What if the Americans never made any mistakes in their procurement decisions.

[Shortround6]

Basically I meant a change to the politics and procurement with everything pushed 18 months to 2 years back in terms of the urgency of the situation. going back to the early 30s, but in a democracy such things arent easy.

Somethings aren't any easier in a dictatorship either. Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it.

Hundreds more O-52s

A few squadrons of B-21s?

More P-35s?

Simply throwing money at some problems doesn't always speed up the progress that much.
Sometimes the underlying knowledge takes time.

 

[tyrodtom]

The U.S. was on the tail-end of the great depression and the military budget was less than a shoe-string.

Which is one reason that Pearl Harbor was a debacle - the Navy's budget dictated that all non-essential personnel would not be on duty on the weekends due to payroll cuts.

Add to that, short-staffing and limited asset purchases (by all branches).

Then, as now, military personnel are paid by the month, not by the hour.
And they're paid the same no matter how many hours a day or week they work.

 

[Capt. Vick]

Winston Churchill once said, "You can count on Americans to do the right thing, after they've tried everything else!"

Make sense for anybody actually. Why would you keep trying after you've found the solution?

 

[Peter Gunn]

Somethings aren't any easier in a dictatorship either. Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it.

Hundreds more O-52s
View attachment 571501
A few squadrons of B-21s?
View attachment 571502
More P-35s?
View attachment 571503

Simply throwing money at some problems doesn't always speed up the progress that much.
Sometimes the underlying knowledge takes time.

Don't be harshing on my beloved P-35...

 

[Zipper730]

Let's see...

1. Embrace drop-tanks
2. Get rid of escort fighters that are flying gunships or twin-manned aircraft.

 

[pinsog]

The only possible mistake that I can see is:-
1. Not making any F5F Skyrockets.
2. Building the Buccaneer / Bermuda.
The only problem here is that if Skyrocket production is subcontracted to Brewster, its sure to be a failure.
Any more ideas, guys?

1. Have Grumman concentrate on the Skyrocket after losing out to the Buffalo, nothing else, no Wildcat, no Hellcat and no Avenger. Single seat Skyrocket follows same timeline as Wildcat. Add armor, self sealing tanks, turbochargers, 400 gallons of total fuel and dive flaps. 4 50's, 12,900 pounds ready to fight with armor and 400 gallon of fuel. Dive flaps add weight, not sure how much.

2. Hand off 1st production plane to Douglas in early 1940 and tell them to copy it except add a second seat, long range radio, no rear gun. No Dauntless. Instead you now have a 2,400 hp, twin engine, turbocharged, 400 gallon of internal fuel, dive bomber that is as fast at 25,000 feet as any plane in the world. It can function as a dive bomber, fighter or even torpedo plane.

3. Sell some to Britain's Navy as the only carrier pane they need. Fold the wings like on a Wildcat, Hellcat or Avenger so it will fit in a RN hanger.

4. Longer wings can be added from folding mechanism out depending on mission. Standard 42 ft wing for fleet carriers as fighter or dive bomber. Longer wing could be added if primary mission is on an escort carrier as anti sub patrol offering lower landing speed and better weight carrying ability, but still able to easily run down FW200's

 

[MiTasol]

What counts is the numbers on scene, not the numbers in service. And the numbers alone don't tell the story; as we all know, tactics and training were inappropriate for the threat at hand, due to lack of intelligent use of available intelligence.
Cheers,
Wes

By due to lack of intelligent use of available intelligence don't you mean that military intelligence lived up to its well known contradiction of terms.

 

[jetcal1]

I just mean the numbers in service, not the design.

How many aircraft went to the British or the French between 1939 and 1941? (Also, please keep in mind the British and the French paid for a large amount of the factory expansions that started in 1939.)

 

[pbehn]

How many aircraft went to the British or the French between 1939 and 1941? (Also, please keep in mind the British and the French paid for a large amount of the factory expansions that started in 1939.)

That was basically my point.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

By due to lack of intelligent use of available intelligence don't you mean that military intelligence lived up to its well known contradiction of terms.

BINGO!! Not Invented Here = Not Relevant.

