Which aircraft would you cancel?

[pbehn]

Kind of thought your question wasn't 100% serious but a poke back at the British bashers. Easy for some Americans to criticize the British while forgetting the Americans were well behind them in production in 1938-39. Americans had the luxury of waiting for better designs rather than mass producing P-35s and B-18s and A-18s in order to have hundreds (or several thousand) combat aircraft in 1939/early 1940.

Not really a poke back just trying to bring some context. The French were thought to be more advanced in aviation during and after WW1 what did they have in 1939. The Russian airforce was huge and had two years more to prepare in 1941 with the added advantage of seeing what did and didnt work how did they fare?. It just seems strange that the only airforce that took the fight to the LW and matched them gets the most knocks.

Aggh!! There is no such aeroplane as a Sterling.

I know its just to wind up those north of the border lol

 

[pbehn]

Is that something even the variable pitch prop equipped Hurricane I's couldn't manage?

From what I read it was purely geography Devon in South East England has very little flat land so the Gladiator was a stop gap solution. They saw little action as the action was more to the east.

 

[pbehn]

Aside from the turret (which could have been pursued even if the Defiant never reached mass production), what does the Defiant bring to the table? Battles, Blenheims, and Sterlings were certainly useful, and the latter would have been more so had development not shifted towards the thicker wing among other detail problems. (either way a better example of 'could have been developed better' than 'should have been canceled' )

The defiant was never used in the role it was designed for. It should never have been used where there were single engined escorts. It should have been used to protect the North and Scotland leaving other squadrons to rest recover and train. Having been withdrawn from a role it wasnt designed for it was given another as a night fighter, again it wasnt very good but better than most other options at the time.

 

[Shortround6]

Aside from the turret (which could have been pursued even if the Defiant never reached mass production), what does the Defiant bring to the table? Battles, Blenheims, and Sterlings were certainly useful, and the latter would have been more so had development not shifted towards the thicker wing among other detail problems. (either way a better example of 'could have been developed better' than 'should have been canceled' )

Here we enter the realm of the retrospectoscope. A LOT of the British designs were handicapped by a couple of rather (in hind sight) asinine field performance criteria. Even British bombers were required to have what we be called today, STOL performance. Since the mid/late 30s was period of very rapid advancement/competition in flap design even a year difference could make a major difference in airfoil/area selection depending on flap selection.
The Lockheed 14 Electra first flew on July 29, 1937 and didn't go into service until months later. It was the first production plane to use the Fowler flap. Several other flap designs came into being to either get around patents or to provide similar improvements at lower cost. However, the Avro Manchester was already well into design work with 200 ordered off the drawing board in July of 1937, first prototype flies two years later, July of 1939. As for the Stirling "In June 1937 the S.29 was accepted as the second string for the Supermarine 316 and formally ordered in October". First flight 14 May 1939, First production examples reach a squadron in Aug of 1940. How much time do you want to spend in 1937-38 redesigning the entire wing? AS the war got closer or shooting actually started the RAF got the money to expand airfields and/or the ability to commandeer land and some of the need for short field performance went away but it was too late to make major modifications to aircraft. The other "performance Criteria" was that due to the sod airfields NO aircraft could have tires using more than 38lb/sq in air pressure to avoid putting ruts in the air field. Doesn't matter if it was a 6000lb fighter or a 50,000lb bomber. For the fighters this wasn't too bad (the Whirlwind wound up with an exemption) but it called for some seriously big tires on the bombers and the need to hide them some where when retracted. Again it was a restriction that went away rather rapidly once the shooting started.

The Beaufighter might not have been worth persuing if any good alternatives had remained in development. There's a lot of open-ended questions to Gloster's twin engine developments, but IMO between the F.9/37 and subsequent Reaper derivatives, a gloster heavy fighter would much better compliment the Mosquito's capabilities than the Beaufighter did. (ground attack ability included)

Here again we KNOW that the Beaufighter was never going to come close to the 370mph predicted for it. The F.9/37 only flew a bit less than 4 months before the Beaufighter and since the Beaufighter used a lot of components from the Beaufort it was thought it could be in production and squadron service much sooner. Throw in the redesign time to get rid of the Taurus engines and the "better" F.9/37 won't show up until much later (a couple of years?) after the Beaufighter.

