Smokey Stover
Banned
Yes sorry, my mistake. You're quite right sir it was twelve. I've been researching modified Soviet Hurricanes and there were some good, bad and downright bizarre alterations made to them.
Most Overrated aircraft of WWII.....?
- Thread starter Lucky13
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
drgondog
Major
Just a couple of points. The extended range experiment in July-August 1943 for the P-47 involved first the 200 gallon unpressurized Ferry tank, then the 75 and then the 110, The driver behind the evolution for pressurization and belly shackle (pre-production mods) was Col. Cass Hough, second in command to 8th AF ATS.
Like you, I have read the "Flight Journal" article as well as Peter Smith's "Straight Down" about the 27th, Interesting reads. From my own deep dives into the A-36, the proposal for the A-36 to AAF (began Oct 1941 and submitted 1/28/1942) incorporated 20mm cannon as an alternative. The P-51/Mustang IA and the original P-509-2 proposal that led to the NA-73 contract all had 20mm installation designs for the original six gun bays. I wouldn't dispute a field mod, but none of the issued A-36/P-51A/Mustang I/II Manuals mention 20 mm installations and maintenance or structural repairs.
The NAA correspondence with both bomb rack/sway brace contractors and NAA Structural analysis reports cite the requirement for beefing up the spar, bomb racks and skin/shear panel to take out the fore/aft drag loads of the 500 and 1000 pound bombs in addition to the 'normal' analysis for the additional vertical/lateral loading. I could not find any analysis for recoil loads imposed by 20mm Hispano's.
What is nearly 100% certain is that the P-51-1/-2 could NOT be field modified for bomb rack, fuel line mods or dive brakes. From Contract award to first flight of NA-73 AM 118 in May was more than 30 days. The first Dive Brake functional test occurred a month later. The first Cannon firing test in a Mustang was Chilton's test of modified NA-83 AM-190 on 6-9-1942. NA-91 P-51-1 (#1) Before F6 camera mods was delivered to AAF the next day.
The first external wing tank test for AM-118 was on 7-4-1942 and the first dive bombing test was 7-18-1942. Also during this timeframe the 1710-39, F-14R, 1710-21R, 1710-F3R engines and four blade props were installed and tested.
I go through this boring litany of NAA reports and Chilton Logbook to illustrate that I am skeptical that critical airframes (P-51-1/-2) could be taken out of service and modified to serve with A-36 (dive brakes/pylons, etc) or A-36 could be certified by AAF Group level Engineering office to replace 4x50 cal with 4x20mm. It would be easy to do but damned dangerous to fire 20mm cannon while in a dive with drag loads imposed on wing by Brakes and 1000 pound bomb.
drgondog
Major
I forgot to debate this.
In research for my new book, I considered introducing F4U-1 as 'technically' possible alternative for Long Rang escort in the ETO.
I could not get enough data from sources regarding projected cruise speeds and specific fuel consumption at 25-30,000 feet to conclude that it would be feasible. USN Doctrine and testing pointed to best cruise speeds and altitudes around 15,000 feet, at near 200 mph TAS. Presumably the cruise speeds would increase 10-20% for same SFC due to decrease in Parasite drag at 20-25K.
That said, I can't find any evidence that the Combat Radius of the F4U-1 with 361 gallons of internal fuel at the Necessary cruise speeds faster than B-17/B-24s at 25,000 feet could be as much as 500 miles.
Both the P-51B and P-47D-25 cruised at 25K w/2x110s at ~270mph TAS and 300 mph TAS after tanks dropped. Additionally the 2800-8 continuously lost power from 15K (not literally true but close enough) whereas 2nd Stage Merlin 1650-3 maintained power from 25-29K and the Turbo charged R-2800 for the P-47 maintained power to 31K.
And we don't need to dwell on the politics and priorities...
What data do you have that corrects my impressions?
Bill,
Do you have any pictures of the Allison powered Mustangs with 4 bladed props you could share? I didn't know they were even conceived let alone tested.
It's also surprising to not have shown up in post war racing. I think I remember seeing a picture of a P40 with a 4 bladed "airscrew".
Cheers,
Biff
Last edited:
Navalwarrior
Staff Sergeant
- 764
- Jun 17, 2018
Resp:
The F4U was drop tank capable. The USAAF had a restriction on manufacturers against making their fighters drop tank capable since 1939. The Navy did not have restrictions against drop tanks for fighters. The only reason the P-38 was being produced (on production line before Pearl Harbor) as drop tank capable was because the junior USAAF test pilot assigned to Lockheed pressured (convinced) them by saying 'the next war will be a long range affair.' Their contract forbid it. Thank God for junior officers, who often see what us old guys can't see. This officer saved a lot of lives.
2 yrs ago I found a letter written by Gen Hap Arnold, directing his staff to find an existing fighter that could be modified, or a new design built . . . that could provide long range escort for 8th AF bombers. It was written in mid 1943, long before the missions to Schweinfurt. Keep in mind that the first Merlin Mustangs did not fly their first long range mission until Dec 1943! In early 1943 (I want to say Mar) the USAAF sponsored a Joint Fighter Meet at Elgin Field, FL where all services were allowed to fly the other service's aircraft. The USAAF pilots who flew the F4U and raved about its ability. It easily out manuvered the P-38, Allison P-51 and their P-47. The F4U was the champion fighter there, as per USAAF pilots who flew it. Within 30 days, the US Army Material Command wrote a report on the F4U and why it should NOT be adopted!
I wrote a multi-page assessment/story that I sent to two magazines, but it was seen as a 'could have' story, and we're not interested. My calculations may have been off, but I believe this fighter would have been able to enter deep into German airspace.
I have spent years researching this issue. I gave up, as it appears no one wants to talk about it. I do understand why the Air Force became its own service.
I will have to dig for my notes. The data is out there. I do not claim to be an expert on calculating fuel consumption due to drag, rpms, etc. However, I do believe the Corsairs were available; Navy was not using them on carriers at this time, Marines got some and we were giving them to the Fleet Air Arm in 1943. Later, the RNAF flew the F4U.
So, could have diverted 75 aircraft for testing by 8th AF for trial in 1943? I think it was doable.
Shortround6
Major General
We have been over this a bunch of times.
The main problem with using the F4U as an escort fighter is NOT getting it into Germany, it is GETTING IT OUT.
The P-47 had 305 gallons of internal fuel, the F4U had 237 gallons of protected storage. After you drop the tanks (of whatever size/capacity/number) that is the fuel you have (less some used in warm up-take-off and initial climb out) to fight with and make your way back to England. Both planes could suck down around 70 gallons in 15 minutes at high power settings. Even if a new group of planes arrive to take over escort duties you cannot fly back to England at 200mph at 15,000ft or less. You need a high altitude, high speed cruise (it may not need to be 210 IAS but it better be near that) to keep from being bounced (or being a flak target) and the P-47, with the turbo, was better at that.
Hang a pair of 150 gallon tanks on the F4U and you can easily get in further than you can get out.
The AIr force figured the extra 65 gallons inside the later P-47s was worth an extra 100 miles of Radius without drop tank and an extra 175 miles with a pair of 150 gallon tanks, 600 miles vs 425 miles. If you only have 234 inside does that cut you down to around 300 miles (or less) regardless of drop tank capacity?
Last edited:
Navalwarrior
Staff Sergeant
- 764
- Jun 17, 2018
Resp:
I am talking mid 1943 to Dec 1943. The P-47 didn't get its 1st drop tank (75gal) until Sept 1943. It was @ Mar 1944 before P-47D-15s with wing hard points started to arrive. It like took much longer to get enough to make a difference in the 'range arena'. The Corsair got its 2nd drop tank in mid 1943. All I am saying is, there may have been a fighter available that could go further (with the bombers) than what was available in that 1943 (actually 1944, as P-51s were in short supply) time frame. This fighter may have kept the losses down until the P-47/P-51 were perfected. A Corsair pilot, in his 90s who flew in 2 tour in the Pacific (recalled to Korea) and taught newbees how to fly the F4U in 1944. routinely took them up to 30,000 ft.
Shortround6
Major General
You are missing the point. I am using the P-47 as a frame of reference. The F4U with just 237 of protected fuel wasn't going to go much past the Rhine regardless of the number/sizeof the drop tanks, unless you are suggesting trying to fight with a drop tank still attached (and being non-self sealing a few small bullet holes can have the F4U landing in the Channel). British had figured out back in 1941/42 that Spitfire Vs had better be cruising at around 300mph to have good chance of surviving if bounced and that was NOT escorting bombers.
The F4U was just not going to be a deep penetration fighter/escort in European conditions regardless of how far it could fly over water (no AA guns and no enemy fighter fields along the route back.) in the Pacific.
Ignoring that reality would have lead to high losses (unsustainable) among the F4U escorts regardless of how many B-17s they saved in the weeks or few months before you ran out of F4Us.
BTW I like the F4U, my father worked for Chance Vought for several years during WW II and a good friends father flew with VMF-124 after it was reconstituted later in the war.
2nd Lt Gilbert Dixon Boyd on the right.
P-47C, G and early D have had a belly tank that was able to hold 200 gals, workable between SL and ~15000 ft due not being pressurized (fuel will be boiling above that altitude). People at England were filling it half full, sent them towards German-held Europe, combat radius was ~350 miles. People in Australia were faster on the ball, and produced metalic tanks in Brisbane, that IIRC were able to be pressurized, and held 200 gals. Flat-ish shaped.
Americans were flying a quantitiy of P-47s via Iceland, using two wing drop tanks, August 1943. Per 'America's hundred thousand'.
F4U should not have problems flying well above 30000 ft.
Vought data states combat radius of the F4U at, IIRC, 325 miles with 1 drop tank, and 350 miles with two; stated is that internal fuel is the limiting factor.
Navalwarrior
Staff Sergeant
- 764
- Jun 17, 2018
Resp:
Roger. Missed the obvious.
drgondog
Major
QUOTE="Navalwarrior, post: 1413040, member: 74258"]Resp:
The F4U was drop tank capable.
Internal fuel is the key to combat range, which is what All F6F and all F4U after the -1 with fuel reduced from 361 to the 237 gal of the F4U-1D would never have performed long range escort in the ETO. The latter internal fuel is only 77% of the P-47D's 305 internal gallons and until the -25, the P-47D could not go past Brunswick. The F4U-1D might not have had an operation combat radius at bomber altitudes beyond Emden
The USAAF had a restriction on manufacturers against making their fighters drop tank capable since 1939. The Navy did not have restrictions against drop tanks for fighters. The only reason the P-38 was being produced (on production line before Pearl Harbor) as drop tank capable was because the junior USAAF test pilot assigned to Lockheed pressured (convinced) them by saying 'the next war will be a long range affair.' Their contract forbid it. Thank God for junior officers, who often see what us old guys can't see. This officer saved a lot of lives.
That would be Ben Kelsey, who indeed collaborated with Kelly Johnson to install a pylon and plumbing and sway brace to accommodate the 165 and 310 gallon tanks designed by Lockheed. The F4 (April 1942-Australia) was the first P-38 type deployed and the P-38Es were retrofitted. That said, it wasn't until late 1943 that the 165/310 passed tests for Combat tanks.
2 yrs ago I found a letter written by Gen Hap Arnold, directing his staff to find an existing fighter that could be modified, or a new design built . . . that could provide long range escort for 8th AF bombers. It was written in mid 1943, long before the missions to Schweinfurt.
That letter was to his deputy Chief Air Staff, Barney Giles. One week after the letter, Giles placed a fire under Echols/Branshaw at Material Command which resulted in NAA getting authority to install a stainless steel fuselage tank on or about July 6, 1943. The first flight was ,about one week later by Chilton (July 6 to 7-14 for installation of fuel lines, tank and first functional test in 43-12112, and 7-16-43 for first Long range test by Chilton)
Keep in mind that the first Merlin Mustangs did not fly their first long range mission until Dec 1943! In early 1943 (I want to say Mar)
The first combat sorties by 9th AF 354FG in P-51B-1 was flown with 75 gallon tanks on a Fighter Sweep of French/Dutch coast. The first escort mission was December 11 to Emden and 13th to Kiel. The first with 85 gallon internal fuel tank kit installed was 20th Feb to Leipzig/Bernburg areas - roughly equivalent to Berlin. The key components were not only the labor intensive 85 Gallon tank and fuel lines but also the 50% increase to oxygen that went with it.
the USAAF sponsored a Joint Fighter Meet at Elgin Field, FL where all services were allowed to fly the other service's aircraft. The USAAF pilots who flew the F4U and raved about its ability. It easily out manuvered the P-38, Allison P-51 and their P-47. The F4U was the champion fighter there, as per USAAF pilots who flew it. Within 30 days, the US Army Material Command wrote a report on the F4U and why it should NOT be adopted!
I have Chilton notes from 12-1-1943 through 11 for that joint conference - logged as camera missions and aerial gunnery. He made no notes regarding impressions. What he later wrote re: "impressions" was that XP-51F/G were the two best aircraft that he flew during WWII. I have searched for a memo that you reference above but have never seen it (doesn't mean that I question existence- just unfortunate).
As an aside, the AAF would not have needed to write a memo arguing against F4U purchase simply because the USN were co-equals on the War Production Board and the USN never could get enough for USN and USMC. By the time that conference was over and reports submitted, the P-51B was operational and Spaatz had appealed to Arnold for all P-51B deployment to ETO. Had the AAF been wildly enthusiastic, they certainly would have dictated enough mods - like self sealing wing tanks, fuel tank pressurization systems, more oxygen - to name a few and delivery probably would have started after D-Day at the earliest.
I wrote a multi-page assessment/story that I sent to two magazines, but it was seen as a 'could have' story, and we're not interested. My calculations may have been off, but I believe this fighter would have been able to enter deep into German airspace.
I do not question that F4U would have been successful. The issue is Long Range Escort according to AAF Strategic Bombing Doctrine in ETO. I question that the F4U could go more than say 50-75 mi more than the P-47D's through D-Day. Both the P-51B w/85 gallon tanks and in-line engine, and P-38J w/LE tanks could go much farther than the F4U-1/-2 and -3.
The question I raised was how much fuel consumption efficiency does the F4U with the R-2800-8 lose if forced to cruise at >250mph TAS at 25,000 feet The F4U had much more Parasite drag but less Induced drag than the P-51B so the question begs real data and test validation.
I have spent years researching this issue. I gave up, as it appears no one wants to talk about it. I do understand why the Air Force became its own service.
I will have to dig for my notes. The data is out there. I do not claim to be an expert on calculating fuel consumption due to drag, rpms, etc. However, I do believe the Corsairs were available; Navy was not using them on carriers at this time, Marines got some and we were giving them to the Fleet Air Arm in 1943. Later, the RNAF flew the F4U.
So, could have diverted 75 aircraft for testing by 8th AF for trial in 1943? I think it was doable.
The F4U was drop tank capable.
Internal fuel is the key to combat range, which is what All F6F and all F4U after the -1 with fuel reduced from 361 to the 237 gal of the F4U-1D would never have performed long range escort in the ETO. The latter internal fuel is only 77% of the P-47D's 305 internal gallons and until the -25, the P-47D could not go past Brunswick. The F4U-1D might not have had an operation combat radius at bomber altitudes beyond Emden
The USAAF had a restriction on manufacturers against making their fighters drop tank capable since 1939. The Navy did not have restrictions against drop tanks for fighters. The only reason the P-38 was being produced (on production line before Pearl Harbor) as drop tank capable was because the junior USAAF test pilot assigned to Lockheed pressured (convinced) them by saying 'the next war will be a long range affair.' Their contract forbid it. Thank God for junior officers, who often see what us old guys can't see. This officer saved a lot of lives.
That would be Ben Kelsey, who indeed collaborated with Kelly Johnson to install a pylon and plumbing and sway brace to accommodate the 165 and 310 gallon tanks designed by Lockheed. The F4 (April 1942-Australia) was the first P-38 type deployed and the P-38Es were retrofitted. That said, it wasn't until late 1943 that the 165/310 passed tests for Combat tanks.
2 yrs ago I found a letter written by Gen Hap Arnold, directing his staff to find an existing fighter that could be modified, or a new design built . . . that could provide long range escort for 8th AF bombers. It was written in mid 1943, long before the missions to Schweinfurt.
That letter was to his deputy Chief Air Staff, Barney Giles. One week after the letter, Giles placed a fire under Echols/Branshaw at Material Command which resulted in NAA getting authority to install a stainless steel fuselage tank on or about July 6, 1943. The first flight was ,about one week later by Chilton (July 6 to 7-14 for installation of fuel lines, tank and first functional test in 43-12112, and 7-16-43 for first Long range test by Chilton)
Keep in mind that the first Merlin Mustangs did not fly their first long range mission until Dec 1943! In early 1943 (I want to say Mar)
The first combat sorties by 9th AF 354FG in P-51B-1 was flown with 75 gallon tanks on a Fighter Sweep of French/Dutch coast. The first escort mission was December 11 to Emden and 13th to Kiel. The first with 85 gallon internal fuel tank kit installed was 20th Feb to Leipzig/Bernburg areas - roughly equivalent to Berlin. The key components were not only the labor intensive 85 Gallon tank and fuel lines but also the 50% increase to oxygen that went with it.
the USAAF sponsored a Joint Fighter Meet at Elgin Field, FL where all services were allowed to fly the other service's aircraft. The USAAF pilots who flew the F4U and raved about its ability. It easily out manuvered the P-38, Allison P-51 and their P-47. The F4U was the champion fighter there, as per USAAF pilots who flew it. Within 30 days, the US Army Material Command wrote a report on the F4U and why it should NOT be adopted!
I have Chilton notes from 12-1-1943 through 11 for that joint conference - logged as camera missions and aerial gunnery. He made no notes regarding impressions. What he later wrote re: "impressions" was that XP-51F/G were the two best aircraft that he flew during WWII. I have searched for a memo that you reference above but have never seen it (doesn't mean that I question existence- just unfortunate).
As an aside, the AAF would not have needed to write a memo arguing against F4U purchase simply because the USN were co-equals on the War Production Board and the USN never could get enough for USN and USMC. By the time that conference was over and reports submitted, the P-51B was operational and Spaatz had appealed to Arnold for all P-51B deployment to ETO. Had the AAF been wildly enthusiastic, they certainly would have dictated enough mods - like self sealing wing tanks, fuel tank pressurization systems, more oxygen - to name a few and delivery probably would have started after D-Day at the earliest.
I wrote a multi-page assessment/story that I sent to two magazines, but it was seen as a 'could have' story, and we're not interested. My calculations may have been off, but I believe this fighter would have been able to enter deep into German airspace.
I do not question that F4U would have been successful. The issue is Long Range Escort according to AAF Strategic Bombing Doctrine in ETO. I question that the F4U could go more than say 50-75 mi more than the P-47D's through D-Day. Both the P-51B w/85 gallon tanks and in-line engine, and P-38J w/LE tanks could go much farther than the F4U-1/-2 and -3.
The question I raised was how much fuel consumption efficiency does the F4U with the R-2800-8 lose if forced to cruise at >250mph TAS at 25,000 feet The F4U had much more Parasite drag but less Induced drag than the P-51B so the question begs real data and test validation.
I have spent years researching this issue. I gave up, as it appears no one wants to talk about it. I do understand why the Air Force became its own service.
I will have to dig for my notes. The data is out there. I do not claim to be an expert on calculating fuel consumption due to drag, rpms, etc. However, I do believe the Corsairs were available; Navy was not using them on carriers at this time, Marines got some and we were giving them to the Fleet Air Arm in 1943. Later, the RNAF flew the F4U.
So, could have diverted 75 aircraft for testing by 8th AF for trial in 1943? I think it was doable.
