The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 24, 2009




New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: The P-40 Thread
RockyMTNClimber    3/11/2009 12:41:01 PM
From time to time old US fighters get mentioned on these boards and I am suprised at how little respect the P-40 Kittyhawk/Warhawk, Tomahawk gets given the sterling accomplishments the aircraft achieved in the hands of Allied pilots during WWII. When the war started in 1941 there were two primary modern US types. The Army's Curtis P-40 and the Navy's Grumman F4F Wildcat. These aircraft both shared the American penchant for aircraft of rugged construction, heavy armament, and pilot protection.

The P-40 featured a supercharged Allison 1170 hp, liquid cooled V12 engine with a critical altitude of 15,000 feet msl (critical altitude is the elevation at which the engine's supercharger will produce sea level manifold pressure). It's advantages over its adversaries were as follows:
P-40 v. A6M Zeke/Zero, P-40 was faster in level flight than any of the contemporary A6M's. it had a maximum dive speed of 480mph v. the Zeke's 350mph. The typical load out of armament for a P-40 was 6 .50 caliber heavy machine guns; the Zeke/Zero had two rifle caliber machine guns in the nose that were suplimented by two short barrelled 20mm cannon. The P-40 had pit armor and self sealing tanks where the Zero was utterly un armored and caught fire with a single hit from a tracer bullet, even a rifle caliber bullet! The P-40 had superior roll and turning rates at any speed above 250mph. As long as the P-40 pilot stayed above 250 mph the Zero could not turn or roll with it! Another critical advantage for the P-40 was its ability to withdraw from a fight by diving away. Litterally, the allied pilot could choose the time and place to engage and disengage.

P-40 v. BF-109; The P-40 had superior dive speed, again allowing the allied pilot to disengage or fight at his choosing. It also could turn inside of the 109 and arguably the US six .50 guns were a better choice for air to air combat.

The ultimate proof is that allied pilots scored consistently better kill ratios against their enemies. This is true whether you are talking about allied pilots fighting A6M or the BF-109 or other types. This is also true when you discuss veteran enemy pilots against allied rookies.

Simply put the P-40 was a great aircraft that allowed allied pilots to win early and win often. It was later overshadowed by better allied aircraft and that is okay too, but give the girl her due.

Check Six

Rocky


 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11   NEXT
earlm       3/17/2009 8:42:59 PM
The P-38 was a fine escort fighter with drop tanks.  Trying to produce an escort fighter before the tech is ready is likely to result in a Messerschmitt 110.
 
Quote    Reply

HERALD1357       3/18/2009 11:39:30 AM
HERALD1357       3/17/2009 10:41:17 AM

The gas ejectors work as added thrust with the Spit and the Mustang until you hit around 400 knots then the pressure differential of the gas efflux and the slipstream over the the fuselage sets up a drag condition on the fuselage.




Shrug. Its a vacuum drag effect. In the motorjet it shows up INSIDE the motorjet around the piston engine! 

Herald

Thanks Herald. As I can recalled, only heavily modified Bearcat and MiG I-250 ever breached 400kt barrier of piston-driven fighters in level flight. While the Bearcat record is done in 1989 with probably new technology and specialized fuel, I-250 record was carried out with stripped down prototype.

As far as I can also recalled, the development of turbosupercharger on R-2800 and the steady increase of power from that power plant was quite smooth. What would you do if you are in charge of a fighter design team for a USAAF bomber escort in European theater?

P-47N as is.

Depends on the year and what I can license or steal from foreign technology..

If I start with the 1935 period I have four proven engine sources (Continental, Pratt and Whitney; Wright, and Allison) and SEVEN lines of airframe development. I have Curtis, Seversky, Grumman, Douglas, Boeing and the newcomers Lockheed and North American (North American Fokker. originally)

Based on what I've seen out of Curtis in the mid thirties, I fund one airframe line out of them, I fund one line out of Seversky, I fund one line out of Grumman. I find one out of Lockheed. The others have to take their chances and compete..

I ask for the following from the four engine manufacturers.

