Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
You cannot design an F8 in 1935, first you need the engine and the fuels, then you need to have learned what you learned on the F4F and F6F. The P-40 couldnt have been designed with the aerodynamic profiles that the P-51 used, they didnt exist at that time. Wanting a F8 in the early or mid stage of the war is like wanting Spitfire MkIXs in the Battle of Britain, it would have been great, but just couldnt happen, the engine and fuels werent there.This is almost exactly the context of where I originally brought up the F8, upthread. That is just about what i said verbatim.
You cannot design an F8 in 1935, first you need the engine and the fuels, then you need to have learned what you learned on the F4F and F6F. The P-40 couldnt have been designed with the aerodynamic profiles that the P-51 used, they didnt exist at that time. Wanting a F8 in the early or mid stage of the war is like wanting Spitfire MkIXs in the Battle of Britain, it would have been great, but just couldnt happen, the engine and fuels werent there.
If we want to compare the fighters from 1945, the 420-425 mph F8F-1 is badly outpaced by 470-480 mph P-51H. Less firepower, too.
P-47 was indeed used as a fighter bomber. Once it wrestled the air superiority (in concert with other Allied aircraft) from the Axis air forces, and was a very good fighter bomber, with good payload, guns' firepower (double of what F8F-1 had), range and performance.
P-47 being a high-altitude bird was a feature, not a bug.
Well, I guess that depends how good you think the P-47 was in air combat down low, which is where it did have to tangle with German fighters quite a bit. And I don't think it was so good because of all the drag and weight.
To me, if you are designed for 35,000 ft but actually end up being used mostly at 5-10,000 ft where you (arguably) aren't so good, then it is a bug, IMO. That's why the Soviets didn't want it.
But your point is mainly based on range where US fighters had an advantage, mainly because they entered the war later. There were key battles that had to be won, like the battle over Dunkerque, the battle of Britain and the battle of Malta, in these range was not important, the Hurricane and Spitfire only had 12 seconds of firing time and so were more likely to run out of guns than fuel. These battles were fought at altitudes that didnt suit the P-51, P-40 and P-39 even if they were available. The Beaufighter had long range, not great performance compared to a single engined fighter but that puts it in the same bracket as the Bf110, as a heavy fighter against shipping, Condors and Ju88s and night fighter it did its job well at the time. Dismissing the P-47 because it wasnt great at low altitude ignores the fact that it was great at high altitude which was what the US strategic campaign needed, in the early days of the strategic campaign the P-47 provided the bulk of the escort force.This was actually the point i was making mate
Not a saying, but a legal term in English law "time is of the essence of the contract" a war isnt a contract, but it does carry penalties for lateness and not being there Time of the Essence clauses: Business Contracts (time critical performance)We have a saying here:
- Someone good has 1000 shortcomings. Someone bad have just one shortcoming: being bad.
P-47 was a good fighter. F8F have had just one shortcoming: not being there.
Soviets were not trying to escort their bombers at 25000 ft, 400-600 miles deep behind the frontlines. What Soviets wanted or not had no bearing on how the air war was fought in the West.
My point about the F8F was (this is a direct quote from post 155:We have a saying here:
- Someone good has 1000 shortcomings. Someone bad have just one shortcoming: being bad.
P-47 was a good fighter. F8F have had just one shortcoming: not being there.
Soviets were not trying to escort their bombers at 25000 ft, 400-600 miles deep behind the frontlines. What Soviets wanted or not had no bearing on how the air war was fought in the West.
But your point is mainly based on range where US fighters had an advantage, mainly because they entered the war later. There were key battles that had to be won, like the battle over Dunkerque, the battle of Britain and the battle of Malta, in these range was not important, the Hurricane and Spitfire only had 12 seconds of firing time and so were more likely to run out of guns than fuel.
The P-39 had quite short range. The Allison P-51 seemed to have other issues besides altitude performance, which limited it's efficacy as a fighter, but these were cleared up at the same time as the B model appeared. That said, over Malta or Dunkirque*, against SM 79, Ju 88, Ju 87 etc., i think (Allison) P-51 and P-40s certainly could have been useful, and even P-39s probably if they had the range. Certainly Martlets. Kittyhawks were certainly very useful in similar battles such as around Pantelleria, Sicily, Milne Bay etc.These battles were fought at altitudes that didnt suit the P-51, P-40 and P-39 even if they were available.
