How Could The US Have Been More Prepared to Fight WW2?

[swampyankee]

We agree except that we did have weapons systems in design and production for our own use.

Other than the new high altitude bomber (B-29) the light, medium, and heavy bombers were useless. They couldn't hit a thing, so they could all be cancelled. The only use for level bombers was in using heavy bombers to destroy cities.

Taking the buffalo out of service won't generate more F-4's? Correct. When the naval P-51's arrive the older F4's would be given to shore units to defend islands and coastlines.

There was no close air support doctrine in WW2? I know there wasn't. The generals and admirals were playing too much golf and not thinking about war fighting.

Force dispositions require foreknowledge of where and when Japan would attack? We knew they were in Korea and China and we moved much of our Navy from the west coast to Hawaii and we already had some forces in Wake, Guam, and Midway.

Would naval P-51s arrive at all? The F4U prototype flew and demonstrated 400 mph in level flight by October 1940, before the first flight of the P-51. Arguably, it would have made more sense for the USAAF to buy Corsairs than for the NAA to try to get P-51s to operate off carriers.

Operationally, without the B-17 and B-24, the USAAF would not have learned all the lessons about air war over Europe that were necessary to run the strategic bombing campaign, like being able to navigate well enough to find the right city over an overcast, uncooperative occupied Europe. Or, for that matter, to find out that bombers needed escorts when flying against an enemy that was competent and well-equipped. The B-29's first flight wasn't until May 1942, and it's highly unlikely any amount of money or resources would move that forward more than a couple of weeks: the aircraft was in a test -> fix -> modify -> test cycle that could not really be shortened.

Another issue is that the US military aircraft production was almost entirely by private contractors, all of which were run by fiercely competitive men. Tell Consolidated or Curtiss or Grumman to suck it up and build something from Boeing or NAA, and politicians and bureaucrats (both in and out of uniform) would be getting irate phone calls and telegrams from every elected official in the affected states and what would seem like half the constituents.

So, your job is to explain why these companies should suck it up and build other people's crap

• Bell
• Curtiss
• Douglas
• Fairchild
• Republic
• Grumman
• Lockheed
• Consolidated
• Martin
• Vought-Sikorsky
• Vultee

We'll leave McDonell and Northrop out of this; neither had a significant presence as airframe manufacturers. We'll also leave out Brewster because, well, they were terrible. Cessna, Beech, Stinson, Howard, WACO, and a host of others had no significant military presence.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

The P-51 airframe would have to be strengthened to cope with carrier landings? Not really, just where the tailhook attaches to would need to be stronger.

.

I'm not an aircraft design engineer, but I am a 20 year experienced aircraft mechanic, and a pilot who happens to work in a military aircraft engineering department at a very large and well known company. I deal with aircraft engineering in a retrofit and modification function, and deal with strength analysis on a daily basis almost. Take that for what its worth.

The problem is that you are over simplifying everything, and not viewing things from a real-work realistic viewpoint. Take the landing hook installation. It takes a lot more than just strengthening the area it attaches too. The forces of a carrier landing affect more than just the tail hook area. The entire airframe will be stressed more so than a normal landing when that hook grabs. Additionally, the landing gear will require strengthening, and probably the wings and other structures as well.

That all adds weight as well, which affects all aspects of the the aircrafts performance and handling.

I tell you what, you don't BS me and I won't BS you, okay?

Don't throw rocks at glass houses. Respect is a mutually earned thing. You do not go into someone's house, demand respect and not give it. On a message forum people respond and feed off of each others behavior. 1st impressions and attitudes go a long way.

 

[Dook]

Where do you put the tail hook? Will the tail take the strain of repeated landings? Same for the main landing gear, what was the stall speed and low speed handling like? If the British purchasing commission hadn't ordered it no admiral or general in the US or UK would have seen it. That is not my acceptance of mediocrity, it is what happened. If you want to cancel all bombers except the B-29 can you explain why, it couldn't hit anything but a city from 30,000ft, its most devastating raids were done at night using incendiaries apart from the A Bomb for which it had to be modified. The B-29 wasn't just a different shaped B17, all sorts of technologies and materials were developed to make the project work, you cant just say "I want it sooner" it went into service ASAP (probably too soon). Cancelling all other projects means nothing was learned from those projects. It took a long time even to get the B-17 to work as expected.

Where do you put the tailhook? At the rear.

Will it take the strain of repeated landings? Yes, but there's nothing wrong with making the landing gear stronger.

Have you seen a non-carrier based aircraft land on a runway in a crosswind or bad weather?

No US admiral or general would have seen the P-51 except for the British purchasing it? I know.

Could I explain why I think level bombers couldn't hit anything other than a city? Because they couldn't hit anything other than a city. The US tried many times to hit specific targets and failed to destroy those targets even when using hundreds of bombers.

It takes time to develop new aircraft? It took time because there was no hurry even though the world was at war in 1939. If you wanted you could have three shifts, a day shift, a night shift and another shift that comes on at midnight.

 

[pbehn]

The P-51 was developed to British requirements, not American? I know because the US admirals and generals were out playing golf instead of doing their jobs.

The P-51 airframe would have to be strengthened to cope with carrier landings? Not really, just where the tailhook attaches to would need to be stronger.

The entire airframe would need corrosion protection? You mean paint?

And some degree of buoyancy? Uh, no. Not how aircraft are designed.

Carriers would need storage for coolant? You mean water? Ships produce their own water, even in WW2.

Coolant is highly flammable? Water is not flammable. It actually puts out fire.

I tell you what, you don't BS me and I won't BS you, okay?

This is so bad its funny, I suggest you read some books and be aware of how learned some people who post here are and I don't mean me. If you strengthen the bit the tail hook attaches to, then the tail hook and the bit it is attached to gets ripped off and the rest goes into the catch netting. Glycol was used as a coolant, it is flammable. Corrosion protection isn't just paint, salt water eats aluminium and eats it even quicker if it is in an electrolytic cell with iron or steel. It collects in all sorts of places so you have to re design the airframe or modify it to reduce corrosion. The whole P-51 "thing" is based on hind sight and the need for a long range escort. Until 1942/43 no one thought an escort was needed or even possible for the ranges that were needed and actually until 1942 the P-51 with Merlin was a theory not an actuality. It was agreat plane but for carrier operations give me a Wildcat/Hellcat every time.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I was serious but now I know I will be banned pretty quickly so I'm going to go down in flames. I love it, playing with war nerds who have no imagination and can't think outside of the box and don't like any idea that's not there's. But you could never think of it.

I haven't seen Sgt Rock and His Howling Commando's. Not really a fan of black and white movies.

Do I have any idea how long it takes to build the jigs needed to produce aircraft? You never asked what my profession is, hehe... I might know a bit more about it than you do, hehe... Two weeks, if you're not in a hurry. So you're under the impression that businesses don't really want to sell their stuff to aircraft manufacturers? You must be Russian, that's why you don't understand how capitalism works.

You're going to leave my thread? Aww darn, I was so looking forward to your interesting and helpful comments, hehe...

Here's a suggestion that you won't take because you think you're smarter than everyone else and you're not. Next time, ask the new person a few questions to find out what their occupation is before acting like you know more than they do about aircraft production.

You are right. Your insulting attitude is about to get you banned.

This forum is not a bunch of ignorant war geeks as you put it. We are a group of enthusiasts of WW2 aviation that come from all walks of life, includin

Former and current military
Pilots
Mechanics
Engineers
Book authors
Historical scholars

So get off the high horse you rode in on.

 

[swampyankee]

The P-51 was only unsuitable for carrier operations because it didn't have a tailhook.

And because it had an excessive stall speed, inadequate low-speed stability, landing gear unable to tolerate the sink rate needed for carrier landings, inadequate corrosion protection, poor ditching characteristics (the belly scoop would make ditching roughly akin to running into a strongly built brick wall), a liquid-cooled engine (the USN carriers would have needed refits to carry glycol), and probably more.

 

[pbehn]

And because it had an excessive stall speed, inadequate low-speed stability, landing gear unable to tolerate the sink rate needed for carrier landings, inadequate corrosion protection, poor ditching characteristics (the belly scoop would make ditching roughly akin to running into a strongly built brick wall), a liquid-cooled engine (the USN carriers would have needed refits to carry glycol), and probably more.

Is glycol a navy name for water? Like they call brandy "grog"?

 

[Dook]

Would naval P-51s arrive at all? The F4U prototype flew and demonstrated 400 mph in level flight by October 1940, before the first flight of the P-51. Arguably, it would have made more sense for the USAAF to buy Corsairs than for the NAA to try to get P-51s to operate off carriers.

Operationally, without the B-17 and B-24, the USAAF would not have learned all the lessons about air war over Europe that were necessary to run the strategic bombing campaign, like being able to navigate well enough to find the right city over an overcast, uncooperative occupied Europe. Or, for that matter, to find out that bombers needed escorts when flying against an enemy that was competent and well-equipped. The B-29's first flight wasn't until May 1942, and it's highly unlikely any amount of money or resources would move that forward more than a couple of weeks: the aircraft was in a test -> fix -> modify -> test cycle that could not really be shortened.

Another issue is that the US military aircraft production was almost entirely by private contractors, all of which were run by fiercely competitive men. Tell Consolidated or Curtiss or Grumman to suck it up and build something from Boeing or NAA, and politicians and bureaucrats (both in and out of uniform) would be getting irate phone calls and telegrams from every elected official in the affected states and what would seem like half the constituents.