 

[Shortround6]

1. Have Grumman concentrate on the Skyrocket after losing out to the Buffalo, nothing else, no Wildcat, no Hellcat and no Avenger. Single seat Skyrocket follows same timeline as Wildcat. Add armor, self sealing tanks, turbochargers, 400 gallons of total fuel and dive flaps. 4 50's, 12,900 pounds ready to fight with armor and 400 gallon of fuel. Dive flaps add weight, not sure how much.

2. Hand off 1st production plane to Douglas in early 1940 and tell them to copy it except add a second seat, long range radio, no rear gun. No Dauntless. Instead you now have a 2,400 hp, twin engine, turbocharged, 400 gallon of internal fuel, dive bomber that is as fast at 25,000 feet as any plane in the world. It can function as a dive bomber, fighter or even torpedo plane.

3. Sell some to Britain's Navy as the only carrier pane they need. Fold the wings like on a Wildcat, Hellcat or Avenger so it will fit in a RN hanger.

4. Longer wings can be added from folding mechanism out depending on mission. Standard 42 ft wing for fleet carriers as fighter or dive bomber. Longer wing could be added if primary mission is on an escort carrier as anti sub patrol offering lower landing speed and better weight carrying ability, but still able to easily run down FW200's

People bitch about the P-38 costing money. Here we have a plane costing substantially more than the F4F. And it will cost more than the F6F. you don't get two props for the cost of one larger one, especially if the smaller props are full feathering. You need extra engine controls and instruments.
You also need a lot more development work. The XF5F never got close to the projected figures.

You also need to get the navy to really relax the landing and take-off standards. The XF4U was only made possible by increasing the landing speed from the navy 65mph standard to a relaxed standard of 70mph. And that was for the prototype that weighed 10,500 max gross weight.
The Navy did relax the standards, but when?? the Avenger was designed to meet a specification that called for landing back on board with a torpedo still being carried and a landing speed of 70mph or 70kts, I don't remember which. Point is that this singing, dancing, joke telling and window washing F5F is never going to meet the pre war navy standards for landing and take-off and won't even make to the middle of the pile of the proposals. (there were 13 different proposals for the specification that lead to the Avenger).

 

[XBe02Drvr]

Have Grumman concentrate on the Skyrocket after losing out to the Buffalo, nothing else, no Wildcat, no Hellcat and no Avenger.

And in one stroke of the pen you throw ASW out the window and lose the U-boat war. No Wildcat and no Avenger = no jeep carriers. Or are you going to build enough big deck carriers to cover all the ASW and amphibious support CAS commitments the Jeeps fulfilled? No way you're going to operate that fast heavy air superiority fighter/do-it-all machine off a CVE. Ever wonder why A3s and RA5Cs didn't operate off the smaller Essex class boats? Too much airplane for the deck.
What other shipbuilding programs are you going to sacrifice in order to build enough big decks to allow your air superiority fighter to assume all the missions of naval aviation?
It's McNamara's TFX/F111 boondoggle all over again. One size DOES NOT fit all! Doesn't this smell kind of like a certain current weapons program that has had a few issues along the way? $$$$$$$$$$
Cheers,
Wes

 

[pinsog]

People bitch about the P-38 costing money. Here we have a plane costing substantially more than the F4F. And it will cost more than the F6F. you don't get two props for the cost of one larger one, especially if the smaller props are full feathering. You need extra engine controls and instruments.
You also need a lot more development work. The XF5F never got close to the projected figures.

You also need to get the navy to really relax the landing and take-off standards. The XF4U was only made possible by increasing the landing speed from the navy 65mph standard to a relaxed standard of 70mph. And that was for the prototype that weighed 10,500 max gross weight.
The Navy did relax the standards, but when?? the Avenger was designed to meet a specification that called for landing back on board with a torpedo still being carried and a landing speed of 70mph or 70kts, I don't remember which. Point is that this singing, dancing, joke telling and window washing F5F is never going to meet the pre war navy standards for landing and take-off and won't even make to the middle of the pile of the proposals. (there were 13 different proposals for the specification that lead to the Avenger).

