This is the way it should have been from the beginning....

[Shortround6]

The -17 could make 1050hp at 6500ft at 2550 rpm.
The -23 could make 950hp at 14,500ft at 2700rpm.

In test flight/s the -17 made about 1000hp hp at 10,000ft in level high speed flight with RAM,and
about 850hp at 15,000ft level high speed flight with RAM.

In test flight/s the -23 made 950hp at 17,000ft in level high speed flight with RAM,and
a

In test flight/s the -23 made 950hp at 17,000ft in level high speed flight with RAM,

An early P-40 could make 1090hp at 15,000ft in level high speed flight with RAM.
A Hurricane I could make 1030hp at 16,500ft or above level high speed flight with RAM.

 

[Zipper730]

Regarding USAAF Two-Stage Supercharging

Tell Allison from Day 1 to design the V-1710 with 2-stage supercharging.

Well the design was configured with a bolt-on for either a turbocharger or supercharger. It's just the USAAF had far more interest in turbos than twin-superchargers

 

[Zipper730]

Regarding the P-61

My first thought is the P-61. Instead of the original concept of the 3 man crew with powered turret with 4 x 0.50s

It should have been built with a 2 man crew, single canopy (or dual if the canopy is too large for 1942/43), keeping the nose radar and teh 4 x 20mm belly cannon. It would have looked a lot like the P-61E day fighter.

That has been thought of before by an aviation buff I know online, I also thought it would have been a good idea even despite the fact that the RAF wanted a turret-fighter for the P-61.

Far as I know the specification might have been inspired by a comment by Jack Northrop or somebody he worked for, based around his thought that you should have a plane that could stay over the battlefield (which in this case, was often a city) all night. The British were fixated with the idea of turrets, far as I know because

• The night-fighter can attack bombers higher than itself by shooting up at them: This shouldn't be necessary provided...
  • The aircraft are performing standing-patrols: Eliminates the need to climb up to altitude and speed
  • The aircraft has a suitably high cruising-altitude
  • There are multiple aircraft on station: Eliminates the issue of having one aircraft chase a bomber to lower altitudes, then have to climb-back
• The guns can be aimed independent of the heading of the aircraft: Not sure how important that is as the plane could maneuver almost as good as some day-fighters.

I'm not sure it was really needed because

• The aircraft was quite maneuverable: The rated g-load was 7.3 which makes it almost the same as some day fighters (7.33g to 8g)
• The aircraft wasn't doing point-defense intercepts: They did standing patrols which probably consisted of several aircraft covering a given area at a time, with some aircraft on the ground to relieve as necessary.
• The early turrets had buffeting problems when they were moved in either elevation and azimuth; this was later fixed, but it often flew without them
• While the turret only added a few mph to the aircraft, possibly some improvements in climb and acceleration, but it also allowed additional fuel-capacity

The only drawback I could see is that the A-26 had a competitor for the night-fighter role and might have won as it had a pair of turrets

It may have also been fitted with turbos, as per the P-61C, from the start - depending on turbocharger availability.

The reason for them forgoing the turbocharger was

• The turbocharger would have increased cruising-altitude about 10,000 feet
• It also would have required for the same indicated airspeed, a higher true airspeed, and by extension a higher overall speed; this would have required a shorter endurance even if range was increased

Interestingly, I'm not sure if *any* P-61's could do 8 hours endurance

The 4 gun top turret proved problematic in early models with severe buffeting when trained anywhere besides straight forward.

That's right, though these problems were largely fixed: It's just the same technology employed in the turrets was used on the B-29's

 

[davparlr]

Interesting discussion on cancelling high altitude strategic bombing for smaller fast bombers and fighters. Fighters were none starters. Loaded down with only the ability to carry few bombs, airspeed and maneuverability was severely reduced (see problems with the F-4 and F-105s in Vietnam) and would be sitting ducks to defense if total air control could not be maintained as in the Battle of Britain. The only fast bombers that could survive in that environment would be the Mosquito and an up-powered short wing B-26s, both with limited bomb loads, and then only with air cover or surprise. In any event, fighting over a tactical battle field is a dangerous situation; you can't give the enemy a safe haven, like in Korea. My opinion.

My recommendation on what should have been done.

1. Expedite and clean up ground handling issues of the P-66 and install the F4F-3 PW-1830-76 engine, 1000 hp at 19K. Should be equivalent to 1940 versions of Bf-109s and Spitfires. And/or, AAF gets Vought to develop straight wing lighter land based F4U.

2. As said elseware, get that Allison a high performance supercharger.

3. If possible, get that uprated engine in the P-51 in 1942.

4. Incorporate the low drag P-51 type wing in the Spitfire, Bf 109 and Fw 190.

5. Incorporate the P-51 type radiator in the Spitfire and Bf 109.

6. Incorporate more internal fuel on the early P-47s (there's gotta be room somewhere, maybe right behind the pilot.

7. Incorporate drop tanks on the early P-47s.

8. I hate to say this, but cancel the B-26 and build the B-33A to have ready by 1943. I want 50 mph cruise increase over the B-17/24 to reduce exposer to defenses and 300 mph dash to escape target area.

9. Navy to start design of slanted deck carriers. Massive increase in safety and hitting power. Problem, Panama Canal.

10. For Germany, invest in radial compressor jet engine. Much less hoops to jump through to get much more powerful engines, ala Nene and J-33.

11. For Germany, don't invade Russia. I know, not technical.

12. For Germany, don't declare war on US. Ditto.

 

[Shortround6]

Some of those are a lot easier than others

Not sure what the fascination is the P-66. It is a modified trainer and it is only going to take you so far. Not only that but you need a time machine to get R-1830-76 engines in 1940 in any quantity. The only built 98 two stage engines in 1940 and 81 of them were in the last 4 months.

The P-47 could easily hold more fuel, they got it up to 370 gallons in the later ones without a behind the seat tank. Trouble is trying to fight with an extra 65 gallons (390lbs) and bigger tank with the original engine and propeller. P-47s first went into action in April 1943, water injection doesn't show up until Oct/Nov? and the paddle blade props start showing up in Dec. 43.

I am not sure that angled flight decks would Help the US that much with piston engine aircraft. The US, in general, had much larger flight decks than the RN and tended to fly off the majority of the aircraft when launching a strike, only catapulting enough aircraft to get enough deck length to enable the rest to fly off.

It would have been safer but the US often used a crash barrier to keep planes that missed the arresting gear from hitting the planes parked on the forward deck.

 

[wuzak]

2. As said elseware, get that Allison a high performance supercharger.

3. If possible, get that uprated engine in the P-51 in 1942.

Unless the uprated Allison supercharger is a 2 stage unit, it won't last long before being replaced with Merlin P-51s.

4. Incorporate the low drag P-51 type wing in the Spitfire, Bf 109 and Fw 190.

There are many areas in the Spitfire where the drag could be reduced at lower cost.

Fit and finish is one. Detail design around things like the canopy (the front part was too steep, costing, IIRC, about 8-10mph in speed).

Also, does changing the wing section change the way it performs? Would the Spitfire lose some of its best characteristics to gain some speed?

5. Incorporate the P-51 type radiator in the Spitfire and Bf 109.

Apparently Supermarine suggested such a course of action, but was rejected because production was more important than the performance increase.

It must be noted that the Spitfire's radiators were designed around the same principle as the Mustang's, but the inlet and outlet sizes, and the expansion ratios weren't well designed. Additionally, the control flap on the radiator only had two positions, at least on early models.

A fuselage mounted radiator matrix may have allowed some extra fuel storage in the wings, but at the cost of rear fuselage fuel tanks.

Not sure that the Bf 109 was big enough for such a radiator type.

Incidentally, the Spiteful utilised a low drag wing and BF 109 style radiators, and was about 50mph faster than a Spitfire XIV with the same engine.

 

[tomo pauk]

My recommendation on what should have been done.

1. Expedite and clean up ground handling issues of the P-66 and install the F4F-3 PW-1830-76 engine, 1000 hp at 19K. Should be equivalent to 1940 versions of Bf-109s and Spitfires. And/or, AAF gets Vought to develop straight wing lighter land based F4U.

2. As said elseware, get that Allison a high performance supercharger.

3. If possible, get that uprated engine in the P-51 in 1942.

4. Incorporate the low drag P-51 type wing in the Spitfire, Bf 109 and Fw 190.

5. Incorporate the P-51 type radiator in the Spitfire and Bf 109.

6. Incorporate more internal fuel on the early P-47s (there's gotta be room somewhere, maybe right behind the pilot.

7. Incorporate drop tanks on the early P-47s.

8. I hate to say this, but cancel the B-26 and build the B-33A to have ready by 1943. I want 50 mph cruise increase over the B-17/24 to reduce exposer to defenses and 300 mph dash to escape target area.

9. Navy to start design of slanted deck carriers. Massive increase in safety and hitting power. Problem, Panama Canal.

10. For Germany, invest in radial compressor jet engine. Much less hoops to jump through to get much more powerful engines, ala Nene and J-33.

..

2 & 3. Yes, indeed.
4. Much easier said then done. Probably not that worth for Spitfire (already with a thin, low drag wing), while the Germans are more in need of 2-stage supercharged engines?
5. Gains would've probably best felt on Spitfires with 2-stage engines, meaning that Spitfire IX/VIII is close to the Merlin Mustang? For early Spitfires (I-VI), easy gains can be attained via use of better carb & exhausts, fully covered U/C, better fit & finish, internal BP glass vs. external.
6 & 7. Bigger main tank is easy to do, so are drop tanks.
8. B-26 indeed looks like an un-needed bomber (Greg is going to hate me for saying this).
9 & 10. Agree.

 

[Shortround6]

I am not at all sure that angled flight decks would be that much of an improvement for WW II carriers. While perhaps safer for landing (?) I am not sure that the benefits outway the problems.
Most piston engine planes had enough acceleration in hand that wave-offs were not a big problem. This was not the case with jet aircraft in the 40s and 50s and indeed the Ryan Fireball was one attempt to get around this.

The other thing is the relative speeds and angles involved. Carriers tried to steam into the wind but yes, gust could and did change the actual direction of the wind. at least to some extent. 10-15mph wind fighting the 30kt speed of the carrier means an off the bow wind vector is what?
Landing your 70-80kt airplane on the angled 30+ kt carrier deck with that slight cross wind component may be a bit trickier than landing a faster, heavier jet on the same deck. Or 1950s piston engine planes. Some of the early jets stalled at around 100kts. (or over 110kts when loaded).

And as I said before, the Americans could launch the majority of a strike group without using catapults so going from 2 to 3/4 doesn't speed things up much.

 

[davparlr]

All good comments by knowledgeable contributors.

Some of those are a lot easier than others

Not sure what the fascination is the P-66. It is a modified trainer and it is only going to take you so far. Not only that but you need a time machine to get R-1830-76 engines in 1940 in any quantity. The only built 98 two stage engines in 1940 and 81 of them were in the last 4 months.

I like it! It was designed by the same designer of the Hughes H-1, so he certainly knew how to make fast airplanes. It was much faster than the Curtiss Hawk or the XP-41 and, with the new engine, could possibly be as fast as the P-40D, and would probably put it in the speed range of the Bf 109E and Spitfire II. It also seems that the pilots liked it. Oh, recommendation 13. Expedite the introduction and manufacturing of the R-1830-75 engine.

Side thought: Since the P-66 was 30-40 mph faster than the similar engined P-36A, how much faster would an Allison powered P-66 be over the P-40. As is, the streamlined Vanguard prototype was faster than the more powerful P-40 (1 mph).

