USAAC/AAF being much improved in 1938-42?

[XBe02Drvr]

Alternate to P38, that's easy for me, no secret I'm a fan of the Grumman F5F. Build it instead of the Wildcat.

Add a 75 gallon tank to each outer wing, weight comes up to 12,000, fuel brings weight up to 12,900.

and it's carrier capable.

What's wrong with this picture? If you're going to develop this 13000 lb TWIN ENGINE monster in lieu of the Wildcat, how are you going to sell it to a cash starved, depression era Navy who's just getting used to operating "slippery, heavy, and fast" 5000 lb F3Fs and 7000 lb SBC Helldivers on its carriers? That's a conceptual stretch for a very traditional service akin to operating SR71s from the Forrestal. That's about as likely as getting the Air Corps to incorporate NIV (Not Invented Here) intelligence from first hand observations of the Spanish Civil War or from Chennault in China into their planning or their doctrine.
And in the world of 1937-39, where the biplane is still king, and maneuverability is everything, and boom and zoom are not in the vocabulary, how are you going to convince your customer he needs this fast, heavy, complicated, EXPENSIVE monstrosity when he's struggling to pay for SBCs?
Cheers,
Wes

 

[pinsog]

What's wrong with this picture? If you're going to develop this 13000 lb TWIN ENGINE monster in lieu of the Wildcat, how are you going to sell it to a cash starved, depression era Navy who's just getting used to operating "slippery, heavy, and fast" 5000 lb F3Fs and 7000 lb SBC Helldivers on its carriers? That's a conceptual stretch for a very traditional service akin to operating SR71s from the Forrestal. That's about as likely as getting the Air Corps to incorporate NIV (Not Invented Here) intelligence from first hand observations of the Spanish Civil War or from Chennault in China into their planning or their doctrine.
And in the world of 1937-39, where the biplane is still king, and maneuverability is everything, and boom and zoom are not in the vocabulary, how are you going to convince your customer he needs this fast, heavy, complicated, EXPENSIVE monstrosity when he's struggling to pay for SBCs?
Cheers,
Wes

Oh I agree with you. I think the increased weight is the biggest issue, the war clouds gathering in europe was beginning to get the purse strings loosened up. The Navy however, while complaining about the increased weight of the twin had already concluded that "the main objection to the twin engine design in the past has been that, although it promised high speed, it is too large. The competition discloses that single engine planes of equivalent speed are even larger". That quote was from a BuAer document from mid 1937! I believe the F5F could easily have been built instead of the F4F and in production around the same time, I would say the only hope of getting this built the way I would build it (turbochargers and extra fuel) would be to build it for the army as a competitor to the P38 and then show the Navy "oh by the way, it is carrier capable as well".

 

[XBe02Drvr]

I think the increased weight is the biggest issue,

the main objection to the twin engine design in the past has been that, although it promised high speed, it is too large.

I would say the only hope of getting this built the way I would build it (turbochargers and extra fuel)

Increased weight and increased speed are a double whammy for carrier ops, further complicated by in a twin needing to consider VMCA, which is generally significantly higher than 1.3Vstall. At or below VMCA an engine hiccup on final is going to put you upright into the fantail (if you're quick on the throttles) or inverted into the wake close astern (if you're not).
Even with F4F style folding wings, your F5F will be a real estate hog on deck.
I don't think the state of the art of turbocharging would quite meet your timeline, at least not for reliable carrier ops. I can't think of a single turbocharged recip that was deployed on carriers.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[Kevin J]

Increased weight and increased speed are a double whammy for carrier ops, further complicated by in a twin needing to consider VMCA, which is generally significantly higher than 1.3Vstall. At or below VMCA an engine hiccup on final is going to put you upright into the fantail (if you're quick on the throttles) or inverted into the wake close astern (if you're not).
Even with F4F style folding wings, your F5F will be a real estate hog on deck.
I don't think the state of the art of turbocharging would quite meet your timeline, at least not for reliable carrier ops. I can't think of a single turbocharged recip that was deployed on carriers.
Cheers,
Wes

I can't think of a single decent twin with turbos until the P-38F comes along in time for Operation Torch. The best you'll get is the F5F / P-50 introduced at the same time as the Corsair / Lightning and all the major carrier battles of 1942 are over.

