swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,028
- Jun 25, 2013
Since the commercial market wasn't interested in liquid-cooled engines and in the early 1930s, with the introduction of NACA cowlings (note both the DC-1 and Boeing 247 had their first flights in 1933, which meant their design was started by 1931, at the latest), the drag advantage of liquid-cooled engines was largely illusory, at least until the introduction of plate-fin radiators and proper ducting systems, Allison had really one customer: the US government. The V-1710 was originally funded in 1929 and first flew in 1936, although it probably first ran in 1932 or 1933. The largest problem was that the USAAC was too focused on turbo-chargers which, while better, were also bulky and farther from operational status. Because of this, Allison's mechanical superchargers had detail design issues which impaired their performance and reduced their efficiency.
Overall, however, I don't think the P-40 could be much improved without the use of a full-scale wind tunnel, as was done with the F4F. The USAAC had other fighters in service or nearing production, but none of these were better. (some with argue the P-39 was, but I disagree: the mid-mounted engine caused a lot of compromises in flight characteristics that could not be overcome. The USAAC needed a fighter with Bf109-like range about as much as it needed triplanes)
The real area for improvement was, in my opinion, tactical support of ground forces. Here, interservice (or even intra-service) rivalry was major problem. The USMC had been developing tactical support of ground forces by aircraft for at least a decade (see: dive bombing, for example) and the related issues of ground-air communication; the USAAC should have found out what worked for a service with its headquarters a few miles down the road. I don't know what wouldn't be built (there were a whole bunch of O-nn aircraft which turned out to be militarily useless, e.g., the O-43. I'd start with not building those) and what would, but I suspect the biggest problem wasn't hardware, but doctrine.
So, my USAAC development would be:
Overall, however, I don't think the P-40 could be much improved without the use of a full-scale wind tunnel, as was done with the F4F. The USAAC had other fighters in service or nearing production, but none of these were better. (some with argue the P-39 was, but I disagree: the mid-mounted engine caused a lot of compromises in flight characteristics that could not be overcome. The USAAC needed a fighter with Bf109-like range about as much as it needed triplanes)
The real area for improvement was, in my opinion, tactical support of ground forces. Here, interservice (or even intra-service) rivalry was major problem. The USMC had been developing tactical support of ground forces by aircraft for at least a decade (see: dive bombing, for example) and the related issues of ground-air communication; the USAAC should have found out what worked for a service with its headquarters a few miles down the road. I don't know what wouldn't be built (there were a whole bunch of O-nn aircraft which turned out to be militarily useless, e.g., the O-43. I'd start with not building those) and what would, but I suspect the biggest problem wasn't hardware, but doctrine.
So, my USAAC development would be:
- Keep the OTL fighters on-stream. The only (doctrinal) change would be to allow drop tanks (these were not new technology!) and increased bomb loads on "pursuit" aircraft.
- Introduce a dedicated CAS aircraft. The A-36 was perfect, but didn't exist yet. The Hawk 75K variant may be a good starting point, though.
- Try to get a second liquid cooled engine source. If V-12s are so great, don't depend on one vendor! There are two companies making big radials, but they can thrive on civil contracts. Nobody except the military will buy V-12s for aircraft.
- Pay very careful attention to what was going on in China and the Spanish Civil War. Both Japan and Germany were acting in ways that could threaten US interests and both were producing leading-edge combat aircraft and tactics. I realize isolationism was a very powerful political position, it didn't preclude actually paying attention to the rest of the world.