How many F5F's can you buy for the cost of USS Lexington? Or USS Yorktown? Or USS Hornet? How much did it cost to train a Wildcat or Dauntless pilot that was shot down on his first mission by a Zero? The XF5F did 312 mph at sea level on 1000 hp per engine, the F4F-3 does 278 on 1,200 hp, 35 mph faster. Bump the XF5F up to 1,200 hp per engine and it does 331 mph at sea level which is 54 mph faster at sea level. Add turbochargers like the XP50 had and you have 1,200 hp up to 25,000 feet. They didn't build it but I still think it was a stupid mistake.
As far as takeoff, it beat the F4F-3 on takeoff distance and stalled at a lower speed. You will notice the XF5F is at overload weight while the F4F-3 is at normal fighter which is less fuel and not a full ammo load

Take-off distance of XF5F at 10,900 pounds
0 head wind 515 feet
15 knot wind 334 feet
25 knot wind 234 feet

Take-off distance of F4F-3 at 6,900 pounds
0 head wind 631 feet
15 knot wind 384 feet
25 knot wind 252 feet

I added a lot of equipment in my mythical XF5F, 2 turbochargers and intercoolers, armor, self sealing tank, an extra 150 gallons of fuel and the fuel tanks that go with them. It could have been accepted without these things like the F4F-3 and handily beat it in every category. The turbochargers (or 2 stage P&W) along with the other equipment could have been added later after the Navy would have loosened the restrictions you pointed out.

 

[pinsog]

And in one stroke of the pen you throw ASW out the window and lose the U-boat war. No Wildcat and no Avenger = no jeep carriers. Or are you going to build enough big deck carriers to cover all the ASW and amphibious support CAS commitments the Jeeps fulfilled? No way you're going to operate that fast heavy air superiority fighter/do-it-all machine off a CVE. Ever wonder why A3s and RA5Cs didn't operate off the smaller Essex class boats? Too much airplane for the deck.
What other shipbuilding programs are you going to sacrifice in order to build enough big decks to allow your air superiority fighter to assume all the missions of naval aviation?
It's McNamara's TFX/F111 boondoggle all over again. One size DOES NOT fit all! Doesn't this smell kind of like a certain current weapons program that has had a few issues along the way? $$$$$$$$$$
Cheers,
Wes

Your post popped up as I answered Shortround. For jeep carriers I would have a more basic aircraft. Standard Wright engines, no turbos. It actually took off in a much shorter space than an F4F-3 as I showed in the above post. It also actually landed at a slower speed than an F4F-3. It had folding wings from the start. I think it could have easily operated from a Jeep carrier. I'll provide the test for it and you guys can compare it to an F4F-3 or F4F-4. I also said i would add a bit of wingspan to the ones operating off of Jeep carriers and I would fold the wings like a Wildcat so a little extra wingspan won't have clearance issues.

Compare takeoff with an overload F4F-3, the XF5F beats it extremely bad. Landing very slightly favors the XF5F.

 

[Kevin J]

Your post popped up as I answered Shortround. For jeep carriers I would have a more basic aircraft. Standard Wright engines, no turbos. It actually took off in a much shorter space than an F4F-3 as I showed in the above post. It also actually landed at a slower speed than an F4F-3. It had folding wings from the start. I think it could have easily operated from a Jeep carrier. I'll provide the test for it and you guys can compare it to an F4F-3 or F4F-4. I also said i would add a bit of wingspan to the ones operating off of Jeep carriers and I would fold the wings like a Wildcat so a little extra wingspan won't have clearance issues.
View attachment 571847View attachment 571848
Compare takeoff with an overload F4F-3, the XF5F beats it extremely bad. Landing very slightly favors the XF5F.

The performance isn't really different to the early version Seafires which would be cheaper. That had undercarriage problems too that weren't sorted out to sometime in 1943

 

[XBe02Drvr]

Compare takeoff with an overload F4F-3, the XF5F beats it extremely bad. Landing very slightly favors the XF5F.

