Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
View attachment 192018
The Merlin was in the way dave. I'm pretty sure that the hub cannon was never on the agenda for a Spitfire.
John
Mitchell essentially argued that any sort of fueselage armament thickens the fueselage and causes and increease in drag. It was an engineering decision by Mitchell.
Being good doesn't help much if the aircraft isn't available when needed most.
The F4U entered production during the summer of 1942. It could have been available for operations in North Africa, Sicily and Southern Italy. Good aerial performance plus good endurance would have made the Corsair ideal for those battles.
Gen Eisenhower commanded in the Mediterranean during 1943. His B-17 transport aircraft was normally escorted by a squadron of Spitfires even though plenty of American made fighter aircraft were available. That speaks volumes about which Allied fighter aircraft type was considered most effective.
QUOTE]
The Spitfire was the only real choice for Gen E. But, we need to remember that Ike also needed the best pilots too. Or, if 'best' is the wrong word, then ' most experianced'.
The Corsair was a bruiser of a fighter but, what could have added to the USA aircraft in the ETO? The Thunderbolt was powerfull and as tough as old boots and the Mustang had the long range needed as the war progressed.
The PR Spits flew high and fast to photograph was was going on.
Very few aircraft started WW2 ,saw the war years through doing sterling service and were still needed into the pre jet 1950's.
John
)
"Greatest aviation related blunders of WW2"
Endurance.Corsair was a bruiser of a fighter but, what could have added to the USA aircraft in the ETO?
Endurance.
Internal Fuel Capacity.
351 gal. F4U-1. Available June 1942.
During the fall of 1942 the F4U was as good as anything flying and it had the endurance which the Spitfire lacked.
Late model P-38s, P-47s and P-51s had good endurance and most teething problems were fixed. None of that matters if they weren't available when needed most.
If the USA was seriously committed to beating the 3rd Reich first, the Hog would have been flying over the deserts and mountains of Tunisia.
Wasn't Japan the piper at the gates of dawn to you Americans?
I must admit that, polictics aside, the USA was commited to beating all its enemies or enemies of its allies if you prefer.
The Corsair was a great plane but, would it have made the cruical difference in the ETO?
John
Daimler-Benz superchargers worked yet they had a hub cannon.
It could be worse. You could choose the U.S. development path for the Allison engine.
- Low performance supercharger.
- No hub cannon.
- No reliable aircraft cannon period, forcing the use of .50cal MGs into the 1950s.
Gen Eisenhower commanded in the Mediterranean during 1943. His B-17 transport aircraft was normally escorted by a squadron of Spitfires even though plenty of American made fighter aircraft were available. That speaks volumes about which Allied fighter aircraft type was considered most effective.
If the U.S. Army Air Corps had purchased F4Us Ike wouldn't have needed British made Spitfires for protection.
Yes the voting public of the USA was definitely wanting some December 7 8, payback in 42 and early 43.
Much like the Immortal Spit, it's probably a matter of time and place. and for the F4U that may have been primarily in the MTO in early 1943. I doubt the numbers could have been mustered to cover both ETO (Bombing escort and interdiction missions) and the MTO as well. By the time the F4U numbers became sufficient in northern Europe, the P-47's might have been available. I don't know how Vought, Brewster and Goodyear production numbers stack up against those companies producing P-47's (and P-38J's?).
Gen. Eisnehower may have had those Spitfires just as a showcase of co-operation, and unity between the allied powers.
Being good doesn't help much if the aircraft isn't available when needed most.
The F4U entered production during the summer of 1942. It could have been available for operations in North Africa, Sicily and Southern Italy. Good aerial performance plus good endurance would have made the Corsair ideal for those battles.
Some 9 (nine) times the production of P-38 surpassed the production of F4U prior 1943 (and the number of P-38s was way too low for the demand); even in 1943 P-38 was more prolific. That was the only US plane that could compete with the best other countries were producing in 1942.
Only 178 F4Us were built in 1942 and 68 of them were in December. It took Chance-Vought until April 1943 to break triple digit monthly production and until Aug to break 200 a month.
this is from an order for for 584 planes placed on June 30 1941, and before you come up with more of your "just throw money at it" ideas consider that Brewster was brought in as a second source on Nov 1st 1941 and Goodyear is named as the second associate producer in Dec of 1941. By August of 1943 Brewster had built 5 planes and Goodyear managed to deliver 377 planes in all of 1943.
What are you going to do, build a 4th factory to get you 3-400 planes in 1943 and those 300-400 planes are going to change the course of the war? Goodyear went on to build 2108 Corsairs in 1944 and 1521 in 8 months of 1945. it takes time to build factories and hit production numbers. Many Goodyear Corsairs were built with fixed wings so that idea won't speed up production much.