Same for the Whirlwind: the Beaufighter being too large, heavy, and draggy and the Whirlwind being too small and tight a design with Gloster's twin being a rather elegant middleground much closer to the Fw 187 or P-38 (if more limited in initial fuel capacity).

What was "ideal" vs what could be produced in quantity at the time it was needed. The British rather fell down on some '2nd generation' aircraft (Bristol Brigand, etc) but the idea that they would revert back to a 1937/38 airframe in 1942/43 means they didn't learn anything about aerodynamics or structural design in 4 years. It was less than 4 years between the design of the Douglas A-20 and the Douglas A-26.



Is that something even the variable pitch prop equipped Hurrican I's couldn't manage? Perhaps lacking a lower altitude geared merlin early on (with increased takeoff power) missed filling that gap as well. (though shorter take-off run may have been yet another attractive aspect of Gloster's F.5/34 and one area retaining the existing Mercury engine configuration would actually be more attractive -also valuable attributes for a carrier borne fighter)

The Gloster F.5/34 is going to loose a lot of it's attractiveness once you stick 450-500lbs worth of armor, self sealing tanks and other operational equipment into it, let alone equip it for carrier use. Hurricane Is gained 456 to 1078lbs over the prototype hurricane, part may be metal wing but assuming that service F.5/34s would have the same performance as the prototype is wishful thinking.

The gloster single and twin engine monoplanes also seemed to be sporting variable-pitch 3-blade propellers significantly earlier than the Spitfire or Hurricane, so that may have been a benefit as well.

This needs some careful looking at too. they were most likely 2 position props. But a Hurricane with a 2 position prop could take off in about 75% of the distance of a Hurricane with a fixed pitch prop so we had better be sure of which Hurricane the Gloster prototypes are being compared with. The Hurricane and Spitfires with the Fixed pitch props were not only limited by throttle settings for take-off but were limited as to RPM which is sort of a double wammy.

 

[pbehn]

When criticising the wellesley and Whitley remember they replaced this in 1937.

The Heyford was the first plane to be found (deliberately)by radar in UK and also the firsty RAF plane to carry airborne RADAR

 

[kool kitty89]

BTW. When Their Lordships ordered the Fairey Fulmar they were quite explicit that they wanted folding wing Spitfires but the Fulmar was all they could get.

Why focus so much on the spitfire when the Hurricane would also have been markedly superior to the Fulmar, had larger production capacity, and had more carrier-friendly flying characteristics?

Kind of thought your question wasn't 100% serious but a poke back at the British bashers. Easy for some Americans to criticize the British while forgetting the Americans were well behind them in production in 1938-39. Americans had the luxury of waiting for better designs rather than mass producing P-35s and B-18s and A-18s in order to have hundreds (or several thousand) combat aircraft in 1939/early 1940.

If the Americans were in the same position as the British, war involvement/pressure timeline wise, wouldn't the P-36, F2A, and B-23 be more the aircraft to ramp up production of in 1938/39, while investing more heavily in getting the P-40 and B-17 into mass production, and accelerating (or at least increasing funding to) the A-20, Grumman fighters, F4U, P-38, P-39, and P-43/44/P-47 projects. Maybe the Mustang gets more serious consideration too, but then that easily seems like it could still have been a victim of bureaucratic issues as easily as some British designs.

With the need for bomber interceptors on the level of the BoB, might the P-39 and P-38 been pressed into production/service with more compromises? (and more drastic measures taken to alleviate Lockheed's production issues ... perhaps more stringent limits on testing the XP-38 as well, and no trans-american record flight attempt)

Engine development may have accelerated and gotten more serious funding sooner as well ... or the Hyper engine project would have just sapped even more resources. (even so, sheer demand for volume production would have increased funding/spending and development interest and especially been significant in Allison's case with their more limited internal funds)

Might Brewster's management issues and inability to improve production volume or quality be exposed sooner? Perhaps more direct government intervention sooner, second sourced production, or even going so far as to encourage/coerce a merger with Grumman? (the Buffalo really was the only Brewster design to really be a compelling operational aircraft superior to alternatives at the time of its design and introduction)

 

[kool kitty89]

As for the Stirling "In June 1937 the S.29 was accepted as the second string for the Supermarine 316 and formally ordered in October". First flight 14 May 1939, First production examples reach a squadron in Aug of 1940. How much time do you want to spend in 1937-38 redesigning the entire wing? AS the war got closer or shooting actually started the RAF got the money to expand airfields and/or the ability to commandeer land and some of the need for short field performance went away but it was too late to make major modifications to aircraft. The other "performance Criteria" was that due to the sod airfields NO aircraft could have tires using more than 38lb/sq in air pressure to avoid putting ruts in the air field. Doesn't matter if it was a 6000lb fighter or a 50,000lb bomber. For the fighters this wasn't too bad (the Whirlwind wound up with an exemption) but it called for some seriously big tires on the bombers and the need to hide them some where when retracted. Again it was a restriction that went away rather rapidly once the shooting started.

