What if the U.S. and the USAAF had paid attention?

Akuma · Jul 4, 2021

FLYBOYJ said:
First, define "First Class" for a 1941 fighter? I believe we had a "first class" fighter at the beginning of the war and was the P-38. With that said, it wasn't perfect by no means, but the early P-38Es and Fs could hold their own against anything in the air at the "US" start of the war (providing the pilot was well trained and had some multi engine time).

As far as your 2nd statement - with hindsight being 20-20, how far did the LW go with their "turbojets"?

By 'First Class" I'm referring to an American airplane that had a flight envelope similar if not superior to the A6M just before the Dec. 7th. attack. Was the P-38 or the P-47 or even the P-51 being deployed at Clark and Hickam in the Autumn of 1941? Could they have been? Was there some other American fighter aircraft that might have done the same if the intelligence on the A6M had been taken more importantly?
Frank Whittle came up with the idea of a Turbojet for aircraft in the 1920s and patented it in the early 1930s. Hans O Hain began his work in I think the middle 1930s and the He-178 flew in 1939. While there was fictional speculation of turbojet engines for aircraft in the U.S. in the 1930s I'm unaware of any American attempt to engineer and build one until after Whittles progress was reported on and his design offered to the U.S. by Great Britain.
I had thought it was generally agreed that the Me-262 and the Arado 234 were very advanced designs for their era.

FLYBOYJ · Jul 4, 2021

Akuma said:
By 'First Class" I'm referring to an American airplane that had a flight envelope similar if not superior to the A6M just before the Dec. 7th. attack. Was the P-38 or the P-47 or even the P-51 being deployed at Clark and Hickam in the Autumn of 1941? Could they have been? Was there some other American fighter aircraft that might have done the same if the intelligence on the A6M had been taken more importantly?

Combat ready P-38s (to some extent) were available in late 1941. Now to say could have or would have, one would have to be clairvoyant. Again, you're hanging too much on this A6M 'Intelligence." Even "if" a squadron of P-38s were available at Clark or Hickam, it would not have made much of a difference in the final outcome. What about the Oscar, the main JAAF fighter? It was more maneuverable than the Zero at low speeds.

Akuma said:
Frank Whittle came up with the idea of a Turbojet for aircraft in the 1920s and patented it in the early 1930s. Hans O Hain began his work in I think the middle 1930s and the He-178 flew in 1939. While there was fictional speculation of turbojet engines for aircraft in the U.S. in the 1930s I'm unaware of any American attempt to engineer and build one until after Whittles progress was reported on and his design offered to the U.S. by Great Britain.
I had thought it was generally agreed that the Me-262 and the Arado 234 were very advanced designs for their era.

The L-1000: Lockheed's Own Jet Engine

Probably one of the most obscure yet fascinating episodes in the history of jet engine development stemmed from Lockheed's innovative jet-...

aviationtrivia.blogspot.com

Lockheed L-133 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Me-262 and Arado 234 were advanced, Germany lost the war before they understood what they had and how to deploy it!

drgondog · Jul 4, 2021

XBe02Drvr said:
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.

In fairness, AAC-MC was tryin' but mind set that s/e long range fighter wasn't feasible was inherent in Oct 1940 Request for Data R40-C. Contained in the request was emphasis on response with latest engine and airfoil technologies. Single and Twin Engine types solicited.

The original 3 candidates were all 'pusher types' XP-54, XP-55 and XP-56..but very advanced in concept.

Notable responses submitted independently over the next 12 mo, included Bell XP-59 (jet engine propelled - for Akuma), Curtiss P-60 w/Merlin 61 and laminar flow wing (submitted independently by Curtiss Burdette), Lockheed XP-49 and -58.

Only the XP-61 with R-2800-10 w 2S/2S supercharger survived - as long range Night Fighter, and Northrup received the solicitation on 10-21-1940. Prototype contract 1-1941. Production Contract issued 9-1941 (context - about same time XP-51 delivered). FIRST FLIGHT 5-26-1942 (with same NA-73 test pilot Vance Breese) - 8 months After Production Contract let.

