Prewar USAAF Doctrine
- Thread starter Akuma
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Which existing technology was that?
- Thread starter
- #3
For starters keeping the high altitude capability of the P39 instead of telling Bell to lose the supercharger and how about trying out the independently built Curtiss CW-21 as the interceptor it was originally designed to be and ironing out the stall characteristics of the Curtiss P36 (maybe getting rid of the P40s tumble).
The P-39 could never be an escort fighter, it doesnt have enough fuel. The P-38 and P-47 were in service before the USA was in a position to carry out any pre war bombing doctrine and the engine of the P-51B/C and D only started to be made in 1942.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #5
The P-39 lacked both the supercharger for high altitude performance and the fuel capacity that would have been required to realize that performance because the USAAF decided they didn't want it. My question is that since the technology existed to correct those shortfalls then; what if the USAAF had decided they could use it before they found out they needed it?
I am not going to kick off YET ANOTHER discussion of the P-39. It was short ranged and it never had a turbo so any speculation about it is just that, speculation. The P-51 knocked the P-39 into a cocked hat in every respect, the P-47 and P-38 were also much better escort fighters than a turbo powered P-39 could dream of being.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Read more about the CW-21. It was a bargain basement fighter. Although on paper it offered performance, it was basically an American Zero.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
And what pre-war years are you talking? 1937? 1939? Technology was moving quickly during this time
The need for escort fighters was in part due to RADAR, the British Chain Home system only started to be installed in 1938, what it meant to air warfare wasnt known for sure until 1940.
Thumpalumpacus
Captain
I'm sure if doctrine had called for escorting the bombers, American companies could have come up with workable solutions rapidly.
I do know that in the mid-30s budget constraints drove many design and procurement decisions, so maybe that's one factor going into an answer to such a broad question.
I do know that in the mid-30s budget constraints drove many design and procurement decisions, so maybe that's one factor going into an answer to such a broad question.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The USAAC (it wasn't USAAF until spring '42) did not have much of a high altitude doctrine because by the late 30's, fairly high altitudes weren't a main part of operational doctrine for world militaries.
The USAAC's P-35 was capable of just over 31,000 feet and the P-43, which was developed from the P-35, was a high altitude champ, capable of operating at altitudes just shy of 36,000 feet.
It was this capability that made it one of the very few early war fighters that could catch and down a KI-46 as well as being used for high altitude recon until replaced by the F-5 Lightning recon ships.
The USAAC's P-35 was capable of just over 31,000 feet and the P-43, which was developed from the P-35, was a high altitude champ, capable of operating at altitudes just shy of 36,000 feet.
It was this capability that made it one of the very few early war fighters that could catch and down a KI-46 as well as being used for high altitude recon until replaced by the F-5 Lightning recon ships.
Pre war doctrines were just that, doctrines based more on what people thought in spite of all logic than reality. Did any US bomber group or organisation try to "bomb" with cameras a steel plant in Pittsburgh or industrial area in New York in winter. Until war was declared everyone planned for the enemy to do just what they wanted them to do. Like the Defiant shooting down fleets of bombers as they float like Elizabethan galleons into UK airspace.
It may be helpful to consider what the word doctrine means and its origins, it is more based on religious beliefs than facts
doctrine
[ˈdɒktrɪn]
NOUN
It may be helpful to consider what the word doctrine means and its origins, it is more based on religious beliefs than facts
doctrine
[ˈdɒktrɪn]
NOUN
- a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a Church, political party, or other group.
"the doctrine of predestination"
synonyms:
creed · credo · dogma · belief · set of beliefs · code of belief · conviction · teaching · tenet · maxim · article of faith · canon · principle · precept · notion · idea · ideology · theory · thesis- US
a stated principle of government policy, mainly in foreign or military affairs.
- US
Shortround6
Major General
Note the turbo charger just under the engine exhaust pipe.
From Wiki "The first P-30A, by this time redesignated PB-2A (Pursuit, Biplace), made its maiden flight on 17 December 1935, with deliveries to service units starting on 28 April 1936. The last of the 50 PB-2As were completed by August that year" Between 50-60 built.
The USAAC built more turbo charged aircraft than the rest of the world put together in years up to and including 1939. To say that the USAAC was not interested in or trying to develop high altitude fighters/aircraft is demonstrably false. The problem was that the "existing technology" would not allow it. The turbos and more importantly the turbo controllers were not ready for service squadron use.
The US attempts at turbo charged aircraft go back further.
Dem is scary looking Hombres pardner.
- Thread starter
- #15
How about the year the 109 came out as a starting point, say 1935 to 1940. Another post on this thread mentions budget constraints which is a very solid point that almost no one thinks of. It seems to me that what is a good airplane is not only about performance but about costs. Can the nation afford the weapons system?
Until the USA introduced single engined escorts the Germans used twin engined interceptors in their interior, they carried far more fire power and had much more range meaning you needed fewer of them (and they also could be used at night).
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #17
The reason it can be called a bargain basement fighter is that it was created without a government contract from anyone. Curtiss came up with it on their own, no outside help, in the hopes of selling it to the Chinese since the Curtiss rep in China believed he could sell them on the idea of an interceptor that could take out the Japanese bombers while defending against the fighters as well. Just as Curtiss was able to "stretch" the P 36 into the p 40, I think they might have been able to have come up with an improved design of the CW 21. The American Zero is a very apt description of it's performance. According to the reports of the AVG pilots who actually flew it it was much better that they expected or were used to. Unfortunately, the three CWs that were to go there were lost to contaminated fuel during the ferry flight and one of the three pilots died in the crash landings.
Shortround6
Major General
The Turbo in the "plane that must not be named" did not work as advertised (sold by Bell) due to a horrible installation of the turbo, the inter cooler and the engine coolant and oil coolant systems.
The CW-21 used the same engine that the F2A-1 Brewster Buffalo did. A Wright R-1920G5 that was good for 1000hp for take-off, 850hp at 6,000ft and 750hp at 15,200ft. It used a single speed single stage supercharger. The CW-21 was a small and light aircraft that had limited growth potential, it's high altitude capability, such as it was, was due to light weight (low armament weight and low fuel capacity) rather than any state of the art or advanced technology.
Shortround6
Major General
You do realize that the CW-21 was a stretched CW-19?
Sticking a 1000hp engine in a plane that first flew with under 200hp engines is a something of a stretch to begin with.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
It's pretty and I want one.