So, your job is to explain why these companies should suck it up and build other people's crap

• Bell
• Curtiss
• Douglas
• Fairchild
• Republic
• Grumman
• Lockheed
• Consolidated
• Martin
• Vought-Sikorsky
• Vultee

We'll leave McDonell and Northrop out of this; neither had a significant presence as airframe manufacturers. We'll also leave out Brewster because, well, they were terrible. Cessna, Beech, Stinson, Howard, WACO, and a host of others had no significant military presence.

The F4U flew in Oct '40 and would be better than the P-51? I like the F4U too but the P-51 has more range. Range is crucial. One squadron of F4 fighters did not make it back to the carrier at the Battle of Midway and had to ditch because they ran out of fuel.

Without the B-17 we would not have learned lessons about air war? My thinking is that you go with the best weapon system. They didn't start attacking Germany until '43 and the B-29 first flew in May of '42. As for the B-29 taking too much time to get fully operational, you just gotta kick them in the butt. Test cycles can always be shortened. You don't have to fly once a day.

Having other aircraft manufacturers build another company's design would be difficult? But they would lose their contract for their old bombers so they woudn't really have a choice, it's work.

 

[pbehn]

The F4U flew in Oct '40 and would be better than the P-51? I like the F4U too but the P-51 has more range. Range is crucial. One squadron of F4 fighters did not make it back to the carrier at the Battle of Midway and had to ditch because they ran out of fuel.

Without the B-17 we would not have learned lessons about air war? My thinking is that you go with the best weapon system. They didn't start attacking Germany until '43 and the B-29 first flew in May of '42. As for the B-29 taking too much time to get fully operational, you just gotta kick them in the butt. Test cycles can always be shortened. You don't have to fly once a day.

Having other aircraft manufacturers build another company's design would be difficult? But they would lose their contract for their old bombers so they woudn't really have a choice, it's work.

B-17C first used by the RAF in July 1941. B17Es used by USAAF May 1942.

 

[swampyankee]

Is glycol a navy name for water? Like they call brandy "grog"?

Glycol is the shortened name for ethylene glycol (properly 1,2-Ethandiol, C2H6O2 ), which was mixed, about 50/50, with water in liquid-cooled aircraft engine from the mid-1930s. It's inflammable and toxic.

Sailors in the USN no longer got grog. They'd either make their own or drink the fuel from torpedoes.

 

[Dook]

.

I'm not an aircraft design engineer, but I am a 20 year experienced aircraft mechanic, and a pilot who happens to work in a military aircraft engineering department at a very large and well known company. I deal with aircraft engineering in a retrofit and modification function, and deal with strength analysis on a daily basis almost. Take that for what its worth.

The problem is that you are over simplifying everything, and not viewing things from a real-work realistic viewpoint. Take the landing hook installation. It takes a lot more than just strengthening the area it attaches too. The forces of a carrier landing affect more than just the tail hook area. The entire airframe will be stressed more so than a normal landing when that hook grabs. Additionally, the landing gear will require strengthening, and probably the wings and other structures as well.

That all adds weight as well, which affects all aspects of the the aircrafts performance and handling.



Don't throw rocks at glass houses. Respect is a mutually earned thing. You do not go into someone's house, demand respect and not give it. On a message forum people respond and feed off of each others behavior. 1st impressions and attitudes go a long way.

I'm over simplifying things? And you all are over complicating things.

Putting a tailhook on an aircraft is more complicated than just strengthening the are it attaches too? I know but you don't design the entire aircraft around the attachment point. If you think changing the design for that is impossible or even too difficult to do then we couldn't have built anything.

Adding weight affects performance and handling? It does, hehe... I know people like you, unimaginative. You take everything exactly as it's given to you. You can't think of better ways to do things so you don't even try.

1st impressions matter? Tell yourself that.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I'm over simplifying things? And you all are over complicating things.

Putting a tailhook on an aircraft is more complicated than just strengthening the are it attaches too? I know but you don't design the entire aircraft around the attachment point. If you think changing the design for that is impossible or even too difficult to do then we couldn't have built anything.

Adding weight affects performance and handling? It does, hehe... I know people like you, unimaginative. You take everything exactly as it's given to you. You can't think of better ways to do things so you don't even try.

1st impressions matter? Tell yourself that.

And I know people like you...

Internet trolls who should not be allowed out of their parents basement.

 

[swampyankee]

The F4U flew in Oct '40 and would be better than the P-51? I like the F4U too but the P-51 has more range. Range is crucial. One squadron of F4 fighters did not make it back to the carrier at the Battle of Midway and had to ditch because they ran out of fuel.