The P-47 could easily hold more fuel, they got it up to 370 gallons in the later ones without a behind the seat tank. Trouble is trying to fight with an extra 65 gallons (390lbs) and bigger tank with the original engine and propeller. P-47s first went into action in April 1943, water injection doesn't show up until Oct/Nov? and the paddle blade props start showing up in Dec. 43.

You are correct but it's turbo-supercharged horsepower would still command the air above 25k, being 800 hp more than the Bfs and Fws. In addition, just the psychological impact to the defenders that there could be eight fifty cals above them ready to swoop down with a lot of energy and firepower, could be very distracting and would make attacking the bombers more complex and dangerous. Without this, history shows that the bombers would be very vulnerable.

I am not sure that angled flight decks would Help the US that much with piston engine aircraft. The US, in general, had much larger flight decks than the RN and tended to fly off the majority of the aircraft when launching a strike, only catapulting enough aircraft to get enough deck length to enable the rest to fly off.

I must admit that I am not an expert in this area but there is several areas in which the angled deck would be a significant advantage. One, of course is safety. The landing aircraft is moving away from the island providing a bit more error tolerance (there's that video of an F6F crashing into the island). Also, I suspect that running into the net could cause damage to the aircraft, including engine, and, failure of the net could cause catastrophic damage to other aircraft and possibly the ship.

The ability of landing aircraft at the same time launching activities are occurring appears to be a significant advantage, especially in air to ground support where an aircraft makes one or two passes and then needs to rearm while other launches are occurring, or, aircraft are returning from a mission low on fuel and combat air patrol needs to launch to address and incoming threat, which was a major problem with the Japanese at Midway.

I don't know if this was possible for ww2 operations, but if simultaneous (or alternating) launches of aircraft from straight and angled deck were possible, strike airborne assembly time could be almost halved, reducing fuel consumption, extending range/time on target and strike timing.

Most piston engine planes had enough acceleration in hand that wave-offs were not a big problem. This was not the case with jet aircraft in the 40s and 50s

I don't think wave offs were a particular issue. I suspect both jets and props flew at similar approach speeds based on the aircraft, probably something like 1.3 Vstall so their safety margins were the same. Early jet engines did spin up much slower than props but they were very draggy on approach and probably had a pretty high throttle setting. I think they were well trained on wave-offs all the way down to cut throttle signal. If either messed up after that, neither was likely have a successful bolt. I think the main problem was missed or broke arresting wire.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Gloster F5/34 Zero?
Can you imagine if the RAF or FAA had them in the Pacific? You would have to shoot down your wingman just to be sure.

Then we'd better hope no one brings the Caproni Vizzola F.5.

At least SAAB's L-12 never made it, keeping any neutral Swedes out of harm's way.

 

[The Basket]

Gloster F5/34 Zero?
Can you imagine if the RAF or FAA had them in the Pacific? You would have to shoot down your wingman just to be sure.

Did I write that?
Wow. Shakespeare.
I ain't laughing at my own jokes because I have zero recollection of writing that.
So I can appreciate it on a new level.

 

[Kevin J]

Another what if subject allowing us to use the great benefit of hindsight.

The idea is simple - list aircraft that were built/used during WW2 which could have been built better had they used ideas from later. These changes would have to be technically feasible in the time frame of the original aircraft, with engines historically available at the time (ie you can't say the Spitfire should have been the Mk XIV at the time of the BoB).

My first thought is the P-61.

Instead of the original concept of the 3 man crew with powered turret with 4 x 0.50s

View attachment 471597

It should have been built with a 2 man crew, single canopy (or dual if the canopy is too large for 1942/43), keeping the nose radar and teh 4 x 20mm belly cannon.

It would have looked a lot like the P-61E day fighter.

View attachment 426756

It may have also been fitted with turbos, as per the P-61C, from the start - depending on turbocharger availability.

This is September / October 1940. So what you see is what you get, a bigger better Beaufighter with a turret.