38 couldn't dive and the P-47 couldn't climb. Neither could outturn ANY of their adversaries, either German or Japanese. P-47 had the endurance of a Spitfire and the P-38 would freeze you to death at altitude not to mention the power limitations of the intercoolers. Wonderful planes.
And the costs were excessive. Take a P-38 and a P-47, average their unit costs ($120k and 80k) and you can buy TWO Mustangs at $50000 each for every one P-38/47.
Cancel ALL of them. 14000 P-40s, 13000 P-39/63s, 9500 P-38s and 15600 P-47s. We could have had 77000 P-51s (in addition to the 15000 that were actually produced) for what was paid for the 52000 other fighters.
Just think of it, a logistic dream standardizing on one fighter with one type armament. The P-51 could have worked it's way up from the Allison to the single stage Merlin and on to the two stage Merlin and even the two stage Allison if needed or convenient. Fast with plenty of range for both the ETO and the PTO.
What in the world was Hap Arnold thinking?
fubar57
General
Shortround6
Major General
A little less hyperbole if you please.
I know (or really hope) you are being sarcastic but let's face it. The P-39 didn't meet the advertising hype that Bell had built up around it (more than a few other planes didn't either).
It was one of two fighters the US could have in production in large numbers in 1941/42.
Let's also remember (sorry P-40 fans) the Army didn't really want P-40s either. They ordered them in large numbers because they could get them quick. It was P-40s and P-39s or nothing basically on 1941-42. And a good part of 1943.
SO the question is when, once you decide to build the P-39 to begin with, can you afford to stop production and change to something else which could take 4-8 months. P-39 production averaged 412.5 aircraft a month in 1943. Even if 1/2 are going to Russians at what point in 1943 is the war going so well that you can afford to not produce about 1200 fighters for the USAAF and Allied (non Russian) air forces?
Shortround6
Major General
The US (and the world) got P-40s, not because they were really great (I am not saying they were bad) but because they were available.
The US built 1685 fighters in 1940.
481 of them were Hawk 75s/Mohawks.
778 of them were Hawk 81s/Tomahawks/P-40s
160 of them were Buffaloes
103 of them were Grumman F4fs
102 of them were P-35s or Swedish EP-1s.
The remaining 61 planes were split between 7 different types, including 13 YP-39s (most, if not all without guns).
In 1941 Curtiss built 2248 P-40s, Republic built 1 P-47, Lockheed built 207 P-38s (remember those hundreds of P-38s ordered by the French and British in the spring of 1940?)
Bell built 926 P-39s. NA built 138 Mustangs and Grumman built 324 F4Fs.
Curtiss, followed by Bell, had the only viable mass production fighter facilities in the US at the time. Compounded by the the R-2800 only going into production at the very end of 1940.
The P-47 didn't reach it's 1000th plane produced until the spring of 1943 over two years after the 1000th P-40 and about 1 1/4 years after the 1000th P-39.
The P-47 and P-38 may have been what the Army wanted, the P-39 and P-40 were what they could get.
The US built 1685 fighters in 1940.
481 of them were Hawk 75s/Mohawks.
778 of them were Hawk 81s/Tomahawks/P-40s
160 of them were Buffaloes
103 of them were Grumman F4fs
102 of them were P-35s or Swedish EP-1s.
The remaining 61 planes were split between 7 different types, including 13 YP-39s (most, if not all without guns).
In 1941 Curtiss built 2248 P-40s, Republic built 1 P-47, Lockheed built 207 P-38s (remember those hundreds of P-38s ordered by the French and British in the spring of 1940?)
Bell built 926 P-39s. NA built 138 Mustangs and Grumman built 324 F4Fs.
Curtiss, followed by Bell, had the only viable mass production fighter facilities in the US at the time. Compounded by the the R-2800 only going into production at the very end of 1940.
The P-47 didn't reach it's 1000th plane produced until the spring of 1943 over two years after the 1000th P-40 and about 1 1/4 years after the 1000th P-39.
The P-47 and P-38 may have been what the Army wanted, the P-39 and P-40 were what they could get.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Republic also manufactured 272 P-43 Lancers between 1940 and 1941.
Except that the Spitfire Mk IX and the Mustang Mk I appeared in service in UK at almost the same time, mid 1942 (Mustang MkI in May Spitfire Mk IX in July). Mr Arnold was doing what any rational person would do, using what he had in the best way possible until he had better stuff to use.
That's it, someone would need to realize, in 1939, that this is a flawed project and that the resources were better spent elsewhere.
fubar57
General
I think they realized that in August, '39
Clayton Magnet
Staff Sergeant
- 890
- Feb 16, 2013
The P-51 with Hispano Mk.II's? sounds great!
In 1939 that sounds wonderful.
Or why not just cancel all US designs and build 100,000 Spitfires and Hurricanes for the price??
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Or for that matter, let's everybody just buy Bf109s...
Bf109s for everybody! You get a Bf109, he gets a Bf109, they get a Bf109 the whole world gets a Bf109!!
Except Japan. Japan didn't like the Bf109. They're not a team player...
Bf109s for everybody! You get a Bf109, he gets a Bf109, they get a Bf109 the whole world gets a Bf109!!
Except Japan. Japan didn't like the Bf109. They're not a team player...
P-39 Expert
Non-Expert
The Russians are glad you weren't in charge of production.
fubar57
General
The Russians weren't at war yet so wouldn't have cared about the aircraft
P-39 Expert
Non-Expert
All those planes had multiple contracts, just build out the initial contract and move on to the P-51. Same Allison engine, same propellers, North American is part of GM so facilities and $$ shouldn't be a problem.
You'll also need to keep producing one of either the P-39 or P-40 to provide to our allies since you don't want to be giving the Russians a plane with the range of the P-51. And you'll need that plane to use until the P-51 becomes operational in July '42. In July '42 neither the P-38 nor the P-47 are in combat yet.
