July 1st 1937: your own USAAC/USAAF/USAF?

With better development of tactics and training, we could have ditched the WWI turning dog-fight tactics and embraced boom zoom energy tactics earlier.
AVG learned this early on but few listened and old tactics continued to get folks shot down killed.

Perhaps with more extensive aircraft development, we would have learned much earlier issues that today seem simple.
The P-38 provides several examples, perhaps the simplest being lack of appropriate heating in P-38 cockpit.
(You don't need Wernher von Braun or Alexander Lippisch to figure that one out.)

Better coordination between military and factory reps should have developed P-38 engine-leaning techniques prior to US entry in the war.

Etc, etc, etc.

Any money spent on buying B-18s was wasted on nearly worthless aircraft and retarded the development of strategic bombing. The B-18 was recognized as a dog when it first competed against the Boeing 299, and when the 299 crashed, the AAC should have suspended the competition until Boeing could construct a replacement. The AAC knew as early as 1935 that the B-17 was a game changer. To waste scarce mid-1930s funds on a clearly inferior product was criminal.

Even as things turned out in real life, the B-17Es were coming into service by Dec 41, but how many more Es or even Fs may have been in service if there were no deadbeat B-18s, or follow-on B-23s, soaking up funds? Given that the B-17 cost roughly twice as much as a B-18, and to answer a question posed earlier, yes, it would be much better to have 175 more B-17s and no B-18s available on 7 Dec 41. The early model -17s, Cs &Ds that weren't destroyed on the ground accounted pretty well for themselves, but were too few in numbers and lacked pursuit plane protection. Japanese aviators were astounded at how hard it was to knock down those early model Fortresses, even though they lacked a ball turret or tail gun position. They were fast, flew high and were more heavily armed than contemporary bombers.

Could the AAC get along without the B-18? Give me an example of B-18 success in its intended role as a strategic bomber? There are none. Yes, a few were successful on anti-sub patrols, or as transports, but we had other aircraft that could be used just as well in those roles, the Lockheed Hudson for one. Old B-10s could have been used for crew training, and in a pinch, DC-3s could have probably also be used as trainers since the obsolete DC-2 was the father of the B-18.

You want it both ways.
No B-18s does NOT mean more B-17Es and Fs.
It means more early or very early early B-17s. First order of 82 B-18s was on January 28, 1936, after the Army ordered 13 YB-17s on January 17, 1936. Another 41 YB-17s with 930 hp engines, no turbos and five .30 cal guns?

177 B-18As were ordered on June 10, 1937 with 78 more being added to the contract on June 30, 1938.

" On May 12, 1937, the Army decided to convert the static test Y1B-17 into a special flight test aircraft under the designation Y1B-17A. The plane was to be fitted with Moss/General Electric turbosuperchargers for its Wright GR-1820-51 (G5) Cyclone engines.
The Y1B-17A flew for the first time on April 29, 1938.....The Y1B-17A was delivered to the Army on January 31, 1939"
The Y1B-17A was ordered into production(in several small batches) and all 39 of the B-17Bs were delivered to the USAAC between July 29, 1939 and March 30, 1940. Boeing built them in on continuous batch.
The last B-18 was delivered in Jan 1940. The last 38 B-18s of the contract were delivered as B-23s.
"The maiden flight of the B-23 took place from Clover Field at Santa Monica on July 27, 1939....The remaining 37 B-23s were delivered between February and September of 1940, replacing the Northrop A-17As of the 17th Bomb Group based at March Field."
A further 38 Fortresses were ordered by the Army in 1939, these were the B-17Cs. "The first B-17C flew on July 21, 1940" as was kept by Boeing for development work.....Forty-two more B-17Cs were ordered on April 17, 1940" but there were enough changes to change the the designation to B-17D. "The first B-17D flew on February 3, 1941. The B-17Ds were delivered to the Army from February to April of 1941" the B-17C that were not sent to England were sent back to Boeing to be modified into B-17Ds.

