Merlin powered carrier fighter other than Seafire

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

I think a P-40 with a 2-stage Merlin, slightly longer wings, and after a concerted effort to make it lighter could have been a good choice. Particularly the 2-stage Merlin idea. I also think that moving the radiators to an underwing position aka Spitifre location would have been good.

Merlins and Allison have completely different cooling requirements. The Merlin need more radiator cooling while the Allison needs less, but the Allison needs considerably more oil cooling while the Merlin needs less. The difference might have added up to a much better performing P-40. It would have been at LEAST nice to have trued out the 2-stage Merlin P-40. I do not think it was ever accomplished.
 
The P-40 adopted for CV duties and with a 2-stage Merlin would've been much heavier than the 'regular' P-40. On the bright side, the P-40 was renown as a sturdy bird (sturdiest of all fighters with V-12 engines?), that should come in handy for new duties. The inter-cooler radiators can go in the wing, like the coolant radiators of the XP-40Q? The wing radiators of the Spitfire were never known as well-streamlined items. The heavier 2-stage Merlin would need some equipment (radios, batteries, oxygen cylinders) to be relocated further back, in order to bring back the CoG within limits; maybe install some counterweights in the tail, too?
 
( yes i know this is an old thread but )but a p39? a nose gear on a carrier back then? did anyone have a tricycle gear ac landing on a carrier back then....and if so how did they arrest the landing?
 
bobbysocks said:
( yes i know this is an old thread but )but a p39? a nose gear on a carrier back then? did anyone have a tricycle gear ac landing on a carrier back then....and if so how did they arrest the landing?
Click to expand...

Bell proposed a tail dragger version for carrier duties, and even built one.

Bell XFL Airabonita - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It also used under wing radiators, rather than the fuselage mounted radiator in the P-39.
 
RCAFson said:
The UK/FAA ordered lots of US built aircraft after the Fall of France because the UK couldn't build enough for it's own needs.
Click to expand...

The UK picked up all the French orders even for aircraft we were not interested in. A key reason was economics. Pre 1938 there were few orders for Military aircraft in the world and around 1938 everyone realised that there was a war coming and countries were more or less buying anything with wings. Manufacturers poured massive amounts into building factories, machine tools, raw materials and then there was the German lightning successes in 1939 and early 1940. The countries who had ordered the aircraft no longer existed and were not going to pay for them. The US manufacturers had borrowed huge amounts of money to build up production and the US government were not going to pick up the tab as isolationism was strong and the money she had to spend was already committed.

The UK picked up the tab as there was a significant risk that the manufacturers might fold or at best cut back, and the factories we knew were going to be needed might not be there. With hindsight was the risk exaggerated? maybe, but at the time the UK couldn't take the risk.

Its worth asking the question, without the European orders for the P36 what would the financial state of Curtis have been to mass produce the P40 upon which a major part of the USAAF depended on in the first part of the war. Without the European orders for the Maryland which the RAF took over what would have happened to that manufacturer, would the B26 have made it to design and production. You can see where this may have led.
 
Lockheed got large orders for the Hudson without benefit of French orders.

Even the P-40 and Allison got a major boost from the French even though the French didn't get any into operation.

Douglas was big enough that they probably would have made it even if the French contracts got canceled but then Douglas did subcontract several hundred DB-7 type aircraft to Boeing when Boeing was running slack due to lack of B-17 orders.
 
Instead of the CCC (Civilian Conservation Corps) perhaps we should have had the MCC (Military Conservation Corps.)
Instead of employing wood choppers support the armaments industry, aviation in particular.
 
RCAFson said:
The USN actually called for Merlin engined fighters for both shore and carrier operations:

I suspect that the USN might have welcomed the Sea Hurricane in 1942.
Click to expand...

You know, I expect the USN would have resisted. Much as the RN FAA resisted incorporating single seat interceptors, I expect the USN at that time would resist a fighter with the short legs of the sea hurricane. I understand a range of 600 miles for the basic Mk I Hurricane compared to 845 miles for the F4F-3. I think it would be a hard sell. I think production numbers and weapons might also be an issue.