Navalwarrior
Staff Sergeant
- 764
- Jun 17, 2018
Resp: I was referring to the F4U-1 and F4U-1A, not the -1D. So does your theory hold water with 361 internal fuel? I do not have my spread sheet in front of me. My research material is not handy.
Navalwarrior
Staff Sergeant
- 764
- Jun 17, 2018
In reading about the 78th and 56th FGs of the 8th AF who flew P-47s, I was amazed at their willingness to gain a few more miles in hostile territory. Taking off from their base and landing at a base further East, just to top off their tanks to gain a few more miles . . . showed dedication. Installing 200 gal (only filled partially) bathtub shaped ferry tanks, that were supposed to be jettisonable (but often failed to release) showed dedication to providing needed bomber protection. It may have been foolhardy, but the 78th was able to surprise German fighters! This was before Sept 1943, when their P-47C/Ds were made to carry a single 75 gallon belly tank.
So, if the F4U did have an internal fuel capacity of 361 gallons over the P-47's 305 gallons, how much would it have been able to offer protection by escort? I would think that the Royal Navy could have given up our F4U-As once their carrier reach England. If the boys flying the P-47s were willing to fly with 'bathtub' tanks, I think that they would have jumped with the idea of taking the F4U to war! Just to surprise the Luftwaffe once again.
Shortround6
Major General
The Problem is the wing tanks were not fitted with self sealing material. There was a CO2 system to fill the vapor space as the fuel was used to help with fire protection but it does nothing for preventing leaks due to minor combat damage. The wing tanks were integral tanks (wing structure formed the walls of the tank) so adding fuel bladders might have been difficult?
Depending on fuel that might not be there due to a few 7.9mm bullet hits (or flak fragments) to keep you from swimming the channel might not be a good idea.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The Germans wouldn't be too surprised at the sight of a Corsair, the Royal Navy operated them in Europe.
The FAA's first combat with the Corsair was in April 1944 as they flew cover for the attack on the Tirpitz.
The FAA's first combat with the Corsair was in April 1944 as they flew cover for the attack on the Tirpitz.
Navalwarrior
Staff Sergeant
- 764
- Jun 17, 2018
Yes, but I am talking Apr/May/Jun 1943. The Fleet Air Arm (Royal Naval Air Force) were just getting their Corsairs in 1943. And I do think that it would have been a surprise seeing them that far inland, flying cover for the bombers! The 78th surprised the Luftwaffe the day they went deeper eastward with their 'ferry' tanks. But, I get the sense that no one wants to do or look at the numbers. Shortround6 quoted numbers when he used the figure 237 against 305. Now he admits the fuel was there, but now uses the excuse that the tanks were substandard. I yielded to you in good faith. I think all who are reading would like to know the range calculations, if only to see that it was possible to fly further with an F4U than the current P-47 at that time. I think you should do the figures, since you have experience along this line, and were quick to point out that I was wrong. We can't change history, and shouldn't try. Shortround6 said it was not possible to go farther than the P-47. The numbers, please.
A surprise, is, by definition, a one or at most few times event. In early 1943 the LW in Europe were not a force to be played around with. Also in all the discussion about fighters, what would they escort, the USA was also re equipping its bomber force with newer better bombers particularly with regard to frontal armament. As I understand it the USA called a halt to long distance bombing activities pending new bomber and fighters and a new strategy/philosophy, the build up started in the summer of 1943, but involved a massive amount of training.
Navalwarrior
Staff Sergeant
- 764
- Jun 17, 2018
Resp:
Negative. I have read the 'after action' reports of most of 1943. I take it you are talking about the G model B-17. The period that is under discussion missions were being flown, as the Invasion of 1944 was not far away. The pressure was on to reduce Germany's effectiveness, particularly air assets, so any suspension of missions would have been relatively short.
wuzak
Captain
A number of bomber groups were transferred from VIII Bomber Command (which would become the 8th AF in 1944) to the 12th AF, which moved to North Africa after Operation Torch.
It took a while for VIII BC to regain its strength during the early parts of 1943. But they did not stop bombing.
