Certainly it isn't....from 1941-44 the only bombing done was by B-17's.  And the Japanese NEVER mustered the air defenses that the Germans did...sure in Europe fighter escort was vital, but not in the Pacific.  In the Pacific, the problem was scraping together enough a/c, B-17's or otherwise, in useful numbers.  I have never read that US or Allied forces were deterred from bombing Rabaul or any other target, in range of B-17's, by the strength of Japanese air defenses.  So until 1944, the US doesn't NEED a bomber-escort, in the Pacific.

 

After, there is the B-29 campaign, but again, no long range escort is necessary.  The problem with the US bombing Campaign PRIOR to LeMay was NOT Japanese defenses but B-29 engine reliability and the then unknown jet stream ruining bombing accuracy.  AFTER Lemay, and the onset of low-level fire-bombing no escort was needed because the Japanese lacked any real night fighter capacity, and European war demonstrated that counter-night fighter operations really didn't bag that many a/c...

 

Bottom-line:  Long-range fighter escort is NOT a necessity in the Pacific and I challenge you to demonstrate that it was, on any on-going basis.  B-17's, when they could range targets, did so, and the B-29's out flew their Japanese opponents.

 

Its a FIGHTER. The PB4Y is a bomber.Plus with drop tanks you add 30% range. 

 

Conservative has its place, Rocky. We blew our chance there with the Hypers, so we have to use turbo-charged Allisons and the Pratts and some radicalism, as is, to get something into the air that can stable mate the Flying Fort until you get the P-51 and the P-47.working. If while I'm doing it I can squeeze a few more roles out of the "radical" airframe, then I'll try. 

 

I don't have time to wait for a proper 2000 HP engine for a conventional single engine layout for an escort. I have to go with what I have and design a future upgrade path 

Herald

1) In Herald World NO objection to a Herald assertion is EVER valid....

 

2)  Rabaul was bombed in very limited fashion by a very limited number of B-17's...But the Allies never stopped hitting it...in short there was no Schweinfurt/Regensburg raids that demonstrated that UNESCORTED Bombers could not hit Rabaul.

 

3) We took Iwo Jima because we wanted an auxiliary air strip for damaged B-29's and to remove an early warning out post for Japanese air defenses.  Again, at no point did Lemay or his predecessor consider the unescorted missions to Japan too dangerous because of Japanese opposition, flak OR fighter.  Lemay was placed in charge because his predecessor was not getting results...Lemay opted for night area bombing not because of Japanese FIGHTERS, but because of range,payload, weapons, and Japanese defense weaknesses.  Iwo Jima was also a fighter base, but it wasn't taken AS a fighter base.

 

4) Catalina's operated throughout the war, and in the South Pacific, apparently the Japanese never made such a dent in their operations that flying cover for them or limiting their operations was an imperative.

 

5) As usual, Herald takes any argument as a personal affront, and must crush his opponents for having the temerity to question his technical judgment.  Which I'm not, BTW...I'm questioning your TACTICAL judgment.  I'm sure your a/c could fly...but the point is it is an a/c we don't need.  Just own up to Herald, if your idea is such a great one, why is it that Kelly Johnson or some other bright spark never saw fit to produce an equivalent?  Could it be that though technically possible, it's tactically irrelevant?

In effect then, you'd pretty much have the Curtiss... XP-55... Ascender... .

Problem there, as seen in Herald's but not hit on, is just how eager is a pilot going to be to eject from said aircraft in the days prior to effective ejection seats, knowing that the prop(s) back there are still turning, rather than having the prop(s) out in front where you have no risk of getting critically injured further?

(Crew ejecting in front of aft-mounted pusher props was a serious concern issue in the YFM-1 Airacuda... ).

 

Putting any sort of (turbo/super)charger into the nose though, in place of concentrated armament?

 

Rather, in the case of the XP-55, seems there's ample enough room behind the cockpit for any necessary intakage (akin to the P-39's aspiration just behind the canopy).

And it's not like the cooler intakes in the forward inner edge of the Corsair's gull wings really generated so much additional drag or disruptive airflow that it seriously detracted from the aircraft's performance...

 

Agree though about the P-39/63's shortcomings, especially the wings which didn't allow large installs of guns like in the Mustang, Hellcat, or even P-40, all of which could hold 6 x .50's (3 each).

 

Still, even with a relatively low velocity, the nose-mounted 37 (a 20mm in the British aircraft?) was nothing to smirk at (except in high speed air-to-air), especially considering the later XP-67 was once planned to hold 6 guns of that caliber in its forward section, not to mention a pair in a rather odd installation in the XP-54 "Swoose Goose".

 

I'd have eliminated the two MGs in the upper cowl sync'ed to fire thru the prop much sooner though, freeing up that space for extra 37mm ammo, or even extra fuel (or refine CoG issues?)?

Ditto as was done with the later Curtiss Hawks (both radial P-36 and inline P-40), culminating in no cowl armament and the 6 wing-mounted .50s of later P-40s, even if they held a smaller ammo-per-gun count (saw 287rpg somewhere...)

than Mustangs, Hellcats, or T-bolts.

 

And I'll agree that the P-40Q was the most graceful culmination of the line (with its bubble caopy and all), but by the time it was in trials, there were superior competitors (later Mustangs & Spitfires, etc) already in production.

 

  2¢.

 

 

 

I often am tickeled by those who regard my proposals as being "out there:"

 

 

 

\\

 

That is the Lockheed L-133 designed by Clarence "Kelly" Johnson.

 

Want to tell me again that the idea is outrageous?

 

Another history lesson.... 

 

 

Oh yeah, bailing out of a P-38 wasn't a picnit either. 

Herald

 

mmmm...........

 

And what does any of that Jet History have to do with YOUR proposal...as LarryCJR once said you like to throw out stuff that doesn't relate to your point, making up in VOLUME, what you may lack in SUBSTANCE...  My question was, "IF your pusher design is such a great idea why didn't Kelly Johnson or Willy Messerschmitt produce an operational plane of this design?"  I might note the L-133 never flew did it?  I didn't ask about axial flow turbo-jet design, did I?

 

No, Herald this isn't an argument...OF COURSE the largest losses were to manned fighters, more deadly than in flight accidents or flak, no doubt...that's like saying the largest cause of traffic accidents is CARS, your "point" however, lacks an important piece of information...the loss rate per raid.  Generally losses of 6%, on a sustained basis, makes a bombing campaign UNSUSTAINABLE, by USAAF and RAF figuring...I submit to you that neither the loss rate over Rabaul nor the Home Islands exceeded 6%.  As I said, No Schweinfurt's no Regensburg's...no 10% loss rates.

 

Uh dude, no one felt that Japanese raids on the Tinian airfields was a giant risk to sustained flight operations.  They were PIN-PRICKS.  Again Iwo Jima was taken because it was a radar early warning post and as an emergency landing field for B-29's.  Lemay never felt that Japanese air defenses were so formidable that he had to have air cover.  P-51's/P-47'N's would have been NICE, but not essential. 

 

So far your history lesson is falling pretty flat...you've mentioned a few pin prick raids and haven't shown one instance where Lemay felt that it was necessary to his bomber campaign to provide air cover.  In fact, he removed a/c weapons and armour, BECAUSE JAPANESE AIR DEFENSES WERE SO WEAK.  He chose low-level night, area bombing because Japanese industry was dispersed, flammable, he had the M-67 Incendiary, low-level increased pay load, increased operational safety by reducing engine work-load, and increased mission safety by avoiding the mid-level flak over Japanese cities.  I have never read he chose that approach because Japanese fighters were inflicting prohibitive losses on XXI Bomber Command.

 

Night fighting is not the same as the Battle of the Bismark Sea which was in daylight, JFKY.

And this is baffling...it means nothing, to this debate.  I'll state again, Catalina's operated throughout the war in their assigned role, especially the South Pacific.  At no point did operational losses require the curtailment of their missions due to the need for air cover.  The PBY's flew during the DAY as well...their role was ASW and Maritime Reconnaissance.  They had long since lost any primary strike role.  I have yet to read of any COMAIRSOL or COMAIRSOPAC or anything from Kinney's South-West PAcific Command that suggested that long-range air cover would have been needed or beneficial to their patrol operations.  I might add, your design is optimized for high altitude work, IIRC.  Well the PBY's didn't fly at 25,000 ft, did they...your long-range air cover wold have been tied to a slow, low level target, and most likely vulnerable to A6M's, bouncing THEM from on high, with the energy advantage...or they would have been so far removed from their cover charges that the PBY's would have been effectively unprotected any way.

 

Bottom-Line: Nice design.  You are a bright person, who can dig around and apply POSSIBLE ideas to the real world.  But this design is unneeded, it does things that weren't called for in the Pacific...and I don't see it working in Europe, either and I don't see you touting it there either.  As an expression of a neat "what if" it's very neat....but it has no bearing on what IS/WAS. 

Further, if this is the best idea you can extrapolate from the engines available, then I'd say you've demonstrated that the P-51/47/40 were about as good as were going to get.  Because your alternative design doesn't score any great points.  As usal your ego is causing you much problem...it's a nice paper design...it wasn't a path chosen, and probably for a godod set of reasons.

You obviously misunderstood me Herald. I was pointing out not that the A20 was a solution to what ever problem you are tackling with your canard plane, but that your canard plane would not significantly improve upon existing designs (including the A20) and in any event would not likely be available any time sooner than the P47 because of the technology leaps inherit in the Herald Canard fighter. You believe in your design, and that is okay with me but the evolution of these aircraft took their own Darwinian course. For good reason I think.

 

If you check you will find allot of work took place in the P38 designs to improve controllability and tail strength.