 

[pinsog]

Increased weight and increased speed are a double whammy for carrier ops, further complicated by in a twin needing to consider VMCA, which is generally significantly higher than 1.3Vstall. At or below VMCA an engine hiccup on final is going to put you upright into the fantail (if you're quick on the throttles) or inverted into the wake close astern (if you're not).
Even with F4F style folding wings, your F5F will be a real estate hog on deck.
I don't think the state of the art of turbocharging would quite meet your timeline, at least not for reliable carrier ops. I can't think of a single turbocharged recip that was deployed on carriers.
Cheers,
Wes

I 100% agree on turbocharger timeline as well. I am getting a considerable amount of help from hindsight.
With wings folded I believe the XF5F was 22 feet wide, length was 28' 8 inches, so length was identical to Wildcat and about 5' shorter than a Hellcat, folded wing width was actually quite small.
They said with both engines running it was fantastic for landing on a carrier. Look at take off distance. Losing an engine on final would really really suck, although losing an engine on final in a Wildcat or Hellcat wouldn't work out well either.

 

[pinsog]

I can't think of a single decent twin with turbos until the P-38F comes along in time for Operation Torch. The best you'll get is the F5F / P-50 introduced at the same time as the Corsair / Lightning and all the major carrier battles of 1942 are over.

Actually the only mass produced turbocharged planes in all of WW2 were US built, the B17, B24, B29, P38, P43 and P47 were it.
IF it was built INSTEAD of the Wildcat i think it could have made it in the same timeline as the Wildcat. It couldn't have been built in addition to the Wildcat and make it in time because, in my opinion, Grumman simply wasn't big enough to get it all done. It was either the Wildcat OR the F5F, not both and obviously they chose the Wildcat. I think the F5F would have done a better job, especially with a few tweaks (like turbochargers and wings tanks) but we will never know.

 

[Kevin J]

I 100% agree on turbocharger timeline as well. I am getting a considerable amount of help from hindsight.
With wings folded I believe the XF5F was 22 feet wide, length was 28' 8 inches, so length was identical to Wildcat and about 5' shorter than a Hellcat, folded wing width was actually quite small.
They said with both engines running it was fantastic for landing on a carrier. Look at take off distance. Losing an engine on final would really really suck, although losing an engine on final in a Wildcat or Hellcat wouldn't work out well either.

Perhaps what the F5F really needed was an order from us Brits. Just imagine no 220 F4F-4B's, but 110 F5F's to operate off our armoured carriers. That would have given the Axis a big shock. No crappy Buccaneers and licence production to CC&F instead of Helldiver. Use the R-1820 in it, perfect for the FAA. I'm sure a July 1942 service intro date is feasible. Cancel the Brewster Bermuda too, another wasted effort. What's really needed is what in Computing we called a project champion to push the project through.

 

[pinsog]

Perhaps what the F5F really needed was an order from us Brits. Just imagine no 220 F4F-4B's, but 110 F5F's to operate off our armoured carriers. That would have given the Axis a big shock. No crappy Buccaneers and licence production to CC&F instead of Helldiver. Use the R-1820 in it, perfect for the FAA. I'm sure a July 1942 service intro date is feasible. Cancel the Brewster Bermuda too, another wasted effort. What's really needed is what in Computing we called a project champion to push the project through.

I agree with this 100% and had already had the exact same thoughts. For the FAA I would probably use 2 speed P&W 1830's, more hp, less frontal area and drag, therefore should be much faster. Add dive flaps and it could be a fighter, dive bomber and even carry a torpedo. At 28' 8" and wings folded it would fit on the Royal Navy carrier elevators. It could literally be the sole aircraft carried on RN ships.

Oh, I would also change the wings to fold like a Wildcat so height below decks wouldn't be a problem. The RN might also add a bit longer wing to it depending on what it's main job was going to be and how slow they wanted it to land. That wouldn't be hard to do.