Is this an apples-to-apples comparison? Or are we comparing a barebones prototype F5F to a fleet deployment configured F4F? By the time you get your Skyrocket tricked out to combat trim you will have added 2,000 pounds to its listed overload weight, and that will absorb every bit of the extra 400 horsepower from your uprated engines, and then some, not to mention the drag from pylons and racks. How much experience do you have flying multi engine planes at widely varying %s of their MGTOW? They're way more sensitive to weight than the numbers on paper would lead you to believe. You're talking about adding nearly 30% more weight to your little "rocket", which already lags behind the F4F in time to climb and will certainly sacrifice its advantage in stall speed and TO&Ldg distances in your projected configuration, even with the longer wings. (Which, BTW, will eat into your speed advantage!) Notice how much your stall speed advantage suffers from adding 870 pounds? Now try adding 2,000 more. Tiger becomes pig pretty quick. More power isn't going to fix that, although longer wings MAY help some. What's needed are sophisticated high lift devices for the wings, but now we're talking weight, (again!) complexity, and issues with wing folding and structural strength. Better supply your parade with umbrellas.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[pinsog]

Is this an apples-to-apples comparison? Or are we comparing a barebones prototype F5F to a fleet deployment configured F4F? By the time you get your Skyrocket tricked out to combat trim you will have added 2,000 pounds to its listed overload weight, and that will absorb every bit of the extra 400 horsepower from your uprated engines, and then some, not to mention the drag from pylons and racks. How much experience do you have flying multi engine planes at widely varying %s of their MGTOW? They're way more sensitive to weight than the numbers on paper would lead you to believe. You're talking about adding nearly 30% more weight to your little "rocket", which already lags behind the F4F in time to climb and will certainly sacrifice its advantage in stall speed and TO&Ldg distances in your projected configuration, even with the longer wings. (Which, BTW, will eat into your speed advantage!) Notice how much your stall speed advantage suffers from adding 870 pounds? Now try adding 2,000 more. Tiger becomes pig pretty quick. More power isn't going to fix that, although longer wings MAY help some. What's needed are sophisticated high lift devices for the wings, but now we're talking weight, (again!) complexity, and issues with wing folding and structural strength. Better supply your parade with umbrellas.
Cheers,
Wes

All reasonable questions. Keep an open mind and I'll see if I can convince you or at least explain why I think my upgrades would work.
The XF5F as tested was ready to go except for armor and a self sealing fuel tank. It was ballasted for weapons and ammo (I read one place that the weapons were mounted but the holes weren't cut in the nose but I can't verify that). Add 150 pounds for armor. The fuel tank held 279 gallons. In my weight guesses I reduce that to 250 for round numbers when I add in self sealing material , it might drop down a little more. That is at least 180 pounds less fuel. Would reduced fuel and added self sealing material equal out? As far as climb, the XF5F was reported with an initial climb of 4,000 fpm. I believe, from looking at this test, that they only climbed the plane at normal power, 1000 hp per engine, instead of at takeoff power which would greatly reduce its climb rate. Look at an F6F or Corsair that is climbed at normal power, the climb rate is rather poor until you climb at military power or WEP. As far as added weight vs climb, if you added turbochargers, say 500 pounds for the turbochargers and intercoolers, you now have 2,400 hp from SL to 25,000 feet. Weight goes from 10,900 pounds to 11,600 after adding armor and turbochargers, that is about 3000 pounds less than a P38. Here is a test on a P38 that was partially stripped and only weighed 13,900 pounds (only had 2 50's 1 20 mm and 180 gallons of fuel)

Notice the climb rate at 1200 hp per engine at 13,900 pounds. The performance of the P38 is why I think the XF5F could easily handle the extra weight IF it was turbocharged. You could add in the mythical 75 gallon tanks to the outer wings (total internal fuel now at 400 gallons) and still weigh over 1000 pounds less than the P38 tested above. Wing size and weight is almost identical to a Corsair except my mythical XF5F carries a lot more internal fuel 400 gallons vs 235 to 250 in a Corsair or Hellcat. Also, all of the added weight of turbos and fuel is in the wings except for pilot armor so center of gravity should be relatively unaffected. My mythical XF5F has 2400 hp from SL to 25,000 feet where the early Corsair and Hellcat start at 2,000 and go down.