I think the hurricane I and II would have been extremely welcome to the USAAF 49th PG pilots defending Darwin in early 42.

On the other hand In late 42 I expect the USN would have more than welcomed a RN carrier in the south Pacific even if it had an air wing comprised of Gypsy Moths and Ansons.
 

The FAA didn't resist single seat fighters and used them throughout the war. However, they needed a folding wing fighter that could fit into the narrow lifts on Ark Royal and the Illustrious class carriers and there were no such single seat fighters in service in the RN or USN until late 1941, however by mid 1941 the Sea Hurricane was being used on FAA carriers with larger lifts and in 1942 even on the Illustrious class via a temporary deck park.

The Sea Hurricane 1 was about 20-40 mph faster than the F4F-4 under 10k ft and had a much higher climb rate:


A Sea Hurricane II would have been about as fast under 10k ft as a Sea Hurricane I but somewhat faster above that altitude, than the Sea Hurricane I. The ideal use for the Sea Hurricane would have been as a point defence fighter in lieu of the Wildcats that were kept as CAP (rather than escorts) where it's high climb rate would have allowed it to gain the altitude advantage over incoming raids and provide top cover for the Wildcat, while the Sea Hurricane I would have given USN pilots speed parity with the zero under 10k ft along with better overall manoeuvrability. The Sea Hurricane II could carry twin 45IG drop tanks and could have served as an escort fighter but without folding wings it could not be carried in the same numbers as the F4F-4.
 
Last edited:
these are the things needed in 1942

1) Speed in excess of 340mph
2) Operational radius of at least 350 miles
3) Climb rate under 10K of at least 2500 ft per min
4) Armament of at least 2 x 20mm
5) Dive speeds in excess of 500mph
6) Armour and self sealing tanks
7) a turning circle at under 250 mph of less than 700 feet, and preferably about 625 feet

In other words, somethig able to take on an defeat the Zeke. its that simple. Not sure if a merlin powered carrier fighter can deliver that, but i know the radial powered US types available in 1942 could not provide that
 
Navalized P-40F? The internal fuel tankage was about 120 imp gals, it was one of sturdiest V-12 powered fighters, both low- and high-speed handling were on par with anything, it was a good diver and roller, the armament was sufficient, more so for Asia/Pacific targets.Top speed of ground-based P-40F was ~360 mph.
Another suggestion: someyhing alomng the lines of Mustang, but with a more elaborate flap system, and slats, so the low speed handling is better.
 
The USN would not have welcomed any foreign aircraft at any time early in the war. National Policy. It took getting INTO a war to make us use anything WE didn't make.

Might have been possible in 1944, but never in 1941 / 1942.

I you think otherwise, you are not an American citizen with family who were there at the time. Not gonna' happen until LATE in the war, even if then.
 

The USAAF had no problem with using Spitfires in 1942/43.

I'm pretty sure that if USN pilots were allowed to offer their opinion they would have gladly flown Cdn built Sea Hurricanes. It was the pilots who were the leading dissenters regarding the F4F - they wanted something better and said so on many occasions.
 
RCAFson said:
The USAAF had no problem with using Spitfires in 1942/43.
Click to expand...

Neither did the US Navy..

http://spitfiresite.com/2010/04/spitfires-of-the-us-navy.html
And they got the F6F, better than both.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

P-39-style fighter by other people?
2 3
Replies
50
Views
3K
GrauGeist
A
Best WW2 Seafire vs. best A6M Zero
Replies
9
Views
1K
Shortround6
S
S
"Generations" of fighter aircraft
2
Replies
31
Views
1K
SaparotRob
S
Best R-4360-powered Fighter?
Replies
14
Views
2K
Admiral Beez
A
W
The scarcity of fighter to fighter FW-190A pilot combat accounts...
2 3
Replies
52
Views
3K
GrauGeist
Menu
Log in
Register