 

[Kevin J]

I agree with this 100% and had already had the exact same thoughts. For the FAA I would probably use 2 speed P&W 1830's, more hp, less frontal area and drag, therefore should be much faster. Add dive flaps and it could be a fighter, dive bomber and even carry a torpedo. At 28' 8" and wings folded it would fit on the Royal Navy carrier elevators. It could literally be the sole aircraft carried on RN ships.

Our F4F-4B was a bit of a dog, overweight and underpowered. The FM-1/2 okay for our smaller escort carriers. The Seafire okay in its Ib/LIIc/FIII/LIII versions, but not the IIc. Operating the F5F first in Operation Torch would have given the Axis a big shock. Deploying them on Victorious in the South Pacific in 1943 even better. I understand why neither the USN or USMC didn't buy it; the timescales were wrong and they were mass producing pilots. I think the FAA could have made it work for them.

 

[pinsog]

Our F4F-4B was a bit of a dog, overweight and underpowered. The FM-1/2 okay for our smaller escort carriers. The Seafire okay in its Ib/LIIc/FIII/LIII versions, but not the IIc.

The climb rate of the US F4F-4 was embarrassing. I still shake my head and wonder how they manage to scratch out a 1-1 exchange with the Zero, it really doesn't make sense. The F4F-3 was a pretty decent performer.

 

[Kevin J]

The climb rate of the US F4F-4 was embarrassing. I still shake my head and wonder how they manage to scratch out a 1-1 exchange with the Zero, it really doesn't make sense. The F4F-3 was a pretty decent performer.

Maybe because by the time the F4F-4 came along, the Japanese had lost many of their best pilots, and the US had their pre-war trained pilots coming on stream, and they were an elite force to be reckoned with.

 

[pinsog]

Maybe because by the time the F4F-4 came along, the Japanese had lost many of their best pilots, and the US had their pre-war trained pilots coming on stream, and they were an elite force to be reckoned with.

The F4F-3 was only in service for the Coral Sea battle. Every Wildcat on the carrier's at Midway were F4F-4's. Only the 7 Wildcats on the island were F4F-3's. All the major attrition from Midway through Guadalcanal was done by F4F-4's. F4F-4's are what whittled down the elite Japanese Zero pilots (which still astounds me)

 

[Kevin J]

The F4F-3 was only in service for the Coral Sea battle. Every Wildcat on the carrier's at Midway were F4F-4's. Only the 7 Wildcats on the island were F4F-3's. All the major attrition from Midway through Guadalcanal was done by F4F-4's. F4F-4's are what whittled down the elite Japanese Zero pilots (which still astounds me)

But US pilots were an elite force. You could be rejected in the US and accepted in Canada pre war.

 

[pinsog]

But US pilots were an elite force. You could be rejected in the US and accepted in Canada pre war.

I agree they were an elite force. The gunnery training alone with the focus on deflection shooting may have been the sole difference in their performance. They sure couldn't chase Zeros around and shoot them down from behind like Spitfires and ME109's did to each other.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

The climb rate of the US F4F-4 was embarrassing. I still shake my head and wonder how they manage to scratch out a 1-1 exchange with the Zero,

Teamwork, survivability, firepower, and Thach tactics.
I had my wisdom teeth extracted by a very senior oral surgeon who back in the day had survived several bursts from strafing Zeroes as he lifted off Henderson Field in his Wildcat. He managed to escape, despite being unable to raise the gear or retract the flaps, due to his left arm being shattered and the airplane like swiss cheese. Thirty one years later he still had massive scars on his arm. Do you think a Zero would have survived that treatment?
Cheers,
Wes

 

[XBe02Drvr]

losing an engine on final in a Wildcat or Hellcat wouldn't work out well, either.

True enough, but here's a little known fact (to pilots, but not to mechanics): statistically, the same engine installed on twins has higher failure rates than on singles. And a single with engine out is much easier to ditch safely than a twin suffering from asymmetric thrust.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[pinsog]

Teamwork, survivability, firepower, and Thach tactics.
I had my wisdom teeth extracted by a very senior oral surgeon who back in the day had survived several bursts from strafing Zeroes as he lifted off Henderson Field in his Wildcat. He managed to escape, despite being unable to raise the gear or retract the flaps, due to his left arm being shattered and the airplane like swiss cheese. Thirty one years later he still had massive scars on his arm. Do you think a Zero would have survived that treatment?
Cheers,
Wes

Was that story in The First Team? I seem to recall reading something along those lines. (I can't imagine having to fly an airplane through the pain of getting wounded like that). Of course the Wildcat was extremely tough and the Zero wasn't but the Zero, if caught low and slow and not destroyed by the first burst, had that ability to reverse the situation and be firmly planted on your tail (Tommy McGuire is a perfect example) and nearly impossible to shake off.