The Army doesn't even get a B-17 with turbos to test until 6 months after the last B-18 is ordered. Granted the contracts can and were changed but it also took around a year from an order being placed for an existing design until delivery.

as far as the "combat effectiveness" of the B-18s goes. "Give me an example of B-18 success in its intended role as a strategic bomber? There are none. Yes, a few were successful on anti-sub patrols" It is very, very hard to judge anti-sub work. The Blimp is the classic case. Only one sub was ever sunk by a blimp (or partial credit) yet no convoy escorted by a blimp ever lost a ship. How effective was the Blimp for anti-sub work? almost total failure or important asset?

The "theory" seems to be not only don't by B-18s and buy B-17s ( that don't even exist in the "B" form yet) but ground things like the A-17 to "save money". What do the pilots fly in the meantime? what do the mechanics work on? What do the squadron and group commanders actual command?

The US Congress was NOT going to let the Army stockpile money from budget year to budget year waiting for better planes to come along.

You do NOT build a large air force over night from nothing even if you can build a lot of planes quickly. You need a group of experienced men, both at their specific job (pilot or mechanic) and in leadership/administration (squadron leaders/head mechanics/logistics) to form a core that the new crews ( both air and ground) can form around.

Random thoughts about armament:
Try to increase the RoF of the .50 BMG. A better performing bullet should not be too hard to pull off. Once the need for the heavier stuff is identified, maybe speak with Oerlikon directly? Or, get into the Hispano bandwagon, but at any rate make darn sure that weapon is built on proper tolerances.
Another approach, in order to act as a back up in case foreign weapons fail to materialize in timely manner, might be to neck out the .50 casing to maybe 17-18mm, so the HE shell is at 70-80 g. Modify the BMG accordingly to fire the new cartridge It would be able to be fired synchronized, just like the BMG, and unlike the Hispano. Four such cannons should suffice for most of the needs, the ammo count per volume would remain about as good as for the .50.

davebender said:

IMO that isn't necessary. National weapons should emphasize what you are good at building. For USA that means air cooled radial engines. Just as German aircraft should mostly use their excellent V12s.

R1830 and R2800 were excellent engines. R2600 looks good on paper but engine had quality problems. Either fix problems or else cancel the engine in favor of additional R2800s.

In any case USAAC should mass produce a variant of F4U rather then the inferior P-47. If that means admitting USN contract produced a superior fighter aircraft then so be it. Same thing happens during 1960s when USN F4 Phantom proved superior to USAF fighter aircraft. The Army might as well get used to eating humble pie.

Click to expand...

what were the quality problems with the R2600

Create plans and procedures for expansion of aircraft engine production including raw material, transportation, and other infrastructure issues. Fund factory facilities expansions as necessary. Priority would be on the R-2800 and Allison engines with other engines supported as back up. Accelerate development if possible.

Same for aircraft production.

Begin negotiations with US industrial powers to understand issues with transfer to war time production and establish war plans.

Fund research facilities to study advanced aerodynamics including high speed flight and advance propulsion concepts, including high speed and full size wind tunnel development.

Establish and fund rigorous testing procedures for all AAC aircraft and weapons, especially high altitude and high speed performance. Note here: The P-38 could have been an effective long range escort aircraft in 1943 if the problems of high altitude and high speed flight been identified and corrected earlier.

Fund development of efficient multistage superchargers.

Fund development of high octane fuel

Develop advance pilot training syllabus for high speed and high wing loading flight and possibly develop a trainer incorporating both.

Begin development of a light weight Fw-190 type point defense fighter based on R-2800 for export purposes.

Begin development of follow-on heavy bomber using turbo-supercharged R-2800 engine.

The latest AAC bombers (except the B-17 and B-24, IMO) and fighters available at the start of the war were excellent aircraft and only needed to be expedited in development.

50 cal was plenty sufficient for USAAC use. Fixing the American 20 mm would have helped the war effort.

tomo pauk said:

Random thoughts about armament:
Try to increase the RoF of the .50 BMG.

Click to expand...