I was referring more to the initial plans for the Short Brothers' design using a longer span, higher aspect ratio wing with somewhat thinner airfoil profile that should have allowed for similar take-off performance with better lift/drag, speed, and likely ceiling, but I believe was redesigned due to the Air Ministry's specification setting limits set on maximum span.

Here again we KNOW that the Beaufighter was never going to come close to the 370mph predicted for it. The F.9/37 only flew a bit less than 4 months before the Beaufighter and since the Beaufighter used a lot of components from the Beaufort it was thought it could be in production and squadron service much sooner. Throw in the redesign time to get rid of the Taurus engines and the "better" F.9/37 won't show up until much later (a couple of years?) after the Beaufighter.

Would it really take that long? I was also suggesting a more favorable situation where the Gloster design was favored over the Whirlwind, but I suppose both cases come down to timing and Gloster themselves never setting up their twin as a direct competitor to the Beaufighter. (the Whirlwind flying sooner and being faster on Peregrines is significant, though Gloster's design seems to have had better handling/control characteristics)

Timing on the shift in engine development priority would obviously be a factor too, and it would have been somewhat more up to luck for airframe designers to focus more squarely on the Merlin earlier. (though given the relative weight of the early merlin and Taurus, Gloster's fighter still should have been easier to adapt than the Whirlwind, especially while still in the development phase -no issues with mass production) Of course, again, timing comes up and the fact Gloster DIDN'T adapt the plane for testing Merlins alongside its Peregrines and Taurus engines meant no compelling test performance for the ministry to go by.

And given the development timeline, first flight, and cost, there might be a better argument for Gloster investing more in development of their single engine F.5/34 anyway. (except even there, the lack of more heavy modifications and alternate engines historically in the critical timeframe diminishes its value)

What was "ideal" vs what could be produced in quantity at the time it was needed. The British rather fell down on some '2nd generation' aircraft (Bristol Brigand, etc) but the idea that they would revert back to a 1937/38 airframe in 1942/43 means they didn't learn anything about aerodynamics or structural design in 4 years. It was less than 4 years between the design of the Douglas A-20 and the Douglas A-26.

Yet there were many 1935~37 vintage designs that had superior aerodynamic qualities to those developed half a decade later. The P-36, Spitfire, Fw 187 (arguably due to lack of service/development), and Bf 109 all come to mind there. Advancements in radiator, cowling, supercharger, and engine design were more universally significant there. Gloster's F.5/34 of 1937 vintage may also apply there given a fair number of designs being fielded 4 years later.

The Gloster F.5/34 is going to loose a lot of it's attractiveness once you stick 450-500lbs worth of armor, self sealing tanks and other operational equipment into it, let alone equip it for carrier use. Hurricane Is gained 456 to 1078lbs over the prototype hurricane, part may be metal wing but assuming that service F.5/34s would have the same performance as the prototype is wishful thinking.

Indeed, and comparing it to the Hurricane and Spitfire I prior to said modifications would be more valid. Additionally, the Mercury, Perseus, and Taurus were pretty well dead-end developments, the former two possibly useful very early war but the latter not really at all and the Merlin would be the most straghtforward alternative to expand beyond the F.5/34's original air-cooled requirement. Had Gloster actually adapted the design for the Merlin during testing and (as seems likely) it showed marked sperformance superiority to the Hurricane while retaining the good low and high speed handling characteristics and cockpit visibility, it seems rather likely that a push for Hawker/Gloster production capacity would have been shifted away from the Hurricane and Gladiator and towards the Gloster fighter ASAP.

The overall flying qualities seem to have a lot in common with the P-36, though somewhat lighter and with a thicker wing root it still marks a compromise in aerodynamics between the likes of the Hurricane (or Typhoon) and the exceptionally thin Spitfire wing. (NACA 2218 tapering to 2209 compared to the P-40's 2215 and 2209 and Spit's 2213 and 2209.4 ... to the Hurricane's clark YH airfoil using 19 and 12.2% or 2219 and 2213 for the Tornado/Typhoon -the F4U and F2A both tapered from 18 to 9% as well, though using the higher lift 23000 series airfoil)

It seems like transition from the Mercury to the Merlin might have had similar potential as the P-36's transition to P-40 except for using a lighter base airframe without the more stringent USAAC structural requirements. (ie ALL American fighters were heavy)

This needs some careful looking at too. they were most likely 2 position props. But a Hurricane with a 2 position prop could take off in about 75% of the distance of a Hurricane with a fixed pitch prop so we had better be sure of which Hurricane the Gloster prototypes are being compared with. The Hurricane and Spitfires with the Fixed pitch props were not only limited by throttle settings for take-off but were limited as to RPM which is sort of a double wammy.

Indeed, my point towards the Mercury engined design possibly reaching mass production was more towards displacing late Gladiator production if at all (or making use of Mercury or Perseus engines -though I suppose use in Blenheims would be significant, operationally and for training, the Lysander more arguably so). But I've likely killed my own argument with the point that a Merlin engined version would be much more valuable and likely more worth production resources than the Hurricane. (at least assuming no serious difficulties or overhead for said production -especially useful if it took less worker/material resources than the Spitfire -again, totally conjecture but a variable to note in any case)

 

[wuzak]

Why focus so much on the spitfire when the Hurricane would also have been markedly superior to the Fulmar, had larger production capacity, and had more carrier-friendly flying characteristics?

Because the Admiralty though the performance margin the Hurricane had over the enemy aircraft it was likely to do combat with was marginal at best, and even more so when nasalised.

 

[parsifal]

Fulmar had its roots from Air Ministry specification 4/34, which was the same spec as for the battle. In 1938, as the Fleet Air Arm was being re-formed, the Admiralty requested a design for a two seat fighter able to combine three roles in one. It was given three roles, and not one for the simple reason that the FAA lacked enough pilots to field three separate aircraft types for each of the three roles it needed fulfilled. The Admiralty was fully aware that its two seater fighters were not up to standard performance wise against the high performance SE fighters contemporary to it, mostly Me 109s and Spitfires, but the reasoning was that its carriers would never have to operate within the short range of these aircraft. in large measure this was to be shown as a correct assumption, though there were exceptions, most notably 10 January 1941. Fulmars proved to be excellent fleet defence weapons for their time, but were outclassed by the Japanese Zeke. They possessed enough performance to deal with most bombers, had good loiter time, ammunition supply adequate loiter time. They were poor climbers, but manouverable enough to deal with bomber a/c.

They were superior to Hurricanes and Spits in that they could fulfil the multi role functions written into their original specs. By the end of 1940 they could carry bombs, fly blind, undertake observation work and report back to the fleet from a considerable distance and provide an accurate fix on those sightings. S/E a/c could not.

If the RN had adopted specialised a/c like the spit or the hurricane in 1940, firstly they would have ridden into battle with no fighter able to do the job. Secondly, even if they had received specialist fighters, they would have had to reduce the fighter components from about 12 a/c per carrier, to 4 a/c per carrier. They would have needed a fighter, an observation or recce a/c and finally a light bomber, all of which were considered as essential for carrier ops at the time. 4/c were not able to provide a continuous cover for a fleet, whereas 12 had a better chance of doing something useful.

I simply am astounded that people would consider the Fulmar a failure. It was the most advanced fighter ready for squadron service aboard carriers for the allies in 1940. Martlets were at least 8 months away from achieving that, Buffaloes never achieved satisfactory results aboard carriers, at least british ones. It shot down at least 100 a/c by the end of 1940, more than were in frontline squadron service at the time

 

[EKB]

In this forum and others, I have found that any reader who is obsessed with his own national identity will also try to make the thread into a discussion about national identity, rather than aviation.

The warning signs are always the same: replies from a person who feels a burning desire to wave the flag. He is likely to have a signature that is clearly intended to remind us of his national pride each time that he visits. In keeping with that theme, he will next demand answers about someone else's national identity. And he will pursue this agenda with the subtlety of a screaming air raid siren.

Initially this was merely amusing, now it's just pathetic and sad.

 

[GrauGeist]

In this forum and others, I have found that any reader who is obsessed with his own national identity will also try to make the thread into a discussion about national identity, rather than aviation.

The warning signs are always the same: replies from a person who feels a burning desire to wave the flag. He is likely to have a signature that is clearly intended to remind us of his national pride each time that he visits. In keeping with that theme, he will next demand answers about someone else's national identity. And he will pursue this agenda with the subtlety of a screaming air raid siren.

Initially this was merely amusing, now it's just pathetic and sad.

Not sure where you're coming from with this crap but we have folks from all over the world who engage in well-informed and well-rounded discussions about all nation's aircraft and their role in history.

And as far as I'm concerned, your comment is "just pathetic and sad".

 

[parsifal]

I think the comment was for me, but im not English, don't particularly like English. I generally don't approach these discussions from the technical, more towards the operational...ie, the results. Apparently that makes me a shouter....

 

[GrauGeist]

I think the comment was for me, but im not English, don't particularly like English. I generally don't approach these discussions from the technical, more towards the operational...ie, the results. Apparently that makes me a shouter....

Your input is always well informed, and if we all liked the same thing, the world would be a boring place.

I am an American, I am not shy about being an American and I think that the U.S. produced some seriously badass machines during the war. But when I am discussing the attributes of one aircraft or another, I look to it's contributions, it's strengths and weaknesses and draw my conclusion from that point. Not by what insignia was painted on it's wings.

I also might suggest to a particular junior member that they should stick to posting quotes from books, because they haven't earned the right to come in here and make comments about other members, especially senior members who have made considerable contributions to the forum...

 

[rochie]

I think the comment was for me, but im not English, don't particularly like English. I generally don't approach these discussions from the technical, more towards the operational...ie, the results. Apparently that makes me a shouter....

I will agree with Dave, always find your comments well informed and objective.

Shame the anti british brigade is on the rise again on the forum !

Hope they get bored before I do

 

[parsifal]

that I think is what winds me up and gets me going so to speak. Maybe im wrong, but the logic sometimes is just so patently cockeyed, and nothing can be said or pointed out to persuade from that viewpoint. Its very annoying, and yes can lead to unfortunate clashes.

If ive learnt anything in over 40 years of being interested in this stuff, and life in general, its that you get far more by pointing out the positives in both people and things......kinda "you did this well, but this not so well". people can deal with that. They cant deal so well with "your sh*t, your country is sh*t and everything else in between is sh*t". It doesnt matter what nationality or beliefs you hold, you will get a bad response from that approach. In this case it is also patently untrue that everything about British aerospace was sh*t. It had some big shortcomings, but overall, it was probably the second most advanced aeronautics industry in the world. They had to be getting some things right to achieve that status.

so, to the person who is making the waves, I have this piece of genuine advice. Quit the crap , stop the persistent bad mouthing of the country that fought itself to exhaustion so you could be spoilt rotten and we could stand here and argue without fear. Start giving some sensible and logical issues, stop using derogatory and negative attacks all the time, start to look for the positives you see, and stop being quite so aggressive to people that have been around these parts for a while. Or you can just continue the way you are. Its all the same to me, because Im only reading the posts of the people who i get along with and have respect for.

 

[kool kitty89]

They were superior to Hurricanes and Spits in that they could fulfil the multi role functions written into their original specs. By the end of 1940 they could carry bombs, fly blind, undertake observation work and report back to the fleet from a considerable distance and provide an accurate fix on those sightings. S/E a/c could not.

If the RN had adopted specialised a/c like the spit or the hurricane in 1940, firstly they would have ridden into battle with no fighter able to do the job. Secondly, even if they had received specialist fighters, they would have had to reduce the fighter components from about 12 a/c per carrier, to 4 a/c per carrier. They would have needed a fighter, an observation or recce a/c and finally a light bomber, all of which were considered as essential for carrier ops at the time. 4/c were not able to provide a continuous cover for a fleet, whereas 12 had a better chance of doing something useful.

Indeed, it's those aspects that were argued rather definitively earlier in the thread and reflected different requirements than what the USN was managing.

It's also why I was suggesting the Hurricane compared to the Spitfire and Sea Gladiator, not claiming it could do what the Fulmar did.

I simply am astounded that people would consider the Fulmar a failure. It was the most advanced fighter ready for squadron service aboard carriers for the allies in 1940. Martlets were at least 8 months away from achieving that, Buffaloes never achieved satisfactory results aboard carriers, at least british ones. It shot down at least 100 a/c by the end of 1940, more than were in frontline squadron service at the time

The British never got Navalized Buffalos, all their B339s were land based fighters stripped of naval equipment (including tailhook) and unsuitable for carrier landings, otherwise they may have actually been superior to several of the Martlet models. (probably any of the single stage R-1820/1830 powered early models and possibly the heavier F4F derived ones as well -F4F-3 would be the better performer though, maneuverability, visibility, and range aside)

Remember the B339 was based on the F2A-2 and like the Spitfire Mk.II and P-40B, was adapted for self sealing using laminated impregnated fabric/leather material covering the metal tanks. The engine used had 100 less HP for takeoff, but still much better power/weight than the Martlets.

I don't really see Sea Hurricanes being any worse performers than Martlets and potentially available in number sooner. Range/endurance would be the major weak point. (and a major strong point for the Buffalo with double the range/endurance and better all around view for patrol/scouting and overall situational awareness)

Of course, those still wouldn't be able to directly displace/replace the Fulmar and would be more comparable as alternatives to the Sea Gladiator and Martlet. (and while not having folding wings, the relatively short wings of the Buffalo would at least help somewhat, akin to the Gladiator)

 

[Edgar Brooks]

One continual problem, with the Hurricane was balance, and a very touchy CoG. Incidentally, the metal wings were lighter than fabric-covered.
In France, armour couldn't be fitted behind the pilot until the two-blade prop was replaced by a heavier 3-blade.
In the Sea Hurricane, the weight of the arrestor hook needed a metal prop as counter-balance.
In the Air Ministry's push to have aircraft Griffon-powered, Camm was willing, even keen, to build a Hurricane, but it required an extra bay between cockpit and rear fuselage, and a raked-forward centre-section to get the wings, and consequently the CoG, far enough forward to act as balance. He was told to forget it, and concentrate on the Tornado/Typhoon.

 

[EKB]

Anyone who bases arguments around un-named/anonymous sources has no business trying to define forum etiquette.

Any person who posts BS should fully expect to be called out for it.

Those of you who disagree with reality ought to find a different hobby.

 

[Shortround6]

Why focus so much on the spitfire when the Hurricane would also have been markedly superior to the Fulmar, had larger production capacity, and had more carrier-friendly flying characteristics?

Once again there is a problem with timing. As has been mentioned British carriers had rather small aircraft capacity (in general 50 aircraft or less for the pre war carriers) so single purpose aircraft were not looked with favor. Granted they had used single seat, short range biplane fighters during the 20s and 30s but then there is only so much you can do with 500hp engines. with 1000hp engines you can consider more options and apparently the RN went for range and endurance so the fighters could be used as recon planes. The radio beacon system also meant that the two seat fighter was not tied to the carrier in terms of radius as much.

If the Americans were in the same position as the British, war involvement/pressure timeline wise, wouldn't the P-36, F2A, and B-23 be more the aircraft to ramp up production of in 1938/39, while investing more heavily in getting the P-40 and B-17 into mass production, and accelerating (or at least increasing funding to) the A-20, Grumman fighters, F4U, P-38, P-39, and P-43/44/P-47 projects. Maybe the Mustang gets more serious consideration too, but then that easily seems like it could still have been a victim of bureaucratic issues as easily as some British designs.

British were planning on ramping up "production" (actually adding dozen of squadrons with the man power that entails ) well before 1939.

From the RAF website " In 1934 42 squadrons existed providing a first line strength of some 800 aircraft. By 1939 this had grown to 157 squadrons and 3,700 aircraft."

If the US had been in a similar position (or even tried for 1/3 to 1/2 the British force) it could not wait for even the '1939 designs", in this case lets consider a plane that first flew in 1939 a 1939 "design" even if actual design work started 1 -2 years earlier.
From Joe Baughers website on the B-23 "The USAAC was sufficiently intrigued by the Douglas proposal that they issued a change order in late 1938 in which the last 38 B-18As ordered under Contract AC9977 would be delivered as B-23s. Serials would be 39-27 thru 39-64. It was agreed that the usual prototype and service test phases would be skipped, and that all the aircraft would be delivered as production aircraft designated simply B-23."
" The first B-23 (39-27) was completed in July of 1939,"
"The remaining 37 B-23s were delivered between February and September of 1940, replacing the Northrop A-17As of the 17th Bomb Group based at March Field."
The B-23 differed in a lot of ways from the B-18, one of which was the use of DC-3 wings instead of DC-2 wings but that means most of the engineering work for the wings was already done and the manufacturing tooling existed.

While the F2A first flew in Dec 1937 the first squadron wasn't issued planes until Dec of 1939. Things didn't go smoothly for a number of reasons.
"Wind tunnel tests carried out at Langley Field during May of 1938 indicated that the maximum speed of the XF2A-1 could be increased by 30 mph by improving the contours of the air intakes and exhaust outlet ducts, by modifying the fairings around the fuselage guns, and by installing undercarriage wheel covers. Although it was not practical to make all these recommended changes, the XF2A-1 was returned to the factory for an improvement in streamlining, a redesign of the engine cowling, and a reconfiguration of the carburetor and oil cooler air intakes."

Brewster didn't have teh factory space to handle the order and had to buy and equip factory space, The choice was bit short sighted.

and more changes were made "A revised windscreen and canopy were installed, offering improved vision and head room. A telescopic gun sight was fitted. The radio mast was moved from the port side of the fuselage to the starboard side, and the wing tips were slightly reconfigured. The ventral window was enlarged. The first two F2A-1s were completed with the elliptical tail fin of the prototype, but all subsequent aircraft switched to a redesigned triangular fin with a straight leading edge which faired into the fuselage just behind the canopy."

Quotes from Joe Baugher's website.

With the need for bomber interceptors on the level of the BoB, might the P-39 and P-38 been pressed into production/service with more compromises?

the big reason for ordering 500+ P-40s in the Spring of 1939 was that NONE of the other planes would be ready for one to two years. They built 13 P-39s in 1940, 10 of them in Dec. speeding up things by even 6 months gets you nowhere for 1939 and most of 1940.

Engine development may have accelerated and gotten more serious funding sooner as well ... or the Hyper engine project would have just sapped even more resources. (even so, sheer demand for volume production would have increased funding/spending and development interest and especially been significant in Allison's case with their more limited internal funds)

The models of engines that would have been placed in production in 1938/39 were not the models that went into production in 1940. And usually greatly accelerated production came at the cost of less research and development. The companies just didn't have enough engineers and many of them did double duty. Helping design the engines/airframes and then helping design the production tooling. AS the plants expanded and added workers (at all levels) the engineering/design depts could be separated better.

Might Brewster's management issues and inability to improve production volume or quality be exposed sooner? Perhaps more direct government intervention sooner, second sourced production, or even going so far as to encourage/coerce a merger with Grumman? (the Buffalo really was the only Brewster design to really be a compelling operational aircraft superior to alternatives at the time of its design and introduction)

Perhaps. The first contract for F2As was for 54 planes, Brewster also held a contract for $10 million worth of PBY parts. The contract for the 54 F2A-1 was placed June 11th 1938, Brewster purchases the vacant Pierce-Arrow auto factory on July 29th. Aug 1939 (over a year later) sees the British start negotiating an order for 120 planes. Aug 1939 also sees Poland order 250 Buffaloes, obviously this order goes nowhere. The Americans decide to relinquish 43 Buffaloes to the Finns in Dec 1939. to be replaced by 43 F2A-2s. Belgium orders 40 panes in Dec 1939. England finally places their order for 120 planes in Jan 1940. May 10th sees Belgium fall and France takes over the Belgian order. May 1940 sees Brewster lease a 217,000 sq ft Hanger at Newark airport. The PBY parts contract is finished. June 1940 sees Brewster obtain a an 8 story 482,000sq ft ex-Ford building across the street from the original factory.
Production starts and stops and change overs are made between the various versions. The US places their final order for 108 aircraft in Jan 1941.

Now if the US had ordered 500 aircraft all at once instead of planes being ordered in dribs and drabs over 2 1/2 years Brewster might have gotten a lot more serious about finding suitable factory space a lot sooner. But the chances of seeing more than a few dozen aircraft in 1939 are pretty slim unless you move the order date back to months before the June 11th 1938 date.

 

[GrauGeist]

Ohhh...EKB, are you referring to me???