Oh, I agree with the teamwork, tactics, surviabilty and firepower part 100%, but the difference in performance and maneuverability between a Zero and F4F-4 is so great that I still shake my head in amazement

 

[tomo pauk]

...
Unfortunately, although unknown at the time, trying to bomb form high altitudes didn't work very well.
...

The A-20s with turboed V-1710s or whatever don't need to bomb from high altitudes. They can fly at 20000 ft, do a shallow dive to 10000 ft, level out and drop the bombs, then open up the throttles and make a shallow climb.

Not quite, the Pe-2 carried six 220lb inside, four in the fuselage bay and one in each engine nacelle. The 2200lb load required four 550lbs bombs outside. Seed with that load is unreported in western sources?
True but non-really exceeded the A-20 for internal stowage. And none were faster (in 1941-42) while carrying an internal bomb load. Bf-110 was faster without bombs but with bombs?

I've listed the bombers/fighter-bombers powered by 1100-1200 HP engines, in an attempt to make a point that a bomber with two V-1710s would not be a bad idea.

The A-20 was not the best possible bomber in 1942 (The XA-26 first flew in July of 1942 and they had started work in the Autumn of 1940) but it was pretty good (good enough?) and the need for a higher performing/speed airplane with V-12 engines has to be balanced against quite possible poorer field performance (Take-off) and engine availability.

I agree that A-20 vas a pretty good bomber, certainly better than Pe-2 (apart from better Pe-2 ability do dive bomb). Possibly the greatest shortcoming of the A-20 in 1941-42 was that fuel load was so low, that probably had to do with it belonging to the attack category, unlike B-25 or B-26.

 

[tomo pauk]

Uh, Tomo, the 1600hp R-2600 had a lot of cooling troubles when equipped with a turbo charger. At least in the A-20, For some reason (known to Wright?) turbo R-2600s are very few in number. Not sure if the performance numbers will hold up. P-38Ds and Es were in the 380-390mph range at 20,000ft with 2300hp. P-47B needed 1625hp at 25,000ft to do 392mph.
Wright delivers 443 of the 1700hp version in 1941, 206 of them in Dec. This is the engine used in the B-25, about 500 built (needing 1000 engines) by late spring of 1942. This is also the engine used the Avenger.

Okay, let's say that cooling problems of the R-2600 in a turboed installation are discovered during testing, and that quick fix/playing with cooling louvres etc. don't work. This can open the way to the 1850 HP R-2800 to be installed on a couple of prototypes (= capability for 400+ mph), along with trying with 1700 HP R-2600 de-tuned to 1600 HP (= around 390 mph above 20000 ft) until the fix was found. All of this might led to Republic making exclusively the R-2800-powered 'alternative P-38s'.

Not sure when the 37mm cannon got the horseshoe feed, the older ones (Airacuda) used a 5 round box magazine, a 15 round belt is listed, not sure how many planes used it.

Historical P-38 and P-39 were slated for the fixed 37mm cannons, per specification issued in 1937.

 

[pinsog]

The A-20s with turboed V-1710s or whatever don't need to bomb from high altitudes. They can fly at 20000 ft, do a shallow dive to 10000 ft, level out and drop the bombs, then open up the throttles and make a shallow climb.

I don't think there would be any room for turbochargers in an A20 nacelle, the Allison's would take up most, if not all the room. But, for a low level attack plane like the A20, you wouldn't need turbochargers. Below 15,000 feet and especially below 10,000 feet you would be able to get about all the boost you need, a P40N was putting out 1480 hp at 10,550 feet. With the reduction in drag by going to an Allison engine along with 1480 hp per side, your A20 should be smoking fast. I don't think a Zero could come anywhere close to catching it. I think it's a good idea.