Uh, Tomo, they did

the .50 cal's rate of fire was 600rpm or under until 1940. at some point in 1940 they boosted it to 800-850rpm for an synchronized gun. It took until the end of the war to get it up to 1200rpm and that took several companies ( at least 3 if not more) working on multiple projects for several years.

tomo pauk said:

A better performing bullet should not be too hard to pull off. Once the need for the heavier stuff is identified, maybe speak with Oerlikon directly? Or, get into the Hispano bandwagon, but at any rate make darn sure that weapon is built on proper tolerances.
Another approach, in order to act as a back up in case foreign weapons fail to materialize in timely manner, might be to neck out the .50 casing to maybe 17-18mm, so the HE shell is at 70-80 g. Modify the BMG accordingly to fire the new cartridge It would be able to be fired synchronized, just like the BMG, and unlike the Hispano. Four such cannons should suffice for most of the needs, the ammo count per volume would remain about as good as for the .50.

Click to expand...

The US did not know it at the time but the .50 cal did offer some advantages in logistics. The US was unique in that it's forces fought 3000-6000 miles )or more) from the factories producing the guns and ammunition. It was possible to change a .50 cal receiver from ground gun to aircraft or air-cooled to liquid-cooled in the field (or least in theater) with the proper parts and ammunition was fully interchangeable between all guns even if certain types were more desirable than others for certain uses.

Shortround6 said:

Uh, Tomo, they did

the .50 cal's rate of fire was 600rpm or under until 1940. at some point in 1940 they boosted it to 800-850rpm for an synchronized gun. It took until the end of the war to get it up to 1200rpm and that took several companies ( at least 3 if not more) working on multiple projects for several years.

Click to expand...

Indeed, they did.
The 800 rpm was for non-synchronized installation?

The US did not know it at the time but the .50 cal did offer some advantages in logistics. The US was unique in that it's forces fought 3000-6000 miles )or more) from the factories producing the guns and ammunition. It was possible to change a .50 cal receiver from ground gun to aircraft or air-cooled to liquid-cooled in the field (or least in theater) with the proper parts and ammunition was fully interchangeable between all guns even if certain types were more desirable than others for certain uses.

Click to expand...

The US forces were also using .30 cal, 20mm, 37mm in their aircraft, plus 40mm different 37mm and 40mm for AA needs. That would make 4 aircraft calibers and 2 AAA. So my proposal increases the number of ammo spares' sets needed from 6 to 7 at most. Not such a major hurdle for the US military? It would actually be back at 6 gun types, since I did not propose the development and use of the 37mm M4 cannon

BTW, how much of asset would be a 4-engined bomber with R-2800 engines? Even if it starts with 2-stage engines? On 1-stage engines? 'USA's Lancaster+'?

tomo pauk said:

Indeed, they did.
The 800 rpm was for non-synchronized installation?

Click to expand...

Sorry, yes for non-synchronized.

The US forces were also using .30 cal, 20mm, 37mm in their aircraft, plus 40mm different 37mm and 40mm for AA needs. That would make 4 aircraft calibers and 2 AAA. So my proposal increases the number of ammo spares' sets needed from 6 to 7 at most. Not such a major hurdle for the US military? It would actually be back at 6 gun types, since I did not propose the development and use of the 37mm M4 cannon

Click to expand...

The Army used the 37mm only in the P-39 and the 20mm only in a few P-39s (taken over from the British) and the P-38 and a few P-51As. The Navy used 20mm in the Helldiver and a few hundred Corsairs until the last year of the war.

BTW, how much of asset would be a 4-engined bomber with R-2800 engines? Even if it starts with 2-stage engines? On 1-stage engines? 'USA's Lancaster+'?

Click to expand...

It might have been a big asset but then what do you give up? Please remember that the work on the Actual B-29 in 1940 with the first 2 prototypes and a static test model ordered in late Aug of 1940. This was was Boeing model 345 (B-17 was model 299) and replaced model 341 which was a proposed bomber using R-2800s. From Joe Baughers web site.

" In August of 1939, Boeing had started work on the Model 341 project, which featured a new high-lift aerofoil for a high aspect-ratio wing of 124 feet 7 inches in span. The Model 341 offered a maximum speed of 405 mph at 25,000 feet. It was to have been powered by four 2000 hp Pratt Whitney R-2800 radials. Weighing 85,672 pounds, the range was to have been 7000 miles with one ton of bombs. A maximum load of 10,000 pounds could be carried over shorter distances."