Without the B-17 we would not have learned lessons about air war? My thinking is that you go with the best weapon system. They didn't start attacking Germany until '43 and the B-29 first flew in May of '42. As for the B-29 taking too much time to get fully operational, you just gotta kick them in the butt. Test cycles can always be shortened. You don't have to fly once a day.

Having other aircraft manufacturers build another company's design would be difficult? But they would lose their contract for their old bombers so they woudn't really have a choice, it's work.

There were no Corsairs as the Battle of Midway.

Have you ever been involved in aircraft or aircraft engine testing? Even in peacetime, test cycles are under severe time pressure; the idea that they can be significantly shortened because some politician in a star-spangled suit wants them to be is nonsense.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

And by the way, you did not go down in flames like you wanted. Troll.

 

[buffnut453]

The P-51 airframe would have to be strengthened to cope with carrier landings? Not really, just where the tailhook attaches to would need to be stronger.

No...as others have pointed out, the undercarriage needs strengthening. Then you need to look at the wing spar to see if that can hold up to the extra stresses. Oh, and adding a folding wing. Then there are longitudinal forces along the entire fuselage (not just where the hook attaches to the tail). All of that adds weight which affects performance.

The entire airframe would need corrosion protection? You mean paint?

No...I mean multiple layers of corrosion control. Take a look at the USAAF airframes that were transported to the UK on the decks of ships. They were essentially cocooned because the existing treatment for the metal wasn't sufficient to deal with the highly corrosive saltwater environment.

And some degree of buoyancy? Uh, no. Not how aircraft are designed.

No...Naval aircraft ARE designed with built-in buoyancy to give the crew a fighting chance of getting out alive in the event of ditching. And all that's ignoring the likely disastrous ditching characteristics of the P-51 with its huge radiator scoop under the fuselage.

Carriers would need storage for coolant? You mean water? Ships produce their own water, even in WW2.

Coolant is highly flammable? Water is not flammable. It actually puts out fire.

No...I mean glycol which was the coolant used on Merlin engines. It's nasty stuff and is highly flammable. There's a reason the US Navy didn't want inline engines on their aircraft.

I tell you what, you don't BS me and I won't BS you, okay?

Fair enough...looking forward to seeing you start that process!

 

[pbehn]

Putting a tailhook on an aircraft is more complicated than just strengthening the are it attaches too? I know but you don't design the entire aircraft around the attachment point. If you think changing the design for that is impossible or even too difficult to do then we couldn't have built anything.

Adding weight affects performance and handling? It does, hehe... I know people like you, unimaginative. You take everything exactly as it's given to you. You can't think of better ways to do things so you don't even try.

.

Yes it does, if your plane experiences 11G when being arrested, your tail hook attachment your 5 ton aircraft becomes 55 tons and a reinforcement plate isn't enough. A hard landing could rip the tail off almost any WW2 aircraft, its just the weaker it is the more it happens.

 

[swampyankee]

I'm over simplifying things? And you all are over complicating things.

Putting a tailhook on an aircraft is more complicated than just strengthening the are it attaches too? I know but you don't design the entire aircraft around the attachment point. If you think changing the design for that is impossible or even too difficult to do then we couldn't have built anything.

Adding weight affects performance and handling? It does, hehe... I know people like you, unimaginative. You take everything exactly as it's given to you. You can't think of better ways to do things so you don't even try.

1st impressions matter? Tell yourself that.

Considering that some of the "people like you" to whom you are referring are actually people who have been involved in the design and construction of aircraft, that's pretty presumptuous.

Before you repost on this topic, I suggest that you spend some time learning. Start with Aeronautics and Astronautics | MIT OpenCourseWare | Free Online Course Materials and get back to us when you're done.

 

[buffnut453]

Well...that was all over quickly, wasn't it.

I don't think he could type very well...his name should have had an "R" instead of one of the "O"s.

 

[pbehn]

Where do you put the tailhook? At the rear.

Will it take the strain of repeated landings? Yes, but there's nothing wrong with making the landing gear stronger.

Have you seen a non-carrier based aircraft land on a runway in a crosswind or bad weather?

No US admiral or general would have seen the P-51 except for the British purchasing it? I know.

Could I explain why I think level bombers couldn't hit anything other than a city? Because they couldn't hit anything other than a city. The US tried many times to hit specific targets and failed to destroy those targets even when using hundreds of bombers.

It takes time to develop new aircraft? It took time because there was no hurry even though the world was at war in 1939. If you wanted you could have three shifts, a day shift, a night shift and another shift that comes on at midnight.

You are being so negative, its possible to hit a battleship with one of these.

 

[GrauGeist]

Interesting that I pointed out that the USN evaluated three different types of the P-51 (which had been navalized for the trials) and didn't adopt any of them. That bit of info could have easily been researched (both on this site and the interwebs) to understand why.
But...I guess it's easier to argue than learn...