Improve That Design: How Aircraft Could Have Been Made Better

[P-39 Expert]

Wasn't the P-38 earlier in the combat than P-39?

I don't think so. P-39 was at Port Moresby in April '42. P-38 got into sustained combat in the Pacific and N. Africa in late '42. AAF would have ben hard pressed in '42 without the P-39.

 

[GrauGeist]

What will you use for fighters in 1942? P-38 didn't get into combat until late '42.

The Curtiss P-40...

 

[P-39 Expert]

The Curtiss P-40...

A clean P-40E could not get to 20000' without climb falling below 1000fpm, the minimum for combat and speed topped out at 340mph at only 15000ft. Cold meat for any Zero or 109/190.

 

[tomo pauk]

I don't think so. P-39 was at Port Moresby in April '42. P-38 got into sustained combat in the Pacific and N. Africa in late '42. AAF would have ben hard pressed in '42 without the P-39.

They were hard pressed in 1942 in Pacific, but not in theaters against Germany, at least not until the Operation Torch.
1/4 or P-39s were lost en route from Australia to Port Moresby - so let's send the P-38s and P-40s there, not in the UK at 1st.
If AAF is lacking fighters inn 1942, there is that company in Inglewood that is begging for the USAAF attention during 1941.

 

[P-39 Expert]

The P-39s lost en route from Australia to PM were due to weather and the fault of the fledgling AAF. Any P-38s and P-40s sent into that weather would have been lost.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

Once the XP-39 was discovered what it really was by NACA, I'd cancel it all together and have Bell making the P-38s under licence.

What will you use for fighters in 1942? P-38 didn't get into combat until late '42.

When the shortcomings of the P39 sank in, that big shiny new plant in Niagara built by Uncle Sam for Larry Bell could have been switched over to P40 production. This would have relieved Curtiss's overcrowded facility in downtown Buffalo, just down the road, as at that time, the new Bell plant was still tooling up. With no P39 the Soviets would have made better use of the P40 and never missed the P39. The P40 was a more versatile fighter and in short supply in 1941-42.
My dad worked at Bell Niagara late war, and said that in addition to P39s and P63s, they built sub assemblies for P38s. Oddly enough, 25 years later, I worked in the former Bell plant in Burlington VT, which by then was GE Aircraft Armament Division. Vulcans, minis, micros, turrets, pods, VADS, pintles, we made them all. And eventually (after my time), the 'Hog cannon and the CIWS. (the Sea-Whizz)

 

[GrauGeist]

A clean P-40E could not get to 20000' without climb falling below 1000fpm, the minimum for combat and speed topped out at 340mph at only 15000ft. Cold meat for any Zero or 109/190.

You do realize that the early P-40s saw action against Axis aircraft prior to 1942 and was able to hold it's own, right?
The bulk of engagements occurred at lower altitudes and the P-40 was proven to best the A6M and KI-43 as long as it maintained it's speed in a fight (i.e.: force the enemy to fight on the P-40's terms).

 

[jmcalli2]

Wasn't the P-38 earlier in the combat than P-39?

The P-39D fought over New Guinea in April 1942. By the end of 1942 P-39s had claimed 80 Japanese aircraft.
The first P-38 in action was the F-4, an unarmed photo recon version of the P-38E, in April 1942. The fighter version followed, shooting down their first Japanese aircraft in August 1942. That same month a P-38 based in Iceland shot down a Fw-200.

It wasn't so much which went into action first, it was production. The P-39 used one V-1710, the P-38 used two. In 1942 there were more P-39s than p-38s. In 1941, you could build P-39s faster than P-38s, so there were more P-39s available.

A P-38 in the field required more mechanic time to maintain, more oil & fuel per mission, and twice the number of engine parts such as spark plugs compared to the P-39. To get fighters in place quickly in 1942, you used the single engined ones.

Overall, 9,588 P-39s and 3,303 P-63s, a total of 12,891 Cobras, were built during WWII.
There were 10,037 P-38s built during WWII.

 

[jmcalli2]

The Curtiss P-40...

Not enough of them, and they were based on an older design, the P-36.

 

[jmcalli2]

You do realize that the early P-40s saw action against Axis aircraft prior to 1942 and was able to hold it's own, right?
The bulk of engagements occurred at lower altitudes and the P-40 was proven to best the A6M and KI-43 as long as it maintained it's speed in a fight (i.e.: force the enemy to fight on the P-40's terms).

I believe that the P-40s with the AVG didn't fight Zeros, they fought Oscars and Nates. Zeros were naval fighters, and the AVG was up against Japanese Army units. Also, the AVG and Chinese used P-40s, P-66s, P-43s and other aircraft in addition to P-40s. Same tactics applied though; Chenault developed them by, among other things, learning from Soviet pilots who had fought the Japanese.
Interesting that the tactics didn't get out from the AVG to the AAF and USN/USMC; they had to reinvent these tactics for themselves. The P-39s in New Guinea suffered for it.

 

[GrauGeist]

Not enough of them, and they were based on an older design, the P-36.

That's pretty much common knowledge - plus the P-36 and P-40 fought alongside each other at Pearl Harbor.

I believe that the P-40s with the AVG didn't fight Zeros, they fought Oscars and Nates. Zeros were naval fighters, and the AVG was up against Japanese Army units.

You apparently missed where I stated A6M AND KI-43 in my post, which did not have anything to do with the AVG specifically.
The P-40 did fight both, the A6M being prevelant in the defence of Australia and the Solomons/New Guinea campaigns early on.

 

[tomo pauk]

The P-39D fought over New Guinea in April 1942. By the end of 1942 P-39s had claimed 80 Japanese aircraft.
The first P-38 in action was the F-4, an unarmed photo recon version of the P-38E, in April 1942. The fighter version followed, shooting down their first Japanese aircraft in August 1942. That same month a P-38 based in Iceland shot down a Fw-200.

With Bell making P-38s instead the P-39s, there can be more of P-38s than historically. They also have far better range & radius, a thing that was a crucial asset in Pacific; better turn of spedd and climb from 10000 ft on are another nods for the P-38.

It wasn't so much which went into action first, it was production. The P-39 used one V-1710, the P-38 used two. In 1942 there were more P-39s than p-38s. In 1941, you could build P-39s faster than P-38s, so there were more P-39s available.

A P-38 in the field required more mechanic time to maintain, more oil & fuel per mission, and twice the number of engine parts such as spark plugs compared to the P-39. To get fighters in place quickly in 1942, you used the single engined ones.

P-38 could do the missions P-39 could do, while vice-versa is not true. P-39 is incapable of escorting the bombers beyond 150-200 miles, the P-38 can do more than twice of that. P-38 can intercept Japanese flying at 17000 ft and above, P-39 not so well.
As above - Bell making P-38s means there is more P-38s to come by, even if it might be 4:9 ratio in favor of P-39.

 

[jmcalli2]

That's pretty much common knowledge - plus the P-36 and P-40 fought alongside each other at Pearl Harbor.

You apparently missed where I stated A6M AND KI-43 in my post, which did not have anything to do with the AVG specifically.
The P-40 did fight both, the A6M being prevelant in the defence of Australia and the Solomons/New Guinea campaigns early on.

I blame my fat fingers.

LOL

Sorry!

 

[XBe02Drvr]

Not enough of them, and they were based on an older design, the P-36.

There could have been, if Bell Niagara had been tooled for P40 production in place of P39. Alternate assembly lines could have allowed newer or modified models to go on line without pausing production to retool the one and only production facility. E's and perhaps F's sooner and in greater quantities.

PS: We used to fly to Buffalo and to Niagara, and I've seen both plants, as well as what used to be Curtiss's airport facility (which didn't yet exist at the time frame in question).
The Bell Niagara plant was huge, though when I saw it was a Westinghouse plant and an industrial park.

 

[jmcalli2]

With Bell making P-38s instead the P-39s, there can be more of P-38s than historically. They also have far better range & radius, a thing that was a crucial asset in Pacific; better turn of spedd and climb from 10000 ft on are another nods for the P-38.



P-38 could do the missions P-39 could do, while vice-versa is not true. P-39 is incapable of escorting the bombers beyond 150-200 miles, the P-38 can do more than twice of that. P-38 can intercept Japanese flying at 17000 ft and above, P-39 not so well.
As above - Bell making P-38s means there is more P-38s to come by, even if it might be 4:9 ratio in favor of P-39.

That is true.

However, if you look at production, in 1941 the USAAF accepted 205 P-38s and 926 P-39s for the entire year.
Through the end of April 1942 they accepted 325 more P-38s and 486 P-39s.
That gives you 530 P-38s and 1412 P-39s for a total of 1942 (!) by the end of April 1942.
You just were not going to ramp up P-38 production any faster.
If you used Bell to make P-38s, then you'd at best make half as many P-38s as P-39s were built there due to engine supply. That means you've have 1236 fighters instead of 1942.
I don't see having 706 fewer fighters as being an advantage.

In case I botched the math, you can see the production figures here:

U.S.A.A.F. Fighter Monthly Acceptances (1940-1946)

 

[tomo pauk]

That is true.

However, if you look at production, in 1941 the USAAF accepted 205 P-38s and 926 P-39s for the entire year.
Through the end of April 1942 they accepted 325 more P-38s and 486 P-39s.
That gives you 530 P-38s and 1412 P-39s for a total of 1942 (!) by the end of April 1942.
You just were not going to ramp up P-38 production any faster.
If you used Bell to make P-38s, then you'd at best make half as many P-38s as P-39s were built there due to engine supply. That means you've have 1236 fighters instead of 1942.
I don't see having 706 fewer fighters as being an advantage.

In case I botched the math, you can see the production figures here:

U.S.A.A.F. Fighter Monthly Acceptances (1940-1946)

I'm sure your math is correct; the production of P-38s at Lockheed was not something they will be able to brag about until well into 1942.
Striving just to have as many fighters as possible while not looking at what the fighters are capable for might be a bad math for the USAAC in 1942, however. The P-39, as a fighter that was ill able to cover the area 200-300-400 miles away from the base, was heavily criticized by Gen Kenney.

 

[P-39 Expert]

With Bell making P-38s instead the P-39s, there can be more of P-38s than historically. They also have far better range & radius, a thing that was a crucial asset in Pacific; better turn of spedd and climb from 10000 ft on are another nods for the P-38.



P-38 could do the missions P-39 could do, while vice-versa is not true. P-39 is incapable of escorting the bombers beyond 150-200 miles, the P-38 can do more than twice of that. P-38 can intercept Japanese flying at 17000 ft and above, P-39 not so well.
As above - Bell making P-38s means there is more P-38s to come by, even if it might be 4:9 ratio in favor of P-39.

Here's a performance graph of the P-39K (basically same as P-39D), A6M2 Zero in red and P-40E in green. Blue is P-39 climb at 3000rpm. All straight from wwiiaircraftperformance.

The P-40E is barely faster than the Zero at 15000ft but falls off rapidly above that and will not climb to 20000ft and maintain 1000fpm climb rate. P-40E is deficient to P39 in all respects and barely as fast as the Zero. This is mid '42 and P-38 Lightning is not available yet.

 

[tomo pauk]

Here's a performance graph of the P-39K (basically same as P-39D), A6M2 Zero in red and P-40E in green. Blue is P-39 climb at 3000rpm. All straight from wwiiaircraftperformance.

The P-40E is barely faster than the Zero at 15000ft but falls off rapidly above that and will not climb to 20000ft and maintain 1000fpm climb rate. P-40E is deficient to P39 in all respects and barely as fast as the Zero. This is mid '42 and P-38 Lightning is not available yet.

Let's pick the least capable P-40 and the least capable Zero, while picking the most capable P-39 and draw conclusions? Sorry - no.
Lighting is available already in 1941.

 

[P-39 Expert]

Let's pick the least capable P-40 and the least capable Zero, while picking the most capable P-39 and draw conclusions? Sorry - no.
Lighting is available already in 1941.

Those were the versions available in mid 1942. By October the improved P-39s and P-40s with the 9.6 supercharged engines would be in production but the P-40 always lagged behind the P-39 in performance since they were about 600lbs heavier. The much improved Merlin P-40F had about the exact same performance as that P-39K on the graph. And the K model was about the same as the D model. And these were the 7650lb versions which could have been significantly lighter.

In the entire year of 1941 there were only 205 lightnings produced including only 36 P-38Ds and maybe 60 P-38Es. 115 E models were produced between Sept '41 and April '42. The first real combat capable P-38s were the F & G models. Lightnings were just not available for combat yet.

 

[jmcalli2]

I'm sure your math is correct; the production of P-38s at Lockheed was not something they will be able to brag about until well into 1942.
Striving just to have as many fighters as possible while not looking at what the fighters are capable for might be a bad math for the USAAC in 1942, however. The P-39, as a fighter that was ill able to cover the area 200-300-400 miles away from the base, was heavily criticized by Gen Kenney.

But, it held the Japanese at bay; it accomplished what it needed to.
The P-40 was the most numerous AAF fighter at the time, but was slower, climbed worse, and did not turn as well as the P-39. Had there been P-40s in New Guinea instead of P-39s, nothing would have changed.

As a mentor once told me, sometimes 'just good enough' is good enough.