Most Cost Effective Fighter

[renrich]

Absolutely unrealistic for Marines to use AAF aircraft as fighters. Many Marine squadrons were carrier based. If anything, the AAF should have replaced all their fighters except the P51B,C and D with Corsairs. The Marines did use some B25s though.

 

[Clay_Allison]

It would be - over 35,000 units.

definitely.

I think that being a good enough fighter to remain in production, thus lowering the unit costs, should count positively toward cost effectiveness.

 

[davebender]

26 July 1941. The day FDR began the massive military build up in the Pacific.

The P-40 was overall superior to the F4F and the U.S. produced thousands of them during 1941. Why not equip the Midway and Wake Island garrisons with P-40s? A year later the Marines would take P-40s to Guadalcanal rather then the inferior F4F.

 

[renrich]

The F4F had a better record against the A6M in the early part of the war so any advantage the P40 had over the F4F is definitely arguable. However, the P40 could not operate from carriers so it would have been useless to the Marines.

 

[Clay_Allison]

That's because the USN and U.S. Army refused to work together during WWII. Otherwise all those land based Marine fighter squadrons would fly U.S. Army Air Corps aircraft like the P-40 and P-51.

I've theorized that a "Sea Stang" was possible, but I shudder to think how an even heavier navalized P-40 would have performed.

I'd be interested to know if a lightened "Army" F4F would have outperformed the P-40.

 

[davebender]

What does that have to do with a marine fighter squadron operating from Wake Island, Midway Island or Guadalcanal?

 

[Shortround6]

26 July 1941. The day FDR began the massive military build up in the Pacific.

The P-40 was overall superior to the F4F and the U.S. produced thousands of them during 1941. Why not equip the Midway and Wake Island garrisons with P-40s? A year later the Marines would take P-40s to Guadalcanal rather then the inferior F4F.

You do realize that on the date you propose Gruman had already Manufactured about 325 Wildcats and in fact was one of the SIX production lines in operation making fighters for the US?
One of them was making Buffalos and another was making P-43s
And Lockheed had only produced about 47 Fighters by that date?
Grumman went on to build 1470 Wildcats in 1942, how months of production are you willing to give up to change over in the last half of 1941 and begining of 1942?

P-39s by that date number about 118. There just aren't enough P-40s to go around.

As far as being "overall superior" the F4F required about half the Runway for take off that a P-40 did. that might come in handy on those island airstrips, especially after some bomb damage.
Range might be the Wildcats favor too.
While the F4F was certainly slower at at around 15,000feet you might not want to bet the farm on the P-40E being faster at 22,000ft and above.
The Early F4F-3 climbed pretty good too.
F4F-4 carried two 58 gallon drop tanks, deffinite range advantage over P-40E/F.

"One pilot on Guadalcanal noted the Wildcats were able to climb to over 34,000ft to await a Japanese attack on Henderson Field"
Try that with an Allison powered P-40 in 1942.

As for the "The P-40 was.... and the U.S. produced thousands of them during 1941"

Well you are correct on that one but barely. 2248 P-40s being produced in 1941. 1269 of them in the last 5 months of the year and 285 of them in Dec alone. Short of stiffing the British on planes they ordered for cash almost a year before were are the P-40s going to come from?

There is a reason P-35's wound up in the Philippines and it wasn't because they were first choice.

 

[Shortround6]

I've theorized that a "Sea Stang" was possible, but I shudder to think how an even heavier navalized P-40 would have performed.

I'd be interested to know if a lightened "Army" F4F would have outperformed the P-40.

Problems that accur when trying to convert "Land" fighters to "carrier" use and vice versa are that the "carrier" equipment weight isn't just the arrestor hook, catapult points and a rubber life raft.

Carrier planes were built to land at a much higher vertical sink rate meaning much harder impacts trying to drive the landing gear up. Remember the Buffalo wasn't quite up to it.

Landing a hooked Army plane on a carrier might very well be possiable but with out redesigned landing gear and heavier structure around where the Landing gear attaches repeated landings might render the plane unservicable. Some other beefing up of the structure might not be out of line either.

Trying to "lighten" a navy fighter might not be that easy either. To really lighten it up you have to change the structural members in those high stress areas and/or the gauge of the skinning in some of those areas.
Is the engineering time worth it?

I have read that the F-111 was several hundred pounds heavier than it needed to be because it was too much trouble to redesign the structure after the Navy bailed out on the carrier version. I don't know if that is realy true but the story is out there in print

 

[Clay_Allison]

Trying to "lighten" a navy fighter might not be that easy either. To really lighten it up you have to change the structural members in those high stress areas and/or the gauge of the skinning in some of those areas.
Is the engineering time worth it?

I just meant pulling the items you mentioned off. Short landing is a good capability to have, redesign wouldn't be worth it.

 

[drgondog]

Off the top, there are several areas to look at.

Folding wing structure no longer required

Spar inboard of landing gear along with attach and load carry through structure - should be room to lighten up here but have to look at high G impact vs Ultimate load due to High G pullout.

Landing Gear (main)

Aft fuselage attach structure to tail hook. Needs to be looked at but high speed torsion load design for tail loads may be adequate to address the vertical and tension loads of the arresting gear.

It should not be very difficult to go from Naval wing to land based wing design but very difficult to go 'reverse'. Put a folding wing on a Mustang and kiss a lot of internal fuel goodbye.

 

[renrich]

Davebender, as far as I know the P40 never took off rom a carrier and with it's lousy climb performance it probably would have been a problem although not insurmountable. The Wildcats at Midway and particularly at Wake were delivered off a carrier and those in the Solomons also. The Wildcats, mostly F4F4s which was the worst performing Wildcat, operated side by side with the P40 in the Solomons and to my knowledge the P40 was in no way more successful than the Wildcat. SR has already covered several points in this discussion but to sum up. When the Wildcat began production, about the same time as the P40, the Marines were supposed to get the Wildcat when available. It was not known at that time that the F4F would be used as a landbased fighter in WW2 but it was known that Marine squadrons should be able to operate from carriers and on missions over water. The Navy did not favor liquid cooled engines for obvious reasons which ruled out the P40. The Marines as well as USN pilots were trained in full deflection gunnery, unlike any other air force and that also ruled out the P40. The early Wildcat was a sprightly climber which ruled out the P40. When Pearl Harbor took place the Wildcat was serving with the fleet already and more were in the pipeline as well as spare parts as well as ground personnel to service the aircraft. In the fall of 1941 to decide that Wake Island should be fortified and fighters stationed there flown by Marines but to switch from Wildcats to P40s is ludicrous. The P40 was a decent fighter for it's time and served well early and late against second line enemy aircraft but in no way was it suitable or cost effective for service with the Marines in place of the Wildcat.

 

[Shortround6]

P-40s did take off from carriers but what is questionable is weither they took off in combat trim.

Full ammuntion loads and full fuel tanks or were they somewhat stripped and just flown off the deck to land ashore and be armed and fueled at the land base.

 

[vikingBerserker]

I think taking off from a carrier is the easy part, landing on them the toughee.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

68 P-40 Warhawks took off from the USS Ranger (CV-4) on 10 May 1942.

As far as I know the aircraft were not combat loaded and were only being ferried to the area. They planes took off and landed at Accra in Africa.

72 P-40 Warhawks took off from the USS Ranger (CV-4) on 1 July 1942. Again however they were not combat loaded and landed at Accra again.

75 P-40 Warhawkss took off from the USS Ranger (CV-4) on 23 Feb. 1943. They landed at a captured Vichy French Airfield.