Now if you get the Boeing 341 do you still get the B-29? Or if Boeing is busy does the B-32 become the R-3350 powered bomber? OR????
B-29 had about 15 ft more wingspan and weighed about 35,000lb more (almost 40%) than Boeing 341 "projected" figure.

The whole bombing fleet might use some tweaking.
Eg. the A-20 should start with 600-700 US gals of fuel, instead of 390. Those R-2600s were powerful, but consumption was also big. There is plenty of space for fuel tanks in the wing and above bomb bay. Next - is there really a need for the Lockheed Ventura/Harpoon? 3000+ were produced; 6000+ of R-2800s can give a good start for a 4-engined bomber. Better continue building the Hudsons, plus convert 1000 B-17s or B-24s for patrol work, should close the Atlantic Gap far better.
If far less of the B-24s are to be produced, adjust license production for more of the R-2800s prior the war starts, rather than R-1830s. More of the C series turbo, rather than B series. Not 1:1 ratio, of course, but then we have 2/3rds more power available. Once the R-3350 is there, would it be so hard to re-engine the big bomber? Should not the R-2800 powered bomber be able to haul the A-bomb, like the Lancaster has been able to do?

tomo pauk said:

BTW, how much of asset would be a 4-engined bomber with R-2800 engines? Even if it starts with 2-stage engines? On 1-stage engines? 'USA's Lancaster+'?

Click to expand...

Speed.
Exposure time is a function of probability of mission success. Increasing cruising speed from 200 mph to 250 mph will reduce exposure to enemy defenses by as much as an hour.

Higher cruise and dash speeds will make intercept significantly more difficult. Closure rate from the rear will decrease causing interceptors to have an increase in exposure time to defensive guns (see first comment). Approaches from the front will have much less time for target acquisition and aiming.

Higher engagement speed will require increase fuel consumption of attackers, which tend not to have a lot to start with, limiting their ability to reform and re-attack.

AAA will have less time for target acquisition and error corrections.

Altitude

Increasing cruising altitude another 5k (over B-17) to 10k (over B-24) feet would magnify the difficulty to intercept and even more difficult to hit with AAA. Pressurization would probably not be required at these altitude.

Shortround6 said:

It might have been a big asset but then what do you give up?

Click to expand...

Cancel the B-26, an excellent aircraft but the B-25 could handle its jobs. Cancel the B-32. It has the same weakness the B-29 has, it engines. Manufacture more B-24s to replace B-17 attrition, cancel the B-17 when new bomber becomes available.

Another thing might be added for the benefits of having a faster bomber: the escort fighters don't need to ess the whole time (in order to have good speed, while not overtaking their charges), and that significantly increases their range/radius.

tomo pauk said:

Another thing might be added for the benefits of having a faster bomber: the escort fighters don't need to ess the whole time (in order to have good speed, while not overtaking their charges), and that significantly increases their range/radius.

Click to expand...

Yes, I forgot to add that, thanks.

Now what about the fighters - we might safely assume that P-35/36/40 are to be built. What about the P-43 - is it too early to contemplate about a fighter with turbo R-2800? Hopefully it will feature a wing with only two, but stronger spars, leaving more internal volume free?
About a 2-engined heavy fighter - I'd like to see a classic twin (like DH Hornet), that would be also well suited for both turbo and non-turbo engines (ie. CoG-neutral turbo installation), and between V-12 and radial engines. What about push-pull fighter, after all Allison was maybe most experienced company with different drive-shaft arrangements, and they were also experimenting with the V-1710 as a pusher prior ww2?
Maybe the Americans can go for a wing as thin as in Spitfire, it is, after all, their 'invention'? What about a single engined fighter based around the turbo V-1710, the layout being engine-pilot-turbo?

The Turbo R-2800 (P-47) was probably about as quick as could be expected.

everybody seems to want miracles. The P-47 with Turbo R-2800 was requested by the Army in June of 1940. About 11 months form the first test flight of an R-2800 in a test hack. Sept 6 1940 sees the contract for the Allison powered P-47A "modified" to the R-2800 powered P-47B and by the end of the month 733 P-47Bs are on order, the first prototype is rolled out May 4, 1941 seven months before Pearl Harbor.

Please remember that 13 YP-43s were ordered in March of 1939 but the first one didn't roll out the factory door until Sept 1940, Same month the Army was ordering those 733 P-47s. Seversky/Republic had produced fewer than 200 aircraft in the company's history by the summer of 1940 and the P-43 orders after the P-47 were to keep the company open/ train workers/ expand the company rather than get actual combat aircraft.

As for push-pulls and pusher fighters, why? You think maybe they did discover a few reasons for not using them?

Shortround6 said:

The Turbo R-2800 (P-47) was probably about as quick as could be expected.

everybody seems to want miracles. The P-47 with Turbo R-2800 was requested by the Army in June of 1940. About 11 months form the first test flight of an R-2800 in a test hack. Sept 6 1940 sees the contract for the Allison powered P-47A "modified" to the R-2800 powered P-47B and by the end of the month 733 P-47Bs are on order, the first prototype is rolled out May 4, 1941 seven months before Pearl Harbor.

Click to expand...

No need for miracles
The XF4U flew for the 1st time on 29th May 1940 - maybe Army just then became aware that (X)R-2800 really deserves attention? Navy was sure about the R-2800 already in June 1938, when they signed a contract covering the future F4U. Even in case the Army decides in mid 1939 to give a try with a fighter based around the R-2800, that gives an extra year. The Army have had enough 'faith' to order the R-2800-powered bomber, from the drawing board, in Sept/Oct 1939 (quote from Joe Baugher's site):

The Martin design was rated the highest of those submitted, and on August 10, 1939, the Army issued a contract for 201 Model 179s under the designation B-26. This contract was finally approved on September 10.

BTW, J. Baugher claims that it was the other way around as who wanted the R-2800 in the nose of the P-47:
On June 12, 1940, Kartveli submitted his ideas to the USAAC. The USAAC was sufficiently impressed with the proposal that on September 6, 1940 ordered a prototype under the designation XP-47B.

Please remember that 13 YP-43s were ordered in March of 1939 but the first one didn't roll out the factory door until Sept 1940, Same month the Army was ordering those 733 P-47s. Seversky/Republic had produced fewer than 200 aircraft in the company's history by the summer of 1940 and the P-43 orders after the P-47 were to keep the company open/ train workers/ expand the company rather than get actual combat aircraft.

Click to expand...

Agreed pretty much with that.
The 1 year earlier start might 'bought' us maybe 6-9 months for earlier flight of the prototype and start of serial production?

As for push-pulls and pusher fighters, why? You think maybe they did discover a few reasons for not using them?

Click to expand...

I'm not aware that anybody actually tried that in the USA, hence no discoveries of the reasons for not using any? As for 'why' - as an insurance if the future turbo-equipped aircraft develop issues that might hamper timely introduction in service, while offering the performance punch similar to those? Should be quite simpler to produce and maintain, and cheaper than future P-38 with pair of turbos per aircraft.

using Wiki data, seems almost a toss-up...

F4U First flight 29 May 1940
P-51 First flight 26 October 1940

F4U Introduction 28 December 1942
P-51 Introduction ? ? 1942

Seems with our hindsight, either could have been introduced earlier for US Army.
Also, Army "F4U," or whatever it would have been called, could have been simpler, lighter and cheaper than the historical F4U.

What if before the British had the opportunity to ask North American to build P-40's, the Army had seen God and asked NA to build Army versions of the F4U?

RAF escorts 8th AF heavies from Spring of 1943 on (farther than with Spitfires)? Even though the F4U from 1940 and from 1942 were quite different...

tomo pauk said:

RAF escorts 8th AF heavies from Spring of 1943 on (farther than with Spitfires)? Even though the F4U from 1940 and from 1942 were quite different...

Click to expand...

It would be an interesting experiment to escort 8th AF Heavies with FAA Corsairs.

With RAF Corsairs?

edit: oh, you mean historical Corsair users? Yep, there would be some long faces at the USAF, in case that 'interim' version was used, that had both wing tanks and drop tank capability?