Please read what I have typed with an open mind and see if my answers are reasonable. I admit I'm a big fan of the XF5F, but I think my mods are reasonable and I think the hp does make up for the weight gain.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

Please read what I have typed with an open mind and see if my answers are reasonable. I admit I'm a big fan of the XF5F, but I think my mods are reasonable and I think the hp does make up for the weight gain.

Your answers appear reasonable on the face of them, but this is where we get down in the weeds, and here I admit I have questions and not answers. My questions center around power ratings and drag as well as that old bugaboo, weight.
First, power. When performance testing is done at less than max power, it's usually because the advertised max power is time limited, in which case they use max continuous after the time is expired. I don't have the numbers for that engine readily to hand, but I betcha SR6 would tell us there was a two minute limit on takeoff power. My friends who've flown R1830 powered DC3s say that full rated power was available for takeoff only, or to cope with an engine out emergency, in which case the result was usually to cook the good engine while getting out of the jam. So much for "2400 hp all the way to 24,000 ft". All of this conjecture, of course, depends on the details of the particular dash # engine in question.
Next, drag. The P38 is an apples to oranges comparison, as it was designed to be a speed demon "raped ape" climbing interceptor, and runway length be damned. Even the lightly loaded Lightnings you see at airshows have noticeably longer takeoff and landing runs than the other warbirds. This design approach is not practical for carrier ops. Sleek and slender vs stubby and chubby. Radial engines with no exhaust thrust boost and intercooler drag plus the high lift airfoil necessary for carrier deck landing speeds take your rocket out of the Lightning class of performance entirely. And with a twin, you can't go with Vstall alone, you have to consider Vmc, minimum engine-out control speed, which is generally considerably higher.
Third, I think your weight projections are overly optimistic. Airplanes gain weight even faster than people. I've participated in a number of STC modifications and when you calculate the new weight and balance, then weigh the plane it's always heavier, with further aft CG than calculated. And that's AFTER you've cleaned out the gravel and sludge and stray hardware that accumulates in the tail cone and nacelles and landing gear wells of planes that work for a living. I think when you've actually installed all that armor, armament, tankage, turbo chargers, intercoolers, plumbing, accessories, brackets, hardware, etc, you'll find your weight significantly higher than predicted.
A note on drag. I spent six years and nearly 7,000 hours flying a twin that was a pretty fair analog of your rocket. Same hp, but could run it at max continuously if we could afford the fuel. Our effective thrust was significantly greater due to better props and exhaust thrust. Empty weight pretty similar, but MGTOW was higher at 17,900. FO,BTTW* we could just nudge our Vne of 248 KIAS (approx 300 MPH TAS) in level flight. In many respects it reflected the sleek n' slender P38 approach, but had a thicker high lift airfoil to get us in and out of podunk back country airports and stub runways at Big Places. This seriously limited top speed. Our competition flew an even more sleek n' slender machine with the same HP, similar weights, and a high speed airfoil. Podunk ops were pretty dicey for them, with occasional overrun mishaps, but airborne, they would blow us into the weeds by 20 knots or more, getting the jump on us in approach sequencing in the Big Places. Taxiing in to the ramp we would often meet them taxiing out on their next leg.
I guess this whole discussion hinges on theory vs experience. Keep digging. Like to see what you come up with.
*FOBTTW - "Flat Out Balls To The Wall" (all throttle quadrant knobs up against the firewall)
Cheers,
Wes

 

[jetcal1]

That was basically my point.

The question is how many of those aircraft would have been available at if the factory expansions hadn't started? Or, what designs did they positively influence? The P-51 and P-61 both immediately come to mind.
We may have lost a relatively few aircraft to England and France. But seriously, how much did Martin Maryland production impact the B-26 for example? (Other than providing a core of trained people to staff the new production lines.)

 

[pinsog]

Your answers appear reasonable on the face of them, but this is where we get down in the weeds, and here I admit I have questions and not answers. My questions center around power ratings and drag as well as that old bugaboo, weight.
First, power. When performance testing is done at less than max power, it's usually because the advertised max power is time limited, in which case they use max continuous after the time is expired. I don't have the numbers for that engine readily to hand, but I betcha SR6 would tell us there was a two minute limit on takeoff power. My friends who've flown R1830 powered DC3s say that full rated power was available for takeoff only, or to cope with an engine out emergency, in which case the result was usually to cook the good engine while getting out of the jam. So much for "2400 hp all the way to 24,000 ft". All of this conjecture, of course, depends on the details of the particular dash # engine in question.
Next, drag. The P38 is an apples to oranges comparison, as it was designed to be a speed demon "raped ape" climbing interceptor, and runway length be damned. Even the lightly loaded Lightnings you see at airshows have noticeably longer takeoff and landing runs than the other warbirds. This design approach is not practical for carrier ops. Sleek and slender vs stubby and chubby. Radial engines with no exhaust thrust boost and intercooler drag plus the high lift airfoil necessary for carrier deck landing speeds take your rocket out of the Lightning class of performance entirely. And with a twin, you can't go with Vstall alone, you have to consider Vmc, minimum engine-out control speed, which is generally considerably higher.
Third, I think your weight projections are overly optimistic. Airplanes gain weight even faster than people. I've participated in a number of STC modifications and when you calculate the new weight and balance, then weigh the plane it's always heavier, with further aft CG than calculated. And that's AFTER you've cleaned out the gravel and sludge and stray hardware that accumulates in the tail cone and nacelles and landing gear wells of planes that work for a living. I think when you've actually installed all that armor, armament, tankage, turbo chargers, intercoolers, plumbing, accessories, brackets, hardware, etc, you'll find your weight significantly higher than predicted.
A note on drag. I spent six years and nearly 7,000 hours flying a twin that was a pretty fair analog of your rocket. Same hp, but could run it at max continuously if we could afford the fuel. Our effective thrust was significantly greater due to better props and exhaust thrust. Empty weight pretty similar, but MGTOW was higher at 17,900. FO,BTTW* we could just nudge our Vne of 248 KIAS (approx 300 MPH TAS) in level flight. In many respects it reflected the sleek n' slender P38 approach, but had a thicker high lift airfoil to get us in and out of podunk back country airports and stub runways at Big Places. This seriously limited top speed. Our competition flew an even more sleek n' slender machine with the same HP, similar weights, and a high speed airfoil. Podunk ops were pretty dicey for them, with occasional overrun mishaps, but airborne, they would blow us into the weeds by 20 knots or more, getting the jump on us in approach sequencing in the Big Places. Taxiing in to the ramp we would often meet them taxiing out on their next leg.
I guess this whole discussion hinges on theory vs experience. Keep digging. Like to see what you come up with.
*FOBTTW - "Flat Out Balls To The Wall" (all throttle quadrant knobs up against the firewall)
Cheers,
Wes

Thoughtful response. I must first say that I enjoy a good debate when 2 people don't agree but search for answers instead of just getting in a whizzing contesting. Thank you.

I can tell you that the installed 1820's were not the highest power available and they were never upgraded during the tests, the 2 speed Wright 1820's installed in the British Martlets were rated 1,200 hp at 4200 feet and 1,000 hp at 14,000 instead of 1,000 hp at 4200 and 900 hp at 14,000. That alone would increase performance from 312 mph at SL to 331 mph at SL and from 345 mph at 14,000 to 357 mph at 14,000.

I agree on you can't just run wide open 2,400 hp all the time. But that would apply to almost any aircraft, P38's notoriously hindered by intercooler problems, but P47's also couldn't climb at max power for more than 5 minutes or so and I think most US fighters had a 5 minute rating on max power. Anyway, we both agree on that.

Drag on XF5F vs P38, this might surprise you and I'm very interested in your opinion. I believe the XF5F and the P38 had about the same drag. Look at this P38 chart at 5000 feet on 1150 hp

340 mph on 1150 hp per engine at 5000 feet.

go up and look at the XF5F, 326 mph on 1000 hp per engine at 4500 feet. Using the cube rule if we increase power to 1150/1000=1.15. Cube root of 1.15 X 326=341 mph
Same hp, same top speed. Would that mean the same drag?

looking forward to your response, I have to run for a bit.