The fighter that never was, the P-75. Conceived as a long range escort fighter, it never lived up to the expectations. Mybe someone has good data about the effort resources it was spent for the design, testing and production build-up? If not in absolute terms, the relative cost (assessment, as compared to another undertaking) would be nice to read about.
P-75: how much effort resources was expended for the effort?
- Thread starter tomo pauk
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
from wiki: The program was cancelled after only a small number of prototypes and production aircraft had been completed, as it was no longer required in its original role, could not be quickly deployed, and possessed no significant advantages over aircraft already in production.
Honestly I think I might have an answer for you in my papers at home. Got a microfilm "wrap-up" of the program issued by the Army Air Force after all was said and done. If you are REALLY interested I think I can find this for you. Send me a PM if you are.
Regards, Jim
Regards, Jim
The original concept of a "Frankenstein" fighter made up of parts from other planes was found to be badly flawed since the donor types were already bordering on obsolescence. Then they went ahead and wasted much more time and money redesigning the whole thing!
Shortround6
Major General
I don't know about the P-75 but the Curtiss P-60 program is supposed to have cost $8.88 Million.
Experimental XP-75 Aircraft Procurement
Contractor: Fisher Body Division, General Motors Corp.
Supp. Agree. # 7 Contr. W535 ac-33962
Date: 31 Oct. 1945
Final Contr. Price $9,099,073.06
(A reduction of $111,073.05 was made in the contract when the final termination was made.)
Prepared by Historical Division, Intelligence, T-2, Air Material Command, 24 September 1947. Compiled from records of Procurement Division, Air Material Command.
Contractor: Fisher Body Division, General Motors Corp.
Supp. Agree. # 7 Contr. W535 ac-33962
Date: 31 Oct. 1945
Final Contr. Price $9,099,073.06
(A reduction of $111,073.05 was made in the contract when the final termination was made.)
Prepared by Historical Division, Intelligence, T-2, Air Material Command, 24 September 1947. Compiled from records of Procurement Division, Air Material Command.
- Thread starter
- #7
Any Time Amigo! It was my pleasure as this is one of my all time favorite aircraft.
N4521U
Colonel
And besides, it was too ugly to be flown by any self respecting American pilot!
CobberKane
Banned
- 706
- Apr 4, 2012
The greatest difficulty encountered in the creation of the P-75 lay in convincing a P-51 and a P-39 to mate. Unfortunatley, due to a quirk of genetics, only recessive genes were passed on, and all six members of the resulting litter were runts - the only time this has ever been known to happen.
MikeGazdik
Senior Airman
I think the P-75, was like several other designs, the product of (and the gift of) excess manufacturing capability the United States had at the time. They could afford to play, test, and experiment, even if the chances were slim....very slim.
I'm tempted to agree.
It's just that in other threads when asking if this or that could have been done, we're often told of a lack of excess design, development or manufacturing capacity.
So perhaps both are true, it's just that with hindsight it is easy to say that resources were misallocated.
It's just that in other threads when asking if this or that could have been done, we're often told of a lack of excess design, development or manufacturing capacity.
So perhaps both are true, it's just that with hindsight it is easy to say that resources were misallocated.
Shortround6
Major General
The P-75 may have been a misallocation of design and manufacturing capacity, but the initial concept was to get a plane while using a minimum of those resources. Tail of a Dauntless dive bomber, wing panels from a P-40 or P-51, F4U landing gear, V-3420 engine. The concept was to use the minimum amount of resources to tie all those already designed and tooled up for parts together. When they didn't all work in harmony the program took on a life of it's own (too much already invested to stop?) and new major assemblies were created to fit the Fuselage/engine bay.
The US was blessed with a lot of capacity but over 4 years the design, development and manufacturing capacity changed (expanded) and depending on which programs had priority the availability of those resources shifted.
As one example of resources the US started the war with under 15 wind tunnels and ended with about 40. Some of the tunnels were small (only 6-8 feet) and suitable only for models.
The US was blessed with a lot of capacity but over 4 years the design, development and manufacturing capacity changed (expanded) and depending on which programs had priority the availability of those resources shifted.
As one example of resources the US started the war with under 15 wind tunnels and ended with about 40. Some of the tunnels were small (only 6-8 feet) and suitable only for models.