The Beaufighter had long range, not great performance compared to a single engined fighter but that puts it in the same bracket as the Bf110, as a heavy fighter against shipping, Condors and Ju88s and night fighter it did its job well at the time.
Dismissing the P-47 because it wasnt great at low altitude ignores the fact that it was great at high altitude which was what the US strategic campaign needed, in the early days of the strategic campaign the P-47 provided the bulk of the escort force.
Not from my part, I see a need from 1939 for short range high performance planes at all altitudes which you dont seem to. The strategic bomber campaign in 1944 was in part to eliminate the Luftwaffe as an effective force, which was achieved as far as the Normandy landings were concerned.I don't understand why everything seems to always devolve to 'strategic bombing is the only air war'. I really don't think it was.
Not from my part, I see a need from 1939 for short range high performance planes at all altitudes which you dont seem to. The strategic bomber campaign in 1944 was in part to eliminate the Luftwaffe as an effective force, which was achieved as far as the Normandy landings were concerned.
War on the Russian front was actually pretty similar to War in the Western Desert, in Sicily and (to a somewhat lesser extent) in Italy, and to war on the ground in France and Belgium etc. after D-Day. War in the Pacific and China had their own unique characteristics but escorting heavy bombers at 25,000 ft didn't come into play until pretty late in the game.
I don't understand why everything seems to always devolve to 'strategic bombing is the only air war'
Somehow NAA got lucky with AT-6, B-25, P-51, B-45, F-86, F-100, X-15, B-70, B-1, B-2?Knowing how to make one - that can still perform well enough to compete at the highest levels, it's a pretty significant design challenge. I think they kind of got lucky with the high efficiency / low drag design of the Mustang.
No it's not a stretch, but I don't think it was the only reason to want one. If that is all you meant then I'll bow out of the debate. To me a Spitfire with about double the range of a Mk 1 or Mk V would have been very helpful indeed on a tactical level, even though it would not necessarily be ideal to escort strategic bombers.There is certainly a lot to the air war besides the strategic bombing. Allies have had a good, if not the great grasp on anti-Uboat warfare, air defense, fighter-bombers, tactical and strategic reconnaissance, night fighting etc. This thread is about long-range Spitfires, so using them in support of strategic bombing is not a stretch.
If the Luftwaffe was not rendered inefficient by the RAF and USAF, there would be no ground battles in France and Belgium in 1944.
Somehow NAA got lucky with AT-6, B-25, P-51, B-45, F-86, F-100, X-15, B-70, B-1, B-2?
Why do you attribute to lucky?
"From Sapper to Spitfire Spy - the WWII Biography of David Greville-Heygate DFC" by Sally-Anne Greville-Heygate, Pen & Sword UK, 2015 - Army Officer seconded to RAF for pilot training, flew Mustang Mk.I on first tour of operations, was then an instructor at the RAF Tac/R School on Mustangs, then Spitfire XIV on second tour.By the way, I know of not much in the way personal accounts written by Mustang I pilots and I recommend the book.
I guess I should have picked a better example of a postwar fighter than an F8F ... what are some other good examples? Tempest? Sea Fuiry? P-51H? F7F? Martin Baker M.B.5? D.H. Hornet? Take your pick.
No it's not a stretch, but I don't think it was the only reason to want one. If that is all you meant then I'll bow out of the debate. To me a Spitfire with about double the range of a Mk 1 or Mk V would have been very helpful indeed on a tactical level, even though it would not necessarily be ideal to escort strategic bombers.
While the F8F-1 had about a 100 mile greater combat range at 15,000 feet with external 150 US gallon tank, the F6F-5 conversely had about a 100 mile greater radius when using the US Navy's Combat Radius Formula F-1.Maybe 'short range' compared to an A6M, but it seems to have had better range than an F4F, I'd say probably better than an F6
Actually, depending on power settings the F6F-5 had an initial climb rate from 3,000 to 3,250 ft/min and the Spitfire V is around the same. Your figures for the Spitfire IX and XIV are a little pestitimistic while the P-51D could climb about 300 fpm faster in the highest power settings. But your point concerning the reasons behind the F8F's development are correct.The F8F-1 Bearcat wasn't built to maximise range. It was built to maximise rate of climb.
F8F-1 4,465 ft/min
F6F-5 2,600 ft/min
P-51D 3,200 ft/min
Spitfire V 4,750 ft/min
Spitfire IX 4,100 ft/min
Spitfire XIV 4,580 ft/min