For Akuna - this, along with Mustang is about as short a concept/development/first flight example you can find.. but first combat deployment April 1944, nearly two years later.

BTW - The Curtiss P-60 consideration was over run by Merlin Mustang projects at R-R and NAA in May 1942.

The point I would make is that while the AAC-MC mindset was hardbound in 1938-1940 regarding the supremacy of Turbo/in-line couple for high altitude performance, the conceptual Merlin 61 and real R-2800-10 w 2S/2S superchargers stimulated some actual brain cells in both Materiel Command as well as the Contractors in 1940. NAA, for example tried to jump the General Motor 'fence' to get permission to design Mustang to install Merlin 1650-1 in late 1941

Akuma · Jul 4, 2021

FLYBOYJ said:
Combat ready P-38s were available in late 1941. Now to say could have or would have, one would have to be clairvoyant. Again, you're hanging too much on this A6M 'Intelligence." Even "if" a squadron of P-38s were available at Clark or Hickam, it would not have made much of a difference i the final outcome. What about the Oscar, the main JAAF fighter? It was more maneuverable than the Zero at low speeds.

The L-1000: Lockheed's Own Jet Engine

Probably one of the most obscure yet fascinating episodes in the history of jet engine development stemmed from Lockheed's innovative jet-...

aviationtrivia.blogspot.com

Lockheed L-133 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Me-262 and Arado 234 were advanced, Germany lost the war before they understood what they had and how to deploy it!

Thank you; this is the first time I've heard of Nathan C. Price, or Doble Steam Motors; it is good to know that there were people here faith and foresight in Turbojet technology. It's a pity it was not taken as being important enough to receive support by the U.S. military along the lines of what the U.S. Army Signal Corps. gave Robert H. Goddard in WWI. (Interestingly, despite acknowledged success of Goddard's rocket engines the military lost interest in the interwar years.)
I grant you that, given the fighter tactics being taught to U.S. pilots at that time, and assuming that those pilots had not heard of or were willing to try Chennaults ideas on fighting Japanese air power, P-38 pilots might not have done so well against the Zero and Oscar; but the potential to do very well against them would have been there. Ultimately it was the B&Z tactics advocated by him and others, coupled with the 38s and F6Fs as well as other machines, that led to the majority of American fighter combat successes in the Pacific theater.

Thumpalumpacus · Jul 4, 2021

XBe02Drvr said:
But did we field a follow-on to the P30? Nope. That made it an anomalous orphan.

I had more in mind the French and Italian aerial rearmaments. In an era when the knowledge and technology of aeronautics were advancing quickly, even being two years early could mean accelerated obsolescence. We Americans had our own example of that with the Devastator.

America's rearmament was otherwise necessarily later due to Depression-era budgets

Akuma · Jul 4, 2021

GrauGeist said:
In 1939, how many fighter aircraft around the world had turbosuperchargers?

Also in 1939, what was the estimated (and/or practised) altitude of aerial combat?

The USAAC was no stranger to turbosuperchargers, their P-30s, introduced in 1934, had a turbosupercharged V-1570 engine.

The P-30 as a single seat turbocharged fighter lost out to the un-turbocharged P-35. Why?

Akuma · Jul 4, 2021

drgondog said:
In fairness, AAC-MC was tryin' but mind set that s/e long range fighter wasn't feasible was inherent in Oct 1940 Request for Data R40-C. Contained in the request was emphasis on response with latest engine and airfoil technologies. Single and Twin Engine types solicited.

The original 3 candidates were all 'pusher types' XP-54, XP-55 and XP-56..but very advanced in concept.

Notable responses submitted independently over the next 12 mo, included Bell XP-59 (jet engine propelled - for Akuma), Curtiss P-60 w/Merlin 61 and laminar flow wing (submitted independently by Curtiss Burdette), Lockheed XP-49 and -58.