A corncob radial 1/1/1 or a 1 HP/1 cu. in./1 pound as measured in those days for an engine rated at MSL at 1500 HP takeoff and no less than 1000 HP cruise at 20,000 feet service ceiling. The whole engine with whatever boost addons NTE 1850 pounds total weight in a single pull package with a MTBT of not less than 100 hours.

An in-line conforms to the same specs.

That more or less could give me three row corncob Cyclones or Wasps, a possible P&W R-2060 Yellow Jacket and an Allison or a Teledyne Continental 0-1460 with GE turbo-chargers;. Assuming that any of it works, and that is a tall assumption, I now have my fighter and bomber engines. I hope I get at least two successful lines of them, because if I'm stuck with just an Americanized Merlin or an Allison to the design specs, I'm in trouble. Engine bottleneck.

For the sake of simplicity, let's suggest that a Pratt and Whitney develops the R-2060 Yellow Jacket and at the same time, produces a Wasp Junior corncob to specs.

I now have two radial engines, one that weighs 1800 pounds (the corncob)or thereabouts and one that weighs 2200 pounds.{the liquid cooled radial Yellow Jacket). Both engines are approximately 55 inches in diameter and both if they are to take a turbocharger will have to have to take twin turbochargers mounted at the engine sides and ram feed. My engine cowling becomes a pronounced oval. DRAG.

I am now forced to laminar flow the fuselage wing design. Expensive.

If the Allison is turbocharged to the design specs I get a 2200 pound engine and turbo-charger package. HMMMMM. This starts sounding like the P-38 twin engine fighter as I need a lot of fuel for a long range fighter.

As for the P&W engines described I'm thinking something like this:
 
 
Its a potential Lockheed design for an aircraft remarkably like the Ju-88 in overall performance and loadout, but based off a canard pusher for pure zoom and boom tactics. The gun armament would be nose mounted in a gun-pack of at least 4x20 mm cannons or 6x 12.7 mm machine guns. Introduction into service about 1939-1940.
That is a bomber escort possible with US technology circa 1937. it has a usable mission radius with 4000 pounds if fuel of about 800 nautical miles with a useful time over target of 15 minutes . Cruise speed is about 200, combat is about 300 knots and service ceiling is optimized around 25,000 feet.
 
You need drop tanks for it, but it will escort a B-17.
 
Why two men? Navigator, plus I want an attack version.
 
 Herald
 
 
earlm       3/17/2009 8:42:59 PM
The P-38 was a fine escort fighter with drop tanks.  Trying to produce an escort fighter before the tech is ready is likely to result in a Messerschmitt 110.
 
 
The FW-187 Falke and the P-38 are almost contemporary.with the Me-110 in development. Please don't lump Kurt Tank and Kelly Johnson with the likes of pretty boy, Willy Messerschmidt.
 
The proposed prop tail pusher is similar to an early Lockheed proposal for a jet interceptor that comes around 1941 as the USAAF becomes aware of Whittle's first jet engines.

It uses existing US tech trees and USAAF fighter doctrine of the 1935-1937 period.
 
The only argument I see against it, is that at 300 knots @ 25,000 feet it might be a little slow to engage a single-engined day interceptor after 1942. More powerful engones will keep pace until the aoirframe is maxed out around 1944.
 
Certainly if she features corncob radials, she will hit the 1500 kilowatt (2000+ HP) mark by 1942. That will put her into the 325-340  knot range at optimum altitude. I would then start looking at phasing her out as a long range escort and adapting her as an American version of the Beaufighter. She is perfect for surface strike, nightraider, and nightfighter roles.       

Herald
 

 
 
   
 
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Herald   3/18/2009 11:52:08 AM
Your proposed a/c is OK, just make it into the Beaufighter...it's just going to be another BF-110 otherwise.  You say by 1942 it's not going to cut it as a bomber escort.   Well then, don't build it...because in 1942 there isn't a Bomber Campaign underway.  That doesn't begin until 1943.  So, as an escort, it has nothing to escort and by the time there IS something to escort it's outdated.
 
So probably it's best bet is as a niche player in the ground attack, naval surface strike role, and will the Navy buy it?
 
Bottom-line: A2A, by your own admission it's not viable when we need it, so why buy it in the first place?
 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    Overengineering the Herald way   3/18/2009 12:07:11 PM
The Lockheed A-20 Havoc, built in the pre-war years, had a speed of about 345mph (run along side a A6M Zeke/Zero in a drag race). So there is no advantage in speed with your design Herald. Manuverability & accelerated stall characteristics with that monster would be sick and engineering the thing would take an extra 5 years just because the canard design wasn't understood in that context at the time.
 
I see no advantage with that odd bird and allot of reasons to go with what they already had because they had good designs. KISS it.
 
Check Six
 
Rocky
 
Quote    Reply

HERALD1357       3/18/2009 1:19:32 PM

The Lockheed A-20 Havoc, built in the pre-war years, had a speed of about 345mph (run along side a A6M Zeke/Zero in a drag race). So there is no advantage in speed with your design Herald. Manuverability & accelerated stall characteristics with that monster would be sick and engineering the thing would take an extra 5 years just because the canard design wasn't understood in that context at the time.

1. Design begins in 1935 about the same time as the B-17 xoncurrent with that aircraft and with the engines.
2. Canard design was understood as well as needed. Lockheed had such designs kicking around since 1934. .
3. The A-20 Havoc couldn't turn. If you tried a 20 degree bank at 200 knots you tore the wings off.- It was a BOMBER, This one is airframe stress rated and mass balanced to point (the whole reason for the CANARD layout is pre-input of Z axis pitch while the oversized vertical stabilizer handles Y axis yaw.as you point.)

I see no advantage with that odd bird and allot of reasons to go with what they already had because they had good designs. KISS it.

Its a KISS canard.

Check Six

 

Rocky


JFKY    Herald   3/18/2009 11:52:08 AM
Your proposed a/c is OK, just make it into the Beaufighter...it's just going to be another BF-110 otherwise.  You say by 1942 it's not going to cut it as a bomber escort.   Well then, don't build it...because in 1942 there isn't a Bomber Campaign underway.  That doesn't begin until 1943.  So, as an escort, it has nothing to escort and by the time there IS something to escort it's outdated.
 
In the Pacific War we sure could have used it. The reason is simple. We needed a long range fighter of some type that could escort B-17s and B-25s which were the types in service there. At eight hundred nautical miles useful radius it would have a viable reconnaissance function-especially with a two man crew. The P-38 was a single crewman monster that could not be easily adapted into a night-fighter or a tactical aircraft.  
 
300 knots combat at 25,000 feet is 336 miles per hour at 25,000 feet. As I remarked, it is not a Havoc. This aircraft is designed to dive, shoot, and pull away in a climb.    
 
So probably it's best bet is as a niche player in the ground attack, naval surface strike role, and will the Navy buy it?
 
Of course it will. If the Navy was desperate for PB4Ys, to make up its patrol bombers it will gobble this up as a tactical strike aircraft, if it can get it..
 
Nightfighter, radar equipped interceptor, photo-bird, pathfinder, target marker, navigation escort, what niches it fills!  
 
Bottom-line: A2A, by your own admission it's not viable when we need it, so why buy it in the first place?
 
Against Zeroes? Better than the job lot of fighters we had. Better than MOST of the BF-109s then in service. 

Remember that the engines specified are not in the 700 kilowatt (900 HP)  range then US available for fighters, but are more in the 900 kilowatt (1200 HP) range of the engines being fitted to US BOMBERS. 

You also must consider that I went for the propeller driven rocket I earlier described. This is the one design I can configure, that will not outdate like the P-40 or the P-39 (airframe cannot take a bigger engine) from fitting progressively more powerful engines and improved variable pitch pusher propellers. It will stay competitive, bercause I designed it that way. You see where the engines are and how the mounting works?
 
That is the reason for the Herald over-engineering. 
 
 
Herald
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Herald, I'd bet...   3/18/2009 1:44:19 PM
We don't need it in the Pacific....there's no long-range bombing underway in 1942... the time after which your plane is out-of-date.  I have yet to read of any tactical or operational campaigns, in the air, that were limited by Japanese air defenses, defenses that B-17's could not penetrate.  No need for an escort for the B-17 in the era 1941-42, really '45....
 
The long-range escort wasn't needed, if it was needed then, until 1944...when your plane is obsolete.
 
Night fighter, radar equipped interceptor, photo-bird, pathfinder, target marker, navigation escort, what niches it fills!
 
All niches that can be filled with a/c already in the pipeline or niches not needed in the Pacific...Interceptor...not a need until 1944, and the Bearcat comes along to fill it...Photo-bird...P-38...Pathfinder/target marker...not needed in the Pacific, and not needed in the ETO, either, as the USAAF didn't fill either role with a specialized a/c...navigation-escort...for fighters almost ANY bomber a/c filled this role.  Night-fighter is a niche it might fill well.  I'd agree, certainly the US and its Allies needed one prior to the P-61.
 
Lastly, the range isn't even close to comparable to the PB-4Y...800 mi v. 2500 mi.
 
Two engined fighters didn't perform all that well in the Second World War...you propose tactics that the USAAF didn't adopt until the war began, so instead of vertical, the USAAF is going to try to take the A6M in the horizontal...and lose.  It's a big fighter...a big target...the ME-110 didn't prosper what makes you think yours'll do any better?
 
It's kewl technology extrapolation...but as an usable a/c I have my doubts.
 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    Herald Canard Fighter v. History...   3/18/2009 2:19:16 PM
The A20 in fact was quite sturdy and the Brits/USAAF used it as a night fighter. Not the end all of twins but it was an attack platform that served quite well until more modern designs arrived. Your creation has some issues to work out: accelerated stalls with canards are a nightmare (this is combat Herald and accelerated stalls happen), your plane isn't a zoom and boom because pitch energy for that bird is going to be hard to manage under combat loads, don't even try to talk roll rates, and just what do you think is going to happen when you drop a bomb from in front of those props (USAAF gonna buy a plane in 1940 that can't drop a bomb?)?  In order to make that work with the technology of the day (metallurgy) the front end will be heavy as a engine block which makes me wonder about CG, the rocket plane idea was never really proven efficient when considered against more conventional designs. Yes free thinkers were considering these options but why didn't they develop into mature designs?
 
Because they were impractical. Allies needed planes now not experiments that might or might not pan out (very limited time/funds for concept research). Interesting ideas but not going anywhere IMV. The A20 concept itself was out dated by the P47 which could match it's bomb load and fight air to air also.
 
Remember, we have limited capacity for production and development. We need to move forward with proven concepts that would show benefits in about a year. P38 was radical and frankly pushed the technology envelope about as hard as was possible. It took a year after its introduction to get the high speed compressibility issues dealt with properly. Half of those P38 problems were pilot training issues and about half design tweaks. The Herald Canard Fighter is a bridge too far. Better to build a US Mosquito if you must have another twin fighter (remember the Grumman F7F Tigercat?).
 
Respectfully IMV, you are thinking outside of the box, which is good, but I'd still go with the more conventional designs for a much better return on investment.
 
Check Six
 
Rocky
 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    Herald Canard Fighter v. History...   3/18/2009 2:36:22 PM
The A20 in fact was quite sturdy and the Brits/USAAF used it as a night fighter. Not the end all of twins but it was an attack platform that served quite well until more modern designs arrived. Your creation has some issues to work out: accelerated stalls with canards are a nightmare (this is combat Herald and accelerated stalls happen), your plane isn't a zoom and boom because pitch energy for that bird is going to be hard to manage under combat loads, don't even try to talk roll rates, and just what do you think is going to happen when you drop a bomb from in front of those props (USAAF gonna buy a plane in 1940 that can't drop a bomb?)?  In order to make that work with the technology of the day (metallurgy) the front end will be heavy as a engine block which makes me wonder about CG, the rocket plane idea was never really proven efficient when considered against more conventional designs. Yes free thinkers were considering these options but why didn't they develop into mature designs?
 
Because they were impractical. Allies needed planes now not experiments that might or might not pan out (very limited time/funds for concept research). Interesting ideas but not going anywhere IMV. The A20 concept itself was out dated by the P47 which could match it's bomb load and fight air to air also.
 
Remember, we have limited capacity for production and development. We need to move forward with proven concepts that would show benefits in about a year. P38 was radical and frankly pushed the technology envelope about as hard as was possible. It took a year after its introduction to get the high speed compressibility issues dealt with properly. Half of those P38 problems were pilot training issues and about half design tweaks. The Herald Canard Fighter is a bridge too far. Better to build a US Mosquito if you must have another twin fighter (remember the Grumman F7F Tigercat?).
 
Respectfully IMV, you are thinking outside of the box, which is good, but I'd still go with the more conventional designs for a much better return on investment.
 
Check Six
 
Rocky
 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    An alternative Canard...   3/18/2009 2:49:00 PM
After trashing the WWII canard concept as hard as I could I wondered...
 
What if the P39 were a pusher canard? room in the nose for the Turbo Supercharger (two stage with 20,000 ft critical altitude) and for the structure of the forward wing.
 
Random thought.
 
Quote    Reply

HERALD1357       3/18/2009 3:16:46 PM

We don't need it in the Pacific....there's no long-range bombing underway in 1942... the time after which your plane is out-of-date.  I have yet to read of any tactical or operational campaigns, in the air, that were limited by Japanese air defenses, defenses that B-17's could not penetrate.  No need for an escort for the B-17 in the era 1941-42, really '45....
 
JFKY what dp you call what was happening with the FEAF in ABDA and later at Port Moresby and over New Guinea? Tiddly Winks?
  
The long-range escort wasn't needed, if it was needed then, until 1944...when your plane is obsolete.

That is just flat out absurd.

Night fighter, radar equipped interceptor, photo-bird, pathfinder, target marker, navigation escort, what niches it fills!

All niches that can be filled with a/c already in the pipeline or niches not needed in the Pacific...Interceptor...not a need until 1944, and the Bearcat comes along to fill it...Photo-bird...P-38...Pathfinder/target marker...not needed in the Pacific, and not needed in the ETO, either, as the USAAF didn't fill either role with a specialized a/c...navigation-escort...for fighters almost ANY bomber a/c filled this role.  Night-fighter is a niche it might fill well.  I'd agree, certainly the US and its Allies needed one prior to the P-61.
One SINGLE plane better designed to fulfill the roles than the half dozen budge jobs you mentioned  press ganged into service. GIB is the KICKER. What night fighter did we have the P-63? Did the British need one before 1942? Did we need one at Guadalcanal?

Lastly, the range isn't even close to comparable to the PB-4Y...800 mi v. 2500 mi.

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

Two engined fighters didn't perform all that well in the Second World War...you propose tactics that the USAAF didn't adopt until the war began, so instead of vertical, the USAAF is going to try to take the A6M in the horizontal...and lose.  It's a big fighter...a big target...the ME-110 didn't prosper what makes you think yours'll do any better?

Mine can point and roll on its thrust line, and its CG isn't fouled up with the wing put in the wrong place and the engines too far apart, or torque plagued. 

It's kewl technology extrapolation...but as an usable a/c I have my doubts.

Asked and answered. You also forget that the initial plane was planned for 1000 kilowatt engines. I already stated that unlike the other US aircraft in the offing at the time a bigger engine is DESIGNED into the upgrade path.
 
Herald
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    I'll nip my own idea in the bud...   3/18/2009 3:29:58 PM

After trashing the WWII canard concept as hard as I could I wondered...

 

What if the P39 were a pusher canard? room in the nose for the Turbo Supercharger (two stage with 20,000 ft critical altitude) and for the structure of the forward wing.

 

Random thought.


If the USAAF had just allowed Bell to bring the plane they designed on line (along with at least a single stage turbo charger) it would have been allot better performer than trying to reinvent the wheel.
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Herald your analysis is flawed.   3/18/2009 3:33:15 PM
The long-range escort wasn't needed, if it was needed then, until 1944...when your plane is obsolete.

That is just flat out absurd.
  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. 
 
Hey, you mentioned it, not me...So if you are going to talk about the Privateer I think it reasonable to point out that your a/c has about 1/3 the Privateer's range...40% with drop tanks...and why would we want your long-range patrol fighter, when we have the PBY Catalina with much more range and payload...plus the ability to be forward based on water? 
 
Again it's a neat ideer...but it's just that a neat ideer...not a useful a/c.  Don't take it personally.
 
Quote    Reply

HERALD1357       3/18/2009 3:42:15 PM

The A20 in fact was quite sturdy and the Brits/USAAF used it as a night fighter. Not the end all of twins but it was an attack platform that served quite well until more modern designs arrived. Your creation has some issues to work out: accelerated stalls with canards are a nightmare (this is combat Herald and accelerated stalls happen), your plane isn't a zoom and boom because pitch energy for that bird is going to be hard to manage under combat loads, don't even try to talk roll rates, and just what do you think is going to happen when you drop a bomb from in front of those props (USAAF gonna buy a plane in 1940 that can't drop a bomb?)?  In order to make that work with the technology of the day (metallurgy) the front end will be heavy as a engine block which makes me wonder about CG, the rocket plane idea was never really proven efficient when considered against more conventional designs. Yes free thinkers were considering these options but why didn't they develop into mature designs?

 
CREF what it says about violent maneuvering, wingloading and overstressing the airframe in the turn or the roll. 
 
1. Mixmaster.
2. That bird will roll like loaded dixe.  Inverted pendulum physics (you even say this Rocky.)
3. Bombs can be trapezed. or rolled, plus the Diff V0 from plane and bomb is effectively zero at release. Bomb strike is in the fall which is forward as well as down.   I'd be more worried physics wise about a Heinkel or a Stuka in a headwind.

Because they were impractical. Allies needed planes now not experiments that might or might not pan out (very limited time/funds for concept research). Interesting ideas but not going anywhere IMV. The A20 concept itself was out dated by the P47 which could match it's bomb load and fight air to air also.
 
P-47 is 1943 and at the end of the P-35 . A-20 is 1937.and was initially based off a derivative of the DB-7. its not a bad plane but it is no Marauder.   

Remember, we have limited capacity for production and development. We need to move forward with proven concepts that would show benefits in about a year. P38 was radical and frankly pushed the technology envelope about as hard as was possible. It took a year after its introduction to get the high speed compressibility issues dealt with properly. Half of those P38 problems were pilot training issues and about half design tweaks. The Herald Canard Fighter is a bridge too far. Better to build a US Mosquito if you must have another twin fighter (remember the Grumman F7F Tigercat?).

I don't like the Tigercat for the same exact reasons I criticized the Me-110> series.
 
We never solved the P-38 compressibility problem  We had to train pilots to deal with it as is. Remember above I said the P-38 was a plane that would kill you if you didn't pay attention to it?  That is why.

Respectfully IMV, you are thinking outside of the box, which is good, but I'd still go with the more conventional designs for a much better return on investment.
You go outside the box when you are way behind and you need to catch up in a hurry with what you have.

Check Six

 

Rocky

 
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
 
Quote    Reply

HERALD1357       3/18/2009 3:58:01 PM

The long-range escort wasn't needed, if it was needed then, until 1944...when your plane is obsolete.
That is just flat out absurd.

  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.

This was certainly not true. If you look at the losses of the FEAF bombers over New Guinea and Indonesia as they flew missions in early 1942 you will see most of their bomber losses were A2A losses where Japanese fighters shot them down.  At least as late as CACTUS, Rabaul was a raid problem

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...
Why again did we establish P-51 fighter bases on Iwo Jima? I mean those Japanese AAF raids on  TINIAN were a figment of my imagination?

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.

I JUST DID. We used foghters to escort and defend and therefore we NEEDED them

Its a FIGHTER. The PB4Y is a bomber.Plus with drop tanks you add 30% range. 
 
Hey, you mentioned it, not me...So if you are going to talk about the Privateer I think it reasonable to point out that your a/c has about 1/3 the Privateer's range...40% with drop tanks...and why would we want your long-range patrol fighter, when we have the PBY Catalina with much more range and payload...plus the ability to be forward based on water? 

Because the PBY (700 nautical mile useful radius) verus the 800 nautical mile useful radius of my bird, is a sitting duck in the Bismark Sea  and a self escorting attack plane might be easier on our strained logistics when we go after those transports covered by eighty Zeros?

Again it's a neat idea...but it's just that a neat idea...not a useful a/c.  Don't take it personally.

I don't take it personally. I just fail to see where you've brought uop a valid objection to it, yet.


Herald
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Herald your analysis is flawed.   3/18/2009 4:09:07 PM
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?
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy