Planes that just missed World War 2

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

NTGray

Airman 1st Class
249
329
Nov 22, 2019
Stepping back and looking at the flow of history has always been fascinating to me. That is why, when I think about WW2 aircraft, I also like to think about how much aviation progress was made during the war, and how quickly things continued to progress after the war.

But that also goes in the opposite direction. When I look at the planes that just missed being frontline fighters and bombers, I can't help but be impressed at how primitive those planes were compared to the ones we are so familiar with. For example, the B-17 was ordered as a replacement for the B-10 (which was also the B-12, B-13, and B-14, but with different engines. The B-11 was a Douglas seaplane). Imagine if the B-10 had been all that was available to bomb Germany!

The B-10 had some noteworthy firsts, being the first bomber with monoplane, all-metal construction, enclosed cockpit, retractable landing gear, and an enclosed bomb bay. It was also faster than the pursuit fighters of its day (it first flew in 1932). Fortunately, the Army Air Corps recognized soon enough that a better plane was going to be needed, and the first B-17 was in the air in 1935.

If I recall rightly, the Bf-109 was also the owner of a whole slew of radical "firsts," and not just incremental improvements.

B-10.jpg



But here's another one that is even more interesting: The Grumman Wildcat was originally conceived as an all-metal biplane. Just imagine that thing leading the fight at Midway! But Grumman figured out in time that they had to do better than that. And they did. Still, that early design is fascinating to look at.

XF4F biplane concept.jpg
 
Last edited:
Though I wouldn't have wanted to go into combat in one, I'd love to have been a millionaire in 1936 and bought a civilian 2 seat XF4F-1 ala the Gulfhawk.
I did some checking, because I was pretty sure that the XF4F-1 was either a Wildcat or did not have a name at the time. Sure enough, the Grumman Gulfhawk was a similar but different plane.

From the Smithsonian Air & Space Museum website:

"One of the most exciting aerobatic aircraft of the 1930s and '40s, the Grumman Gulfhawk II was built for retired naval aviator and air show pilot Al Williams. As head of the Gulf Oil Company's aviation department, Williams flew in military and civilian air shows around the country, performing precision aerobatics and dive-bombing maneuvers to promote military aviation during the interwar years.
The sturdy civilian biplane, with its strong aluminum monocoque fuselage and Wright Cyclone engine, nearly matched the Grumman F3F standard Navy fighter, which was operational at the time. It took its orange paint scheme from Williams' Curtiss 1A Gulfhawk, also in the Smithsonian's collection. Williams personally piloted the Gulfhawk II on its last flight in 1948 to Washington's National Airport."

Gulfhawk II.jpg
 
I would have liked to see what the La-9 would have been capable of had it been introduced 18 months earlier.
 
Last edited:
Going with this thread, I do wonder how the P-36, had we continued to build a bunch more of the C model, might have done in the Pacific. The larger engine and additional wing weapons would have made it better than the A model I'd think.
 
Stepping back and looking at the flow of history has always been fascinating to me. That is why, when I think about WW2 aircraft, I also like to think about how much aviation progress was made during the war, and how quickly things continued to progress after the war.

But that also goes in the opposite direction. When I look at the planes that just missed being frontline fighters and bombers, I can't help but be impressed at how primitive those planes were compared to the ones we are so familiar with. For example, the B-17 was ordered as a replacement for the B-10 (which was also the B-12, B-13, and B-14, but with different engines. The B-11 was a Douglas seaplane). Imagine if the B-10 had been all that was available to bomb Germany!

The B-10 had some noteworthy firsts, being the first bomber with monoplane, all-metal construction, enclosed cockpit, retractable landing gear, and an enclosed bomb bay. It was also faster than the pursuit fighters of its day (it first flew in 1932). Fortunately, the Army Air Corps recognized soon enough that a better plane was going to be needed, and the first B-17 was in the air in 1935.

If I recall rightly, the Bf-109 was also the owner of a whole slew of radical "firsts," and not just incremental improvements.

View attachment 661419


But here's another one that is even more interesting: The Grumman Wildcat was originally conceived as an all-metal biplane. Just imagine that thing leading the fight at Midway! But Grumman figured out in time that they had to do better than that. And they did. Still, that early design is fascinating to look at.

View attachment 661418

I think we need some slightly better definition of what "just missed" actually means. Are you referring solely to the US military or more broadly? I ask because the B-10 saw operational service in the Dutch East Indies in late-1941 thru March 1942. Also, what is the starting point for the War...1937, 1939 or December 1941? The identified starting date will impact what aircraft are hits -vs- misses.
 
I think we need some slightly better definition of what "just missed" actually means. Are you referring solely to the US military or more broadly? I ask because the B-10 saw operational service in the Dutch East Indies in late-1941 thru March 1942. Also, what is the starting point for the War...1937, 1939 or December 1941? The identified starting date will impact what aircraft are hits -vs- misses.
Good points. I did not know that some B-10s actually served during the war, so I learned something, and I always enjoy that. (That's one of the reason we even have these conversations.)
I'm OK with whatever definition somebody thinks is reasonable, but I myself was thinking in terms of planes that were replaced by better planes shortly before, or perhaps right after, the beginning of the war. And "beginning" can depend on which country one is talking about. After all, the Fairey Swordfish continued to contribute for quite a while after the shooting started.
 
Hawker Nimrod. Replaced by the Sea Gladiator as the FAA's carrier fighter in May 1939
I've always like that airplane name.
American schoolchildren often use the name as a snide insult, because the word sounds funny to young modern ears. It could easily be used in place of the word "maroon" as Bugs Bunny uses it. ("What a maroon!") Yet the name comes to us by way of the Bible, where Genesis 10:8-9 says, "And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the earth. He was a mighty hunter before the Lord: wherefore it is said, Even as Nimrod the mighty hunter before the Lord." And that is how the British use the name, as signifying a mighty hunter:

old Nimrod:

less old Nimrod
Nimrod 1.jpg
Nimrod 2.jpg
 
Last edited:
........After all, the Fairey Swordfish continued to contribute for quite a while after the shooting started.
The Swordfish was still in front line service on VE Day. 836 squadron FAA which provided flights of 3 or 4 to the Merchant Aircraft Carriers still had 30 on its books in Feb 1945. The last of its operational flights didn't disband until the end of June 1945 with the squadron itself following at the end of July.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back