Only the XP-61 with R-2800-10 w 2S/2S supercharger survived - as long range Night Fighter, and Northrup received the solicitation on 10-21-1940. Prototype contract 1-1941. Production Contract issued 9-1941 (context - about same time XP-51 delivered). FIRST FLIGHT 5-26-1942 (with same NA-73 test pilot Vance Breese) - 8 months After Production Contract let.

For Akuna - this, along with Mustang is about as short a concept/development/first flight example you can find.. but first combat deployment April 1944, nearly two years later.

BTW - The Curtiss P-60 consideration was over run by Merlin Mustang projects at R-R and NAA in May 1942.

The point I would make is that while the AAC-MC mindset was hardbound in 1938-1940 regarding the supremacy of Turbo/in-line couple for high altitude performance, the conceptual Merlin 61 and real R-2800-10 w 2S/2S superchargers stimulated some actual brain cells in both Materiel Command as well as the Contractors in 1940. NAA, for example tried to jump the General Motor 'fence' to get permission to design Mustang to install Merlin 1650-1 in late 1941

Your thoughts on mindset go to the heart of the matter. Today we can accept the idea of technological advances fairly easily. My impression is that in the pre-WWII era mindset those advances required more time to assimilate.

pbehn · Jul 4, 2021

Akuma said:
Thank you; this is the first time I've heard of Nathan C. Price, or Doble Steam Motors; it is good to know that there were people here faith and foresight in Turbojet technology. It's a pity it was not taken as being important enough to receive support by the U.S. military along the lines of what the U.S. Army Signal Corps. gave Robert H. Goddard in WWI. (Interestingly, despite acknowledged success of Goddard's rocket engines the military lost interest in the interwar years.)
I grant you that, given the fighter tactics being taught to U.S. pilots at that time, and assuming that those pilots had not heard of or were willing to try Chennaults ideas on fighting Japanese air power, P-38 pilots might not have done so well against the Zero and Oscar; but the potential to do very well against them would have been there. Ultimately it was the B&Z tactics advocated by him and others, coupled with the 38s and F6Fs as well as other machines, that led to the majority of American fighter combat successes in the Pacific theater.

A jet engine in principle is just a turbo charger driving a supercharger with a combustion chamber in the middle. So the USA was developing the materials and the technology, they just didnt know it at the time. Posted here a long time ago, one of the top guys in the USA turbo industry spent the rest of his life shaking his head at himself and others for not making the connection, and he couldnt explain why he and so many others didnt, they just didnt. The last engines fitted to the B-29 could be described as a turbo prop with an extremely complicated combustion chamber.

FLYBOYJ · Jul 4, 2021

Akuma said:
I grant you that, given the fighter tactics being taught to U.S. pilots at that time, and assuming that those pilots had not heard of or were willing to try Chennaults ideas on fighting Japanese air power, P-38 pilots might not have done so well against the Zero and Oscar; but the potential to do very well against them would have been there. Ultimately it was the B&Z tactics advocated by him and others, coupled with the 38s and F6Fs as well as other machines, that led to the majority of American fighter combat successes in the Pacific theater.

You're wrong. The "boom and zoom" tactic was not invented by Chennault and was well known before WW2. "Energy Tactics" are used against an opponent that has a tuning advantage and involves fighting in the vertical. Also remember this; Although Chennault was in China in 1937, the AVG didn't fly missions until AFTER Pearl Harbor.

Early in the war, pilots quickly learned not to dogfight the Zero unless they had the advantage, and this happened quicker than you think. With that said I suggest you research V Fighter Command in the SWP during WW2. 8th, 35th and 89th FG. With P-40s and P-39s they actually did not do too bad against the Japanese during that time and held the line until the P-38 started to arrive in theater in numbers.

Akuma · Jul 4, 2021

FLYBOYJ said:
You're wrong. The "boom and zoom" tactic was not invented by Chennault and was well known before WW2. "Energy Tactics" are used against an opponent that has a tuning advantage and involves fighting in the vertical. Also remember this; Although Chennault was in China in 1937, the AVG didn't fly missions until AFTER Pearl Harbor.

Early in the war, pilots quickly learned not to dogfight the Zero unless they had the advantage, and this happened quicker than you think. With that said I suggest you research V Fighter Command in the SWP during WW2. 8th, 35th and 89th FG. With P-40s and P-39s they actually did not do too bad against the Japanese during that time and held the line until the P-38 started to arrive in theater in numbers.

There are accounts of B&Z as early as WWI. His early advocacy of B&Z to counter the believed superiority of bombers during the 20s and early 30s is documented. Soviet pilots during the battles of Khalkin Gol were quickly moving away from dogfighting the Ki-27 and towards diving combat. I'm in the middle of reading up on what you've recommended.

ThomasP · Jul 5, 2021

re the question of taking jet engines seriously, the following is an interesting read.

"The Great Jet Engine Race . . . And How We Lost - Air Force Magazine"

EAIAnalog · Jul 5, 2021

The article was an interesting read, but I can't believe that it's the original article because it is riddled with typos. I'm guessing it was scanned from the original article, digitized via OCR, and published without reading the end result. Seeing von Ohain become Yon Ohain is what makes me think it is an OCRed version of the article.

ThomasP · Jul 6, 2021

It is an OCR version. The original was published in 1981 in the Air Force Magazine periodical.

Shortround6 · Jul 15, 2021

Akuma said:
The P-30 as a single seat turbocharged fighter lost out to the un-turbocharged P-35. Why?

Several reasons.
1. just plating over the rear cockpit leaves you with a large, heavy and expensive airplane.
2. The cockpit heating and oxygen systems may not have been what was needed for flying at those altitudes.
3. Reliability of both the basic Curtiss V-12 engine and the turbo set up may not have been up to what was wanted.

Please remember that the Curtiss V-12 had no engine driven supercharger. The turbo supplied all the boost above sea level.
Engine was good for 700hp. from sea level to 15,000ft (?)
Engine in the P-35 was good for 850hp at 8000ft with it's engine driven supercharger. There may not have been a lot to choose at 20-25,000ft.

EAIAnalog · Jul 23, 2021

Re: The Great Jet Engine Race ... here's a link to a scanned version of the article - which includes sketches and pictures.
https://vladimirhpavlecka.com/uploads/download/900/The_Great_Jet_Engine_Race..._And_How_We_Lost.pdf

The Basket · Jul 23, 2021

XBe02Drvr said:
Well they both involve swinging a bat at a ball, but beyond that point I find similarities a bit elusive.

The idea of Americans playing cricket strips me to the bone.

I could not survive such an idea.

Let them play baseball.

XBe02Drvr · Jul 23, 2021

The Basket said:
The idea of Americans playing cricket strips me to the bone.

I could not survive such an idea.

Let them play baseball.

Hear, hear!

pbehn · Jul 23, 2021

XBe02Drvr said:
Hear, hear!

Oy? Canadian cricket team in the United States in 1844 - Wikipedia

The Basket · Jul 23, 2021

pbehn said:
Oy? Canadian cricket team in the United States in 1844 - Wikipedia

The Americans would have them wearing coloured pyjamas with heavy sponsorship in a very limited overs game while drinking Budweiser.

Probably while carrying AR-15s.

pbehn · Jul 23, 2021

The Basket said:
The Americans would have them wearing coloured pyjamas with heavy sponsorship in a very limited overs game while drinking Budweiser.

Probably while carrying AR-15s.

Is any UK sport different? Like The Hundred or the big bash?

What if the U.S. and the USAAF had paid attention?

Airman 1st Class

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Major

Airman 1st Class

Major

Airman 1st Class

Airman 1st Class

Colonel

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Airman 1st Class

Senior Master Sergeant

Airman

Senior Master Sergeant

Major General

Airman

Senior Master Sergeant

2nd Lieutenant

Colonel

Senior Master Sergeant

Colonel

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads