wuzak
Captain
My vote is the B18. Long rang and large bomb bay. Perfect for low and slow anti sub patrol. Plenty of room for the crew.
This?
Douglas B-18 Bolo - Wikipedia
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
My vote is the B18. Long rang and large bomb bay. Perfect for low and slow anti sub patrol. Plenty of room for the crew.
That is the one. Saw one in Dayton, and started looking for information. Interesting history.
Just a thought, maybe the reason the 2 stage Alison in the p40 was not persude ( just guessing here)was that by mid/ late 43 the powers that be were already looking forward and planning on winding down p40 production so by the time Curtis re tooled and got production going they might already be approaching the end of the production line with the p40.Ok the engine weighed 125lbs more,but the engine is positioned further forward in either the P-40 or P-51 airframes due to the longer length and that affects the center of gravity, even shifting the engine only a few inches forward and modifying the area behind the engine will call for some serious redesign. The two stage Allison was far from a drop in replacement for the single stage engine. Now I assume that with no more weight allowed for in your plans you are going to keep using the same propellers as the single stage allisons? The same radiators and oil coolers despite the much increased heat loads? No water injection system to act as crutch due to the lack of intercoolers?
I like the "started to coincide with the anticipated production date of April '43. After all it had been in development since '40."
The Continental IV-1430 had been in development since about 1932-33 and the Army was still hoping it could be turned into a useable engine in 1943.
Lets look at a few of the P-63 benchmarks to see how practical this scheme is.
The XP-63A makes it first flight April 26th 1943.
The Army formally accepts the XP-63 in May of 1943.
Production deliveries of the P-63A start in Oct of 1943.
May 16th 1944 has a report on operational suitability of the P-63A conclude that the aircraft in it's current form cannot be considered an operationally suitable front line fighter.
Aug 1944 has the USAAF with 339 P-63As on hand, How many have already been sent to the Russians I don't know.
The -93 engine was 100-200hp behind the two stage Merlin in the low 20,000ft altitude range in early/mid 1943.
There is a pilots manual dated 1943 that tells prospective P-40 pilots that no new US fighter units will be formed using P-40s. They will undergo training on P-40s but will transition to other aircraft when they join service squadrons. The manual says (as a morale builder?) that if they can handle the P-40 in training they will not have any trouble with the service fighters.Just a thought, maybe the reason the 2 stage Alison in the p40 was not perused ( just guessing here)was that by mid/ late 43 the powers that be were already looking forward and planning on winding down p40 production so by the time Curtis re tooled and got production going they might already be approaching the end of the production line with the p40.
I'm thinking this might be the case because in 43 nobody new ve day would be may 45. For all they new it could have been may 46 and if they were planning on keeping p40 production going and for all they knew at the time there could still be say almost 3 more years left to go it would only make sense to put the effort into the 2 stage for it but if there were planning on ending production soon it would not.
Not saying this was the right or wrong decision just what the thinking may have been.
Dont know if this is the case but it seems logical.
Ok sounds like I may have actually been right about that then?( there's a first time for everything)There is a pilots manual dated 1943 that tells prospective P-40 pilots that no new US fighter units will be formed using P-40s. They will undergo training on P-40s but will transition to other aircraft when they join service squadrons. The manual says (as a morale builder?) that if they can handle the P-40 in training they will not have any trouble with the service fighters.
See;
https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/p-40-pilot-training-manual-pdf.68961/
So basically we have a US manual, stating in 1943, that the P-40 will only be used as an advanced trainer in US service. Granted it was used in combat, in decreasing numbers through 1944 and into 1945 in US service but was being phased out as quickly as P-51s and P-47s could be issued to the units equipped with P-40s as nay new units got the P-51 and P-47 to begin with. P-38s were being supplied but in much fewer numbers.
I agree that would have been effective, however, neither the torpedo nor the skip bombing had been sufficiently developed at that time.I know the B-26 torpedo idea was noble, but they may have had a better chance for results with skip-bombing.
Of course, this is purely hind-sight.
I agree with The Buffalo & the Mohawk, and also the inclusion of the Hurricane.Following from the excellent question posed by Lucky13, I'd like to know what aircraft people think has received a raw deal.
A number of the polls here have argued over the worst aircraft, sometimes basing their views on dated information, or information passed down from those with prejudiced views during the war.
For me it has to be the Buffalo and P-36 Mohawk.
The Buffalo because of its excellent service for the Finns, and the fact that it did actually provide a commendable stop-gap service in Singapore (after reading Buffalos over Singapore) I really admire the pilots and the aircraft for what they achieved DESPITE all the difficulties. Most of the negative views seem to be based on Midway being extrapolated across the board.
And the same for the Mohawk (over Burma it did sterling service, despite the circumstances).
There must be other aircraft that look cr*p on paper but then turned out to have achieved more than one could expect.
I'd add the P-40 series.I agree with The Buffalo & the Mohawk, and also the inclusion of the Hurricane.
The RAF didn't do particularly well in the Far East initially anyway, but that wasn't the fault of the aircraft or the pilots, it was largely down to poor leadership from high ranking officers in both the SEAC theatre and at home. The RAF were either almost always caught on the ground or shortly after take-off, in the few instances where the RAF were in an advantageous position the Japanese air formations suffered heavy losses at the hands of the Buffalo, Mohawk & Hurricane.
The RAF were very much at a severe disadvantage by having no early warning system, this was a similar outcome in France although the senior leadership was much better, but quite frankly, without radar during the Battle of Britain would have been similar result.
I don't know how you can say the BF-109 was under rated. It was regarded as one of the most lethal fighters of the war produced by any nation...Hmm the 3 that I think are the most underated are the Bf 109, Buffalo and Hurricane.
US Pacific based squadrons attempted torpedo attacks only a few times. At Midway, at Dutch Harbor, and at Kiska. No hits were obtained. Skip bombing in the Aleutians sank a destroyer, and a 4000 ton cargo ship, and damaged a destroyer and several other cargo ships between 14 October 1942 and 19 Jan 1943. Two aircraft were lost to AA. Very few sorties were made due to the miserable weather. These were the early B-26 MA model.I know the B-26 torpedo idea was noble, but they may have had a better chance for results with skip-bombing.
Of course, this is purely hind-sight.
Early B-26s could carry up to 1212 us gallons if fitted with a bomb bay tank. B-26As and beyond could be fitted with 2 bay tanks for 1462 US gallons. In B-26B and beyond, two additional tanks could be fitted in the rear bay for a total of 1962 US gallons, but this was only done on ferry flights.Great info, Shortround. Only 465 gallons of fuel in an early B-26? WOW, the P47N carried more than that with a bit heavier bombload. Now, I realize that I'm comparing a 1945 fighter with a 1941 bomber, but still, that seems like a tiny amount of fuel for a plane that large and powerful. I was also in the camp that the B-26 should have stuck with the short wings, but now Im not so sure. An aggravating factor is that the Martin B-26 should have been phased out in favor of the Douglas A-26 starting in early 1944, but the Army's indecision on design changes to the A-26 slowed its introduction. I think the A-26 is the largest underachiever among American planes in WW2, but only because the plane had so much potential.
Following from the excellent question posed by Lucky13, I'd like to know what aircraft people think has received a raw deal.
A number of the polls here have argued over the worst aircraft, sometimes basing their views on dated information, or information passed down from those with prejudiced views during the war.
For me it has to be the Buffalo and P-36 Mohawk.
The Buffalo because of its excellent service for the Finns, and the fact that it did actually provide a commendable stop-gap service in Singapore (after reading Buffalos over Singapore) I really admire the pilots and the aircraft for what they achieved DESPITE all the difficulties. Most of the negative views seem to be based on Midway being extrapolated across the board.
And the same for the Mohawk (over Burma it did sterling service, despite the circumstances).
There must be other aircraft that look cr*p on paper but then turned out to have achieved more than one could expect.
I'd add the Martin Maryland to your post, excellent reconnaissance fighter bomber in the Med until the Beaufighter arrived. Shot down enemy planes.Martin Baltimore - Desert Air Force - North Africa and Italian campaigns