Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
You know, looking back, this line caught my eye. Absolutely true...BUT at 0755, 12/7/41 the definition of "first class aircraft that met it's needs" abruptly changed. The goalposts were moved and the field restriped. There was a new game in town that didn't play by the old rules, which was to our old game as cricket is to baseball: incomprehensible!Well, before the U.S. entered the war, it had first class aircraft that met it's needs
Cricket and baseball are basically the same game with the same ethos and roots, Europe had been playing Rugby for two years when Pearl Harbor was attacked.You know, looking back, this line caught my eye. Absolutely true...BUT at 0755, 12/7/41 the definition of "first class aircraft that met it's needs" abruptly changed. The goalposts were moved and the field restriped. There was a new game in town that didn't play by the old rules, which was to our old game as cricket is to baseball: incomprehensible!
Well they both involve swinging a bat at a ball, but beyond that point I find similarities a bit elusive.Cricket and baseball are basically the same game with the same ethos and roots
One thing that American baseball clearly lacks, is a "googly".Well they both involve swinging a bat at a ball, but beyond that point I find similarities a bit elusive.
One thing that American baseball clearly lacks, is a "googly".
Although Kent Tekulve of the pirates may have come close...
Hard to believe but true, once you have two different code making bodies games can change quickly. Soccer, Rugby Union, Rugby League, and Gridiron American football all come from the same game. There are two main differences, whether you can pick the ball up or not and whether you can throw it forward or not. Rugby League started because one rule of Rugby Union was it had to be amateur. I read somewhere that it all came down to the invention of the lawn mower.Well they both involve swinging a bat at a ball, but beyond that point I find similarities a bit elusive.
The whole point of the question is could the U.S. have had an airplane that would have been "First Class" as and after the goal posts moved. So far the general consensus seems to be 'No'.You know, looking back, this line caught my eye. Absolutely true...BUT at 0755, 12/7/41 the definition of "first class aircraft that met it's needs" abruptly changed. The goalposts were moved and the field restriped. There was a new game in town that didn't play by the old rules, which was to our old game as cricket is to baseball: incomprehensible!
By coming late to the game, the USA may have been briefly caught short, but the designs they had in train and factories under construction meant very quickly they were able to replace the not so good with stuff that was first class. There were very few planes that were considered leading edge in Sept 1939 or Dec 1941 that lasted to the end of the war.The whole point of the question is could the U.S. have had an airplane that would have been "First Class" as and after the goal posts moved. So far the general consensus seems to be 'No'.
The impression I get from all I've known and what I've learned here is that given the powerplants that were or could have been available in the US, a Spitfire-like tour de force, just wasn't in the cards here in that time frame, especially with the US penchant for robust structure and heavy survivability aids like self sealing tanks, armor, and IFF. The failure of USAAC early on to emphasize, promote, and fund high altitude fighter performance at a priority level prevented the development of a Merlin/DB601 equivalent this side of the pond, necessitating expensive, heavy, turbo installations, and delaying their introduction into combat.The whole point of the question is could the U.S. have had an airplane that would have been "First Class" as and after the goal posts moved. So far the general consensus seems to be 'No'.
Can you take your tongue out of your cheek and write that again, you almost got a "funny"The impression I get from all I've known and what I've learned here is that given the powerplants that were or could have been available in the US, a Spitfire-like tour de force, just wasn't in the cards here in that time frame, especially with the US penchant for robust structure and heavy survivability aids like self sealing tanks, armor, and IFF. The failure of USAAC early on to emphasize, promote, and fund high altitude fighter performance at a priority level prevented the development of a Merlin/DB601 equivalent this side of the pond, necessitating expensive, heavy, turbo installations, and delaying their introduction into combat.
And while the USAAC/F was working to get the Turbochargers up and running the LW was working to get the Turbojets up and running.The impression I get from all I've known and what I've learned here is that given the powerplants that were or could have been available in the US, a Spitfire-like tour de force, just wasn't in the cards here in that time frame, especially with the US penchant for robust structure and heavy survivability aids like self sealing tanks, armor, and IFF. The failure of USAAC early on to emphasize, promote, and fund high altitude fighter performance at a priority level prevented the development of a Merlin/DB601 equivalent this side of the pond, necessitating expensive, heavy, turbo installations, and delaying their introduction into combat.
USA turbo chargers were fundamental to the US bombing campaign, British superchargers were fundamental to the British bombing campaign. Both technologies were fundamental to the escort of bombers. The jet engine played no part in the conduct or progress of the war even though Me262 caused casualties. By the time Germany surrendered the USA and UK had jet powered aeroplanes in service if not in combat and a huge number or projects under development.And while the USAAC/F was working to get the Turbochargers up and running the LW was working to get the Turbojets up and running.
In 1939, how many fighter aircraft around the world had turbosuperchargers?And while the USAAC/F was working to get the Turbochargers up and running the LW was working to get the Turbojets up and running.
By coming late to the game, the USA may have been briefly caught short, but the designs they had in train and factories under construction meant very quickly they were able to replace the not so good with stuff that was first class. There were very few planes that were considered leading edge in Sept 1939 or Dec 1941 that lasted to the end of the war.
And while the USAAC/F was working to get the Turbochargers up and running the LW was working to get the Turbojets up and running.The whole point of the question is could the U.S. have had an airplane that would have been "First Class" as and after the goal posts moved. So far the general consensus seems to be 'No'.
And while the USAAC/F was working to get the Turbochargers up and running the LW was working to get the Turbojets up and running.
But did we field a follow-on to the P30? Nope. That made it an anomalous orphan.Rearm too early, you're ahead of the early curve, but you're saddled with producing designs that may not be up to snuff.
Rearm too late and you may have your best pilots flying even more outdated stuff while the superduper stuff is in the pipeline.
Was it deployed in time to stem the initial onslaught of Japanese aggression? Nope again.I believe we had a "first class" fighter at the beginning of the war and was the P-38.
They were going six ways to Christmas, with all kinds of promising aircraft in the works; they just ran out of time and resources.As far as your 2nd statement - with hindsight being 20-20, how far did the LW go with their "turbojets"?
Hah! You remind me of my fifth grade teacher: "You spew out words like puke out of a puppy!" My classmates never let me live that one down. Seems the "old dog" hasn't learned any new tricks.Can you take your tongue out of your cheek and write that again, you almost got a "funny"
Actually it was, once it was able to be supplied in numbers. Don't forget, a P-38 Squadron did this...Was it deployed in time to stem the initial onslaught of Japanese aggression? Nope again.