Only one fighter - Page 4 - Aircraft of World War II

Elvis · 11-27-2007, 03:29 AM

renrich,

"X" stands for Xperimental...something to remember.

--------------

drgondog,

Why are you concerning yourself with what happened after 1940?
The original question deals with making a pick of what was available IN 1940 and going with it from there.
Did you have a crystal ball that could see accurately into the future in 1940?
If so, you should have lent your talents to the US government.
A lot of soldiers who never came back from that conflict could've thanked you for saving their lives.

-------------------

You guys must remember to stay within the confines of what was available in 1940, since that's a key part of the original question.
Not what was "under developement", but available.
The main choices at that time would've been the F4F and the P-40, so I'm looking at it from the aspect as those are my two front runners.
Between them, I'd choose the F4F.
All of this talk about the Corsair, while interesting, is really moot to this thread.

Elvis

drgondog · 11-27-2007, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elvis

renrich,

"X" stands for Xperimental...something to remember.

For whom?

--------------

drgondog,

Why are you concerning yourself with what happened after 1940?
The original question deals with making a pick of what was available IN 1940 and going with it from there.

renrich
Senior Member

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Montrose, Colorado
Posts: 967
Country: Only one fighter

"I am stealing this question from one of our members who expressed his opinion to me but here is a hypothetical question: In 1940, in the US, the Roosevelt administration decrees that all future development and production of fighters shall cease except for one fighter and that all development and production will focus on that one design for the duration of the impending war Which fighter aircraft should it be? "

Does this help you comprehend the question

But your interpretation is that you pick the fighter, then produce nothing but that version and make no improvements.. OK with me if that is the way you interpreted it. Take your F4F and try to compete with the XF4U then, or your F4F and compete with the NA-73, or XP47 or XP38.. you are free to think what you think - All of them had production orders in 1940 - is that ok with you?

Who were we fighting in 1940 that would have cost us a war if we had not gone F4F instead? All of these ships were in full production in 1942.

Did you have a crystal ball that could see accurately into the future in 1940?
If so, you should have lent your talents to the US government.
A lot of soldiers who never came back from that conflict could've thanked you for saving their lives.

I'm not sure I am clever enough to trade insults with you so I will pass

-------------------

You guys must remember to stay within the confines of what was available in 1940, since that's a key part of the original question.

So, you think YOU got the question that Rich posed, and everyone else is stupid but you?

Not what was "under developement", but available.

See above or initial post which ever helps you

The main choices at that time would've been the F4F and the P-40, so I'm looking at it from the aspect as those are my two front runners.

Good for you. The YP38 was ordered in 1939 so you would have picked the P-40 and F4F over it? The P-51A received 320 orders for it in March, 1940. you like the P-40 better?

Between them, I'd choose the F4F.
All of this talk about the Corsair, while interesting, is really moot to this thread.

Elvis

There has been another Elvis sighting, sigh.

renrich · 11-27-2007, 04:53 PM

Elvis, thank you so much for explaining to me what X stands for! Since I am the one who started the thread, I think I know what was intended. My intention was that if the war department decided in 1940 that all the aircraft manufacturers should concentrate only on one fighter AC for the future and that fighter would either be in production or development during the year 1940, what fighter would you choose. To me the fighters available under that definition would be: P39, P40, P38, P51, P47, F2A, F4F, F4U. The reason I brought up the XF4U to you was that the prototype for the F4U already had a great deal more performance than the F4F. The F4F was a great AC for it's day and held the line in the Pacific until 1943 and derivatives of it served throughout the war. In my opinion one of the best fighter pilots of the war got all his kills in it. Fellow by the name of Joe Foss. However, the F4F had not much potential to be developed beyond the F2M series and the only reason the average pilot in the Marines or Navy stood a chance versus the A6M was by using superior tactics. Read the pilot reports after Midway if you want to get an idea about the F4F and it's capabilities against the A6M. I hope my intentions as far as this thread is concerned are clear to you now. I would also mention that this forum is filled with some very knowledgable people, myself not necessarily included, so I have learned to conduct myself(at least some of the time) as if I am a novice and there are a bunch of experten ready to pounce as soon as I stick my neck out and act like a know it all.

The Basket · 11-27-2007, 05:41 PM

I would see what is the best enemy aircraft out there which would have been the Bf 109E and built the best to match it. The Wildcat doesn't really do that.

Could the Americans have built an aircraft to match the Emil in the 1940 timeframe which could have been sold to the French and RAF? To fight the Germans then?

Picking one fighter is a real bad idea if the tail starts falling of like the Hawker Typhoons did...or needed a new engine like the Fw 190. crash program or not...The quick Spitfire fix would be very tempting if I was expecting enemy aircraft over American cities in 1940.

SoD Stitch · 11-27-2007, 06:09 PM

I'm still sticking with the P-38; when it was introduced in 1940 in the form of the YP-38, it was the fastest military aircraft in the world (400+ mph). Although not as maneuverable as a single-engine fighter (I don't think anybody will argue with that), if used properly, it could hold it's own against Axis aircraft, particularly Japanese a/c. And, as I mentioned a few posts above, it still had a lot of room for improvement in case of future developments (like the Merlin, dive flaps, etc.).

lesofprimus · 11-27-2007, 06:59 PM

Ummm, how about the Naval variant???? Like to see THAT tail with an arrestor hook on it...

SoD Stitch · 11-27-2007, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lesofprimus

Ummm, how about the Naval variant???? Like to see THAT tail with an arrestor hook on it...

Good point; would it have one tail hook, or two? And if it had one, where would you put it? On the horizontal stabilizer? Would probably rip the tail off . . . .

magnocain · 11-27-2007, 09:22 PM

Quote:

Ummm, how about the Naval variant???? Like to see THAT tail with an arrestor hook on it...

Mabey they could put a really long arrestor hook at the end of the cockpit(cockpit...pod...thing... you know what im talking about)!

I would pick the f4u.

What about the beaufighter?

Njaco · 11-28-2007, 07:17 AM

Quote:

You guys must remember to stay within the confines of what was available in 1940, since that's a key part of the original question.
Not what was "under developement", but available.

"The XF4U-1 was flown for the first time on 29 May 1940 demonstrating outstanding performance from the very beginning, and during a flight between Stratford and Hartford, Conn. on 1 October 1940, a speed of 404 mph (650kp/h) was attained, singling this prototype out as the first US fighter to exceed a speed of 400 mph in level flight." American Aircraft of WWII pg 234.

I think with that in mind, the Corsair looked to be the most promising for the US and it appeared to be available. A design that is flying and testing would count. Variants and add-ons can come later but when you're gonna focus on one design, its the Corsair.

renrich · 11-28-2007, 09:19 AM

On the subject of substituting engine of higher power in various AC, (like putting the Merlin in the P3

a higher power engine does not always mean a great improvement in performance. Examples: the P40 got the Merlin but not much performance improvement and the F2G got the R3350 but hardly improved on the performance of the F4U4. The reason the Merlin helped the P51 was because of a really low drag air frame and wing and because it kept the power up high where that low drag would allow the AC to really boogie.

SoD Stitch · 11-28-2007, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by renrich

On the subject of substituting engine of higher power in various AC, (like putting the Merlin in the P38 ) a higher power engine does not always mean a great improvement in performance. Examples: the P40 got the Merlin but not much performance improvement and the F2G got the R3350 but hardly improved on the performance of the F4U4. The reason the Merlin helped the P51 was because of a really low drag air frame and wing and because it kept the power up high where that low drag would allow the AC to really boogie.

Yeah, I don't think the actual speed of the P-38 would've improved much, but it would've had better high altitude performance, and it definitely would've had more reliable engines (it's main problem in the ETO).

I was also somewhat surprised, initially, to find out that the performance of the Corsair didn't improve much when they installed the P&W R-4360. Obviously, it wasn't enough of an improvement to put the F2G into production, because only 10 examples were ever made before the War ended. Several were "surplused" out to the Unlimited racing crowd after the War, and competed successfully with hot-rodded Bearcats, Mustangs, and Sea Fury's in the late '40s and early '50's.

renrich · 11-28-2007, 02:14 PM

Did I get the engine wrong in the F2G? I was doing it by memory but please excuse.

Elvis · 12-01-2007, 05:02 AM

Ok, before this turns into some kind of blood bath and I'm marked as some kind of "bad guy", let me apologize to renrich and drgndog if I offended them.
I didn't mean to.
renrich, I can only work off the information I read in the initial post.
Your last posting better qualified that question you originally asked.
Thanks for clarifying that.
I suppose, given the further expanation of the original statement, I would have to say that maybe its not one single design that would've been best, but maybe a marriage of the best points of several "more desireable" designs?

...or maybe not, since that may result in aircraft assembled by "comittee".

Of course renrich did mention that whatever aircraft was selected, did not neccessarily have to be the epitome of aricraft design of its day, since we're given the chance to work with the design and develop it into something all forces could use.

In my case, that may mean that, should the F4F be accepted, maybe the "development outcome" would've been the F6F, just sooner than it had actually happened (of course, without that crashed Zero to use as a test mule, a lot of developement would've been more "guesswork" than the actual flight characteristic data they did have to work with, resulting in an aircraft that may have been slightly inferior to the actual F6F).

This also brings to mind the fact that its often been said that the Allison V-12 was never developed to its fullest potential.
Basing the "single fighter" on one that used that engine, could've also showed what it was capable of.

My problem with liquid cooled engines is that the cooling system is more fragile than the air-cooling of a radial engine and thus, that's just one more thing to go wrong.

Given all of this, including the further qualifying of Renrich's question, it seems to me that maybe the "best" aricraft to pick may have been the P-47.
It had superior firepower and armour, was tougher than rawhide, could be easily adapated for carrier use, could carry a decent bomb load (when/if needed), could easily be adapted to a non-fighter role (such as an air ambulance - all you Vietnam era guys, think "Sandy") and was agile and fast.

Given all that, its a pretty hard design not to pick.

...and before you guys rag all over me, its not that I have anything against the F4U.

Elvis

Elvis · 12-01-2007, 05:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by renrich

Did I get the engine wrong in the F2G? I was doing it by memory but please excuse.

this might help.

Elvis

Njaco · 12-01-2007, 06:35 AM

Quote:

...and before you guys rag all over me, its not that I have anything against the F4U.

"Room 12 for an Argument - Mr. Barnard."

Elvis, I think the only stumbling block would be "what was available". Many designs were in development and the few that were created "during" the war, wasn't until 1941. So the question of what was available in 1940 kinda restricted the options. You make a great post and without a first-hand knowledge, I ask, was the P-47 in development or actually available?

11-27-2007, 06:59 PM	#51
lesofprimus Minister of Whoopass Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Long Island Native in Mississippi Posts: 18,463	Ummm, how about the Naval variant???? Like to see THAT tail with an arrestor hook on it... __________________ My IL2 Video Tribute to My Grandfather: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtzN5RuNNJk My 1/32nd Rendition of His Corsair: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/2-p...3-a-20416.html

12-01-2007, 05:02 AM	#58
Elvis Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Little Norway, U.S.A. Posts: 816	Ok, before this turns into some kind of blood bath and I'm marked as some kind of "bad guy", let me apologize to renrich and drgndog if I offended them. I didn't mean to. renrich, I can only work off the information I read in the initial post. Your last posting better qualified that question you originally asked. Thanks for clarifying that. I suppose, given the further expanation of the original statement, I would have to say that maybe its not one single design that would've been best, but maybe a marriage of the best points of several "more desireable" designs? ...or maybe not, since that may result in aircraft assembled by "comittee". Of course renrich did mention that whatever aircraft was selected, did not neccessarily have to be the epitome of aricraft design of its day, since we're given the chance to work with the design and develop it into something all forces could use. In my case, that may mean that, should the F4F be accepted, maybe the "development outcome" would've been the F6F, just sooner than it had actually happened (of course, without that crashed Zero to use as a test mule, a lot of developement would've been more "guesswork" than the actual flight characteristic data they did have to work with, resulting in an aircraft that may have been slightly inferior to the actual F6F). This also brings to mind the fact that its often been said that the Allison V-12 was never developed to its fullest potential. Basing the "single fighter" on one that used that engine, could've also showed what it was capable of. My problem with liquid cooled engines is that the cooling system is more fragile than the air-cooling of a radial engine and thus, that's just one more thing to go wrong. Given all of this, including the further qualifying of Renrich's question, it seems to me that maybe the "best" aricraft to pick may have been the P-47. It had superior firepower and armour, was tougher than rawhide, could be easily adapated for carrier use, could carry a decent bomb load (when/if needed), could easily be adapted to a non-fighter role (such as an air ambulance - all you Vietnam era guys, think "Sandy") and was agile and fast. Given all that, its a pretty hard design not to pick. ...and before you guys rag all over me, its not that I have anything against the F4U. Elvis Last edited by Elvis; 12-01-2007 at 05:07 AM.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

11-27-2007, 03:29 AM	#46
Elvis Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Little Norway, U.S.A. Posts: 816	renrich, "X" stands for Xperimental...something to remember. -------------- drgondog, Why are you concerning yourself with what happened after 1940? The original question deals with making a pick of what was available IN 1940 and going with it from there. Did you have a crystal ball that could see accurately into the future in 1940? If so, you should have lent your talents to the US government. A lot of soldiers who never came back from that conflict could've thanked you for saving their lives. ------------------- You guys must remember to stay within the confines of what was available in 1940, since that's a key part of the original question. Not what was "under developement", but available. The main choices at that time would've been the F4F and the P-40, so I'm looking at it from the aspect as those are my two front runners. Between them, I'd choose the F4F. All of this talk about the Corsair, while interesting, is really moot to this thread. Elvis

11-27-2007, 04:53 PM	#48
renrich Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Montrose, Colorado Posts: 3,525	Elvis, thank you so much for explaining to me what X stands for! Since I am the one who started the thread, I think I know what was intended. My intention was that if the war department decided in 1940 that all the aircraft manufacturers should concentrate only on one fighter AC for the future and that fighter would either be in production or development during the year 1940, what fighter would you choose. To me the fighters available under that definition would be: P39, P40, P38, P51, P47, F2A, F4F, F4U. The reason I brought up the XF4U to you was that the prototype for the F4U already had a great deal more performance than the F4F. The F4F was a great AC for it's day and held the line in the Pacific until 1943 and derivatives of it served throughout the war. In my opinion one of the best fighter pilots of the war got all his kills in it. Fellow by the name of Joe Foss. However, the F4F had not much potential to be developed beyond the F2M series and the only reason the average pilot in the Marines or Navy stood a chance versus the A6M was by using superior tactics. Read the pilot reports after Midway if you want to get an idea about the F4F and it's capabilities against the A6M. I hope my intentions as far as this thread is concerned are clear to you now. I would also mention that this forum is filled with some very knowledgable people, myself not necessarily included, so I have learned to conduct myself(at least some of the time) as if I am a novice and there are a bunch of experten ready to pounce as soon as I stick my neck out and act like a know it all.

11-27-2007, 05:41 PM	#49
The Basket Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 626	I would see what is the best enemy aircraft out there which would have been the Bf 109E and built the best to match it. The Wildcat doesn't really do that. Could the Americans have built an aircraft to match the Emil in the 1940 timeframe which could have been sold to the French and RAF? To fight the Germans then? Picking one fighter is a real bad idea if the tail starts falling of like the Hawker Typhoons did...or needed a new engine like the Fw 190. crash program or not...The quick Spitfire fix would be very tempting if I was expecting enemy aircraft over American cities in 1940.

11-27-2007, 06:09 PM	#50
SoD Stitch Banned Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Pine Mountain Lake, California Posts: 981	I'm still sticking with the P-38; when it was introduced in 1940 in the form of the YP-38, it was the fastest military aircraft in the world (400+ mph). Although not as maneuverable as a single-engine fighter (I don't think anybody will argue with that), if used properly, it could hold it's own against Axis aircraft, particularly Japanese a/c. And, as I mentioned a few posts above, it still had a lot of room for improvement in case of future developments (like the Merlin, dive flaps, etc.).

11-28-2007, 09:19 AM	#55
renrich Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Montrose, Colorado Posts: 3,525	On the subject of substituting engine of higher power in various AC, (like putting the Merlin in the P3 a higher power engine does not always mean a great improvement in performance. Examples: the P40 got the Merlin but not much performance improvement and the F2G got the R3350 but hardly improved on the performance of the F4U4. The reason the Merlin helped the P51 was because of a really low drag air frame and wing and because it kept the power up high where that low drag would allow the AC to really boogie.

11-28-2007, 02:14 PM	#57
renrich Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Montrose, Colorado Posts: 3,525	Did I get the engine wrong in the F2G? I was doing it by memory but please excuse.