XP-65/F7F Development

[swampyankee]

Firstly, nuclear bombs are a weapon only to be used in total war. Wars have various sizes from minor conflicts to world-scale conflicts.

Carriers come into their own in wars that are small/moderate scale where nuclear bombs are not really all that practical: Regardless, the carriers were able to launch aircraft (P2V's and AJ's) off their decks which could carry nuclear bombs (the AJ could be recovered) in a total-war setting, and could carry large numbers of aircraft with conventional ordinance off the coast of an enemy nation. At the start of a war, the carriers are useful because most bombers required some form of escort unless they operated at night, and nearby air-bases might very well be under another nations control and require some negotiation for agreed upon terms of use (a carrier presents no such restriction as long as it stays in international waters).

There is also a general reluctance among politicians to use nuclear weapons unless faced with the imminent threat of attack, or while already embroiled in a war of substantial size: This basically means that when bombers are to be used, they will be carrying conventional ordinance, and because of this, they will need to be employed in massed raids, in large numbers.

Because large aircraft burn up more fuel than small aircraft, and large numbers of large aircraft burn up even more fuel yet, the carrier is actually fairly fuel economical as well: Firstly, because the aircraft are quite small, fly relatively short durations, and require quite a number of missions to equal the fuel consumption of one bomber flying one mission; Secondly, compared to aircraft, ships are fuel efficient for the amount of fuel they burn relative to mass over range: An entire task force might very well use less fuel than a protracted series of city-busting raids carried out over and over again.

The only question remaining is can a carrier defend against a bomber-attack? The Russians WWII vintage bombers weren't all that capable in performance, even if in range; the Tu-4 could get into the 30,000 foot range presumably, where we could still take them out; the B-36 was not really a valid comparison, though they'd end up fielding jet-powered aircraft.
Keeping the world terrified of you motivates them to figure out how to counter the threat you pose; this in turn requires you to develop ever more advanced and destructive weapons to carry out the threat, as well as defend against enemy developments.

While it might work out in theory, but it's economically ruinous (basically we won the Cold War because the Soviet Union could not take the economical abuse), and crazy dangerous: As weapons systems become more capable, faster responding, and overall faster, it just takes one wrong move to basically wipe out entire nations worth of real-estate and irradiate much of the Northern Hemisphere.
Manifest Destiny was the belief that it was God's will for mankind to expand all the way to the Pacific Ocean. This would be expanding the position to conquer the world. Manifest Destiny as it was wasn't well liked by Native Americans and Mexicans, and inserting our noses into the affairs of other nations has created all sorts of problems that are plaguing us tot his day.

That's a good point

Mankind was already at the Pacific Ocean; Manifest Destiny was specifically for white Americans, a group that, at the time, barely included the Irish.

 

[Zipper730]

Whoops, I meant America...

 

[tyrodtom]

America was already sea to shining sea before manifest destiny too.
For some reason citizens of the USA thinks the term Americans apply only to them .

 

[XBe02Drvr]

America was already sea to shining sea before manifest destiny too.
For some reason citizens of the USA thinks the term Americans apply only to them .

WHITE citizens of the USA, that is! Native American citizens, African American citizens, Asian American citizens of the US and Latin American citizens of the entire western hemisphere know better.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[GregP]

"Americans" applies to anyone from North or South America, and perhaps residents of "Little America" in the Anarctic. It's really the REST of the world that calls U.S. citizens "Americans," and the press. Almost nobody else I know makes that mistake.

 

[Zipper730]

America was already sea to shining sea before manifest destiny too.

If you mean the continent, of course: If you mean the United States, then no.

WHITE citizens of the USA, that is! Native American citizens, African American citizens, Asian American citizens of the US and Latin American citizens of the entire western hemisphere know better.

Sadly, all too true. At least I don't have any problems with people who are Native Americans, African Americans, Asian Americans and Latin Americans. Admittedly I don't currently have any as friends, but I've never selected friends on the merit of their ethnicity.

"Americans" applies to anyone from North or South America, and perhaps residents of "Little America" in the Anarctic. It's really the REST of the world that calls U.S. citizens "Americans," and the press. Almost nobody else I know makes that mistake.

I'm not really sure how citizens of the US became known as Americans... I guess United Statesian doesn't sound as good.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

I'm not really sure how citizens of the US became known as Americans... I guess United Statesian doesn't s

How about "Yankees"? A lot of people around the world use the term to refer to us. Not popular with Red Sox fans or our misguided friends in Dixie.
What is a Yankee? If you're in Eurasia/Africa, it's someone from the Americas. If you're in South/Central America, it's somebody from North America. If you're in Canada or Mexico it's someone from the US. In the US it's somebody from the North. If you're in the North, it's New England. In New England, the word "real" gets attached and it's someone from Vermont. In Vermont it's the three counties that constitute "The Northeast Kingdom". Ayup.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[fubar57]

Topic........................................

 

[Zipper730]

Let's get back onto topic: The F7F

Regarding the engines, the project timing probably didn't allow consideration of the R-2800.

According to this, the project started in 1939. At which point the R-2800 was still relatively early in development, while the R-2600 was in production.

The XF6F also used an R-2600.

Okay, I did some research and the F4U used an R-2800 and it flew in 1940...

 

[Zipper730]

I was looking into the use of the 37mm M4 versus the M3 (anti-tank) and found the biggest difference: The M3's barrel was 154.3" versus the M4's 89.5"; Other differences would include the ammo weight: The M3's total weight was 1050g, versus the M4's 900g; the mass of the projectile itself was 750g for the M3, and 608g for the M4.

A longer barrel helps accuracy because of rifling, and the effect of spinning the bullet up to speed: What effect does it have on muzzle velocity and explosive gas force?

 

[tomo pauk]

The cartridge for the M4 sported less propellant charge than for the M3 gun. More propellant = needs longer barrel.

 

[Zipper730]

The cartridge for the M4 sported less propellant charge than for the M3 gun. More propellant = needs longer barrel.

Would the gun not spin up to speed without one, or would it somehow blow up the barrel?

 

[tomo pauk]

I don't think that blowing up a barrel was that easy with US/Western standards of the day. Barrel lenth, thickness/strength and rifling is directly depnedant on projectile size and weight, as well as amount and type of propellant used. No point in having a gun barrel being to long if the amount of propellant is modest.

 

[wuzak]

Would the gun not spin up to speed without one, or would it somehow blow up the barrel?

I think he is saying that the propellant needs to burn out before it exits the barrel.

 

[Zipper730]

I think he is saying that the propellant needs to burn out before it exits the barrel.

So, the M3 needed the full length?

 

[pinehilljoe]

You are asking questions that I doubt younger people can answer. There are a few in here who stubbornly think the U.S.A. should have bought foreign weapons, particularly the DH Mosquito.

....
The R-2800 first flew in 1940, but the "B" series is what started them down the right path. That said, actual development times for the Grumman Cats wasn't bad at all.

License built or purchased Mosquito's would have helped the Night Fighter Squadrons.

 

[Zipper730]

License built or purchased Mosquito's would have helped the Night Fighter Squadrons.

For the USAAF? Yes, for the USN, it'd be okay unless you lost an engine.

 

[pbehn]

License built or purchased Mosquito's would have helped the Night Fighter Squadrons.

License built would have taken too long and purchased meant choosing the USA night fighter needs over other priorities, at the time almost everyone wanted more mosquitos.

 

[Shortround6]

So, the M3 needed the full length?

Spin has sod all to do with anything in this discussion. Use the appropriate rate of twist in the rifling and you can spin any projectile at the right speed to stabilize. Lower velocity just calls for a quicker twist in the rifling.

The AA/AT/tank gun round used a LOT more propellant than the 37mm aircraft gun. firing it out of short barrel would have resulted in a LOT of muzzle flash and a considerably lower muzzle velocity compared to the full length barrel, even if better than the short round.

Please look up the actual differences and not focus on quicky comparisons like barrel length. You can get .357 magnum revolvers with barrels from 2-2 1/2 inches to 8 inches. Huge change in velocity. You can also fire .38 specials in a long barreled revolver and sometimes equal a .357 from a short barrel.

Most (all?) cannon were much more restricted in the ammo they fired than small arms. They didn't want to make up new firing tables/charts for different velocities/projectiles.

 

[Shortround6]

For the USAAF? Yes, for the USN, it'd be okay unless you lost an engine.

Mosquitos could stay in the air on one engine.
many large twin bombers (especially British ones) could not, but the Mosquito was not one of them.