1n 1939 what would your operational airforce look like

[loomaluftwaffe]

y isnt anyone ordering a Pe-8 for 1940?

[CurzonDax]

Originally Posted by loomaluftwaffe

y isnt anyone ordering a Pe-8 for 1940?

Naw, I'll take the Peking duck. Pe-8 gives me gas. :{)

[wmaxt]

Originally Posted by R988

same with the P-38 none of the limp wristed non turbo versions the yanks tried to give the British first

The British ordered them that way against recomendations. They wanted the engine prop combination in the P-38 to be interchangeable with the P-40 Kittyhawks they were already getting. The British were also leery of the turbochargers and didn't want anything to do with them. The British got exactly what they ordered.

wmaxt

[the lancaster kicks ass]

i've always heard it was because the americans didn't want us getting our hands on the turbochargers.............

[wmaxt]

Originally Posted by the lancaster kicks ass

i've always heard it was because the americans didn't want us getting our hands on the turbochargers.............

I don't know where that came from but it has been out there a long time, it's just not true. It is true that the British didn't trust them and that at the time turbos were in short supply and that could have influenced their choice. The overiding point was interchangeability, even to the choice of the C (non turbo) type engine used on the P-40. Kelly Johnson confirmed this in one of his many conversations with Warren Bodie. Another point is that there never was a restriction on turbos to Britian.

One thing I don't understand is that they went to the P-40 set-up and then were dissapointed when it's high altitude performance was only marginaly better than the P-40s?

wmaxt

[Glider]

As I understand it the decision to to go without turbochargers was because the concern was that this could cause delay in delivery as turbochargers were fairly new. As the aircraft was going to be used at low- medium altitude this wouldn't be a problem.
The decision that caused the most anguish was that the RAF planes didn't have handed engines. They both turned to the right giving the aircraft almost dangerous handling characteristics. This is the decision that caused the most objections from the Lockheed engineers.
After the order was rejected by the RAF I believe that they were completed with handed engines and used for a while by the USAAF to train new pilots. They still lacked the turbos but they were considered very fast at low altitude with goood handleing and helped with the training.
Blaming the performance sounds like a desk bound persons smokescreen for what was an appalling decision in the face of the experts advice. That however I cannot prove.

[wmaxt]

Originally Posted by Glider

As I understand it the decision to to go without turbochargers was because the concern was that this could cause delay in delivery as turbochargers were fairly new. As the aircraft was going to be used at low- medium altitude this wouldn't be a problem.
The decision that caused the most anguish was that the RAF planes didn't have handed engines. They both turned to the right giving the aircraft almost dangerous handling characteristics. This is the decision that caused the most objections from the Lockheed engineers.
After the order was rejected by the RAF I believe that they were completed with handed engines and used for a while by the USAAF to train new pilots. They still lacked the turbos but they were considered very fast at low altitude with goood handleing and helped with the training.
Blaming the performance sounds like a desk bound persons smokescreen for what was an appalling decision in the face of the experts advice. That however I cannot prove.

As I mentioned above a possible shortage of turbos could have had some influence, however the order specificaly called for the type "C" engines and reduction gearing, for compatability with the P-40s. The project engineer with Lockheed was demoted after the acceptance of that contract, presumably because the 322s could not meet the requirements without even the standard "F" series engines of the P-38!

wmaxt

[cheddar cheese]

Interest wmaxt, I had certainly believed the myth up till now...Thanks for enlightening us...

[Gnomey]

Good info wmaxt, I also didn't know that.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I always figured it had to do with time to delivery or what not.

[CurzonDax]

Still in '38 the US had all these kickin aircraft waiting in the wings in development such as the F-4U, B-25, A-20, SBD, P-47, and so on and so forth and some of these were the best at what they did in my opinion. It makes me wonder if Dec. 7th had never happened would some of these birds never flown.

:{)

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

It still would have happened, some of those aircraft up there were still in developmental stage anyhow and with pre war US policy they would not have been made any quicker. Hell in the late 1920's the US was still using biplane fighters and bombers, the first real mono plane fighter did not enter service until 1934.

[CurzonDax]

Still I wonder if WWII happened in '30-'35 I wonder who would have come out on top. Many AFs had some great bi-plane fighters.

:{)

[cheddar cheese]

Italy, obviously.

[plan_D]

Is this the same Italy that took over a year to defeat Abyssynia?