Improve That Design: How Aircraft Could Have Been Made Better

[tomo pauk]

...
Had there been P-40s in New Guinea instead of P-39s, nothing would have changed.
...

Thank you.

 

[GrauGeist]

Had there been P-40s in New Guinea instead of P-39s, nothing would have changed.

Just a head's up: there were P-40s in New Guinea and northern Australia, both USAAF and RAAF. They had been diverted when the Japanese attacked the Philippines.
They were reinforced by new P-40s as well as new P-39s (delivered 25 April 1942).

 

[jmcalli2]

Thank you.

Some thoughts on that:

The P-39s did not have what the AVG did; an 'early warning system' of observers warning them of incoming attacks.
They often had 10 minutes or less to get in their planes and climb to 20,000 ft to intercept. Too often they were bounced on the vulnerable way up.

The USAAF planned for combat put to 15,000 ft. The rest of the world planned on 20,000 ft.
The turbocharged P-43 had capabilities well above 20,000 ft, yet AAF testing, http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-43/P-43_Official_Performance_Summary.jpg , tended to stop at 15,000 ft.

In December of 1941 the USAAF was in the process of replacing their too few P-35s and P-36s with P-40s, P-39s, and P-38s while developing P-47s and P-51s. 1942 was the year of gaining experience while building up forces.
All that was required of the P-39s and P-40s was to be good enough.
They were good enough.

 

[wuzak]

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

Weren't there many more P-40s available than P-39s at the time?

 

[jmcalli2]

Weren't there many more P-40s available than P-39s at the time?

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

4380 P-40s were accepted by the USAAF from 1940 through the end of April 1942.
Even though the P-40 had a seven month 'head start' over the P-39 and about a year on the P-38, Curtiss did a very good job of cranking them out.
But by 1943 Bell was producing more P-39s than Curtiss was P-40s.
In fact, in 1943 Bell cranked out more P-39s @ 4,947, than P-40s @ 4,258, P-47s @ 4,428, P-38s @ 2,213, and P-51s @ 1,710.
That's 17,556 solid fighters in 1943 alone, not including 6,065 USN/USMC fighters.
Germany produced 10,059 fighters in 1943.
Japan produced 7,147 fighters in 1943.
Germany and Japan were not producing meaningful numbers of heavy bombers in 1943. The US produced over 9,500 that year.
US fighter production surged from 23,000+ in 1943 to over 38,000 in 1944, the year P-40 production stopped.

It was as much a numbers war as a qualitative one.

 

[GrauGeist]

Weren't there many more P-40s available than P-39s at the time?

Between January 1941 and December 1941, the USAAC took delivery of 131 P-40Bs, 193 P-40Cs and 22 P-40Ds.
This doesn't include the first type, P-40 (no "A") that the Air Corps accepted before the production was deferred to fill the French order.
A number of these P-40s listed above, were lost during the Japanese attacks at Pearl Harbor, the Philippines and the sinking of the USS Langley (CV-1) in January 1942, which saw the loss of 64 P-40s: 32 "fly off" and 27 crated.

 

[nuuumannn]

while developing P-47s and P-51s.

Just a wee note, by December 1941, all Mustang production was for the RAF. The Mustang was at that time ostensibly a 'British' aircraft, although two examples had gone to Wright Patterson for evaluation in July 1941. The USAAC/AAF had not shown any interest in it initially, but the Army ordered 150, simply designated P-51s (which became Mustang Ias and Mustang IIs) in July 1941 under Lend Lease for the RAF, but it wasn't until early/mid 1942 that the USAAF looked to the type, as an attack aircraft, not a fighter, for its own ranks.

 

[Milosh]

Why did it take so long for the AAF to look at the Mustang?

 

[GrauGeist]

Why did it take so long for the AAF to look at the Mustang?

At the time, the Army had fighter contracts for the P-40, P-38 and P-39.
With the Mustang being developed for Britain, the Army was not particularly involved until they evaluated it.

And to touch on an earlier comment about Curtiss production: Bell may have delivered more P-39s to the USAAF than Curtiss, but that's not taking into account that Curtiss (at the time) was delivering more P-40s to Britain than the U.S. (which is the reason the Mustang came into being).

 

[nuuumannn]

Why did it take so long for the AAF to look at the Mustang?

Because it was designed and built for the British and contractually, RAF requirements had to be met first. As Dave points out, the AAF already had fighters under order when the Mustang entered the picture.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

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.

They did get out, Chenault saw to that. His nemesises from Air Corps days saw to it that they they were debunked as "Buck Rogers stuff" and didn't get disseminated.

Lighting is available already in 1941.

Maybe stateside, and for testing and training, but not where it counts; battle-ready in the theater of operations. It's a long way from official acceptance on the manufacturer's ramp to the first combat sortie.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

The USAAF planned for combat put to 15,000 ft. The rest of the world planned on 20,000 ft.
The turbocharged P-43 had capabilities well above 20,000 ft, yet AAF testing, http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-43/P-43_Official_Performance_Summary.jpg , tended to stop at 15,000 ft.

"Big Army", who held the purse strings for USAAF, still tended to think of pursuit aviation as a battlefield tool, not a defensive or strategic asset.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

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).

And the P40's controls were better balanced and easier to handle at higher speeds than the Japanese fighters. Something that doesn't show up on performance charts, but makes a big difference in combat.

 

[P-39 Expert]

Some thoughts on that:

The P-39s did not have what the AVG did; an 'early warning system' of observers warning them of incoming attacks.
They often had 10 minutes or less to get in their planes and climb to 20,000 ft to intercept. Too often they were bounced on the vulnerable way up.

The USAAF planned for combat put to 15,000 ft. The rest of the world planned on 20,000 ft.
The turbocharged P-43 had capabilities well above 20,000 ft, yet AAF testing, http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-43/P-43_Official_Performance_Summary.jpg , tended to stop at 15,000 ft.

In December of 1941 the USAAF was in the process of replacing their too few P-35s and P-36s with P-40s, P-39s, and P-38s while developing P-47s and P-51s. 1942 was the year of gaining experience while building up forces.
All that was required of the P-39s and P-40s was to be good enough.
They were good enough.

True on the early warning system of observers, sometimes called coast watchers. They were usually people who lived in the area, farmers, etc. Hazardous as they were hunted by the Japanese.

Australian radar was just too far away to do much good. Radar was installed at Milne Bay in August and at Port Moresby in September, but from April until August/September they were blind for incoming raids. And those raids were coming from Lae less then 200 miles away. Either fly patrols with the two squadrons available or wait on the ground. Tough duty.

I've always maintained that the P-39 would have been much more effective much higher up had it weighed less, and the weight reduction could have been accomplished at forward bases.

 

[P-39 Expert]

Just a wee note, by December 1941, all Mustang production was for the RAF. The Mustang was at that time ostensibly a 'British' aircraft, although two examples had gone to Wright Patterson for evaluation in July 1941. The USAAC/AAF had not shown any interest in it initially, but the Army ordered 150, simply designated P-51s (which became Mustang Ias and Mustang IIs) in July 1941 under Lend Lease for the RAF, but it wasn't until early/mid 1942 that the USAAF looked to the type, as an attack aircraft, not a fighter, for its own ranks.

Didn't some of the early Mustangs have four 20mm cannons? Were they belt-fed, and how many rounds did they carry?

 

[jmcalli2]

At the time, the Army had fighter contracts for the P-40, P-38 and P-39.
With the Mustang being developed for Britain, the Army was not particularly involved until they evaluated it.

And to touch on an earlier comment about Curtiss production: Bell may have delivered more P-39s to the USAAF than Curtiss, but that's not taking into account that Curtiss (at the time) was delivering more P-40s to Britain than the U.S. (which is the reason the Mustang came into being).

Weren't P-40s going to Britain Lend Lease planes, officially accepted by the US? Certainly that holds true for the P-39s & P-63s, most of which ended up in the USSR.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

Weren't P-40s going to Britain Lend Lease planes, officially accepted by the US? Certainly that holds true for the P-39s & P-63s, most of which ended up in the USSR.

Once Lend-Lease was approved as official policy, planes passed through US ownership enroute to allies. Prior to that, they were direct purchase export products and belonged to their purchasers. This happened in the middle of production of several types: Boston, Harvard, Maryland, Catalina, Hawk 75, Tomahawk, Airacobra, to name a few.

 

[jmcalli2]

True on the early warning system of observers, sometimes called coast watchers. They were usually people who lived in the area, farmers, etc. Hazardous as they were hunted by the Japanese.

Australian radar was just too far away to do much good. Radar was installed at Milne Bay in August and at Port Moresby in September, but from April until August/September they were blind for incoming raids. And those raids were coming from Lae less then 200 miles away. Either fly patrols with the two squadrons available or wait on the ground. Tough duty.

I've always maintained that the P-39 would have been much more effective much higher up had it weighed less, and the weight reduction could have been accomplished at forward bases.

Once the AAF had decided the P-39 was for ground attack, they put a LOT of armor into it. Some models had almost four times the armor of a Spitfire:

The WWII Fighter Gun Debate: Fighter Armour

The other issue with the AAF during the first two years of the war was their babying of the V-1710. While evaluating the Mustang I the RAF found they could use it at much higher boost levels than the manuals allowed; in fact, the throttles were locked at 44" Hg. The RAF found they could operate the Allisons at up to 72" Hg for 20 minutes without harm to the engine:

E-GEH-16. near the bottom of the page.

Gotta wonder what the P-39 would have done with the extra boost.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

Gotta wonder what the P-39 would have done with the extra boost.

In the icy steppes of Russia, plenty; in the steaming jungles of New Guinea, probably not so much.

 

[jmcalli2]

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.

Again, 205 P-38s were accepted by the AAF in ALL of 1941.
In the beginning of January 1941 the AAF had exactly one P-38. By the end of the month they had two.
They had to produce the planes, deploy them and figure out & deploy the logistics to support them, develop a training program and train the pilots.

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