A most efficient, less expensive and easily produced strategic bomber for WW II

[Draco]

Thanks Dibble, I hadn't seen them.
too bad they didn't use the 4 blades from the start, allowing the laden M to cruise slightly faster with the same fuel consumption or to escape fighters even easier.

[Dibble201Bty]

Thanks Dibble, I hadn't seen them.
too bad they didn't use the 4 blades from the start, allowing the laden M to cruise slightly faster with the same fuel consumption or to escape fighters even easier.

From: MOSQUITO, C. Martin Sharp & Michael J.F. Bowyer Pages 47-48

"Tests with W4050 on 21st July 1942 were made with 4-blade Hydromatic propellers. At about 15,000ft surging occurred, at first put down to a new constant-speed unit, so three-bladed airscrews were fitted....Twice radiators cracked and were repaired, and three and four-bladed airscrews were compared, along with tropical intakes....Comparisons of three and four-bladed airscrews followed, there being little to choose between them"

Paul

[Nick the Noodle]

Nick,
Sorry no Jeep.

Damn . His alternatives were better than yours .

Hopefully he will return .

[Nebfer]

The F4U competed against the F5F and was beaten. It required a hell of a lot of money, time and modifications and even the final product in 1944 produced less thrust and much more torque than the F5F, was more expensive with its seagull wing and went down if the engine failed in mid Ocean.

the prototypes of the Corsair was already braking 400mph by the time of that "decisive" test, the X5F was having difficulty even reaching 360mph, and that was with out armament, armor and a host of other equipment.

The P-38 was much more expensive than the F5F and its watercooled engines were much less reliable.

Do you have evidence that it was cheaper to build? Where is this stated? Out side of you who has wrote or stated that it was cheaper to build?

Solving an undercarriage problem, producing large numbers of small, reliable, bored-out engines and props and using the F5F for the navy and air force and also the P-51 for the air force and marines made a lot more sense than wasting a fortune producing the lousy P-38, 39, 40, 47, F4F, F6F, F4U and causing a production, training, maintenance and logistics nightmare.
It only took the US about a century to develop a fighter for all armed forces and a rdicisulously expensive one.

But I don't expect people who regard the Doolittle raid, Nimitz, the B-29, Hellcat, Sherman, etc, as the greatest assets to ever understand that

The F6F out flew it's opponents, the F4F managed to end up with a positive kill count, Our highest scoring aces flew the P38. Lousy planes would not have that recored.

Here's a fun page for you
http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/SAC.htm
It has the Flight data for the XF5F-1 the XF4U-1 and even the F6F-3 &-5

The data is Damming of the XF5F-1

Per the data it reaches a top speed of 358 mph at 17,300 feet and takes 4.2 minutes to reach 10,000 feet, with a ceiling of 34,500 feet. Range with 168 Gal of fuel is 780 miles at 168mph. It also has no armament.

Lets compare it to an F6F-3 Hellcat (standard production model)
Max speed is 372 mph at 18,000 feet
Time to 10,000 feet is 3.2 minutes, ceiling is 38,800 feet
Range is 950 miles at 160 mph with 250 gals of fuel

This aircraft is equipped with 6x 50 cal MGs with 400 rds per gun and 400 pounds of armor plate.

The XF4U-2 also has better performance
Time to 10,000 feet 3.8 minutes, 33,700 foot ceiling, max speed around 380 mph and a range of 760 miles at 180 mph with 178 gals, and it's armed.

Ouch, these lousy planes are beating that wonder plane that manages to have inferior performance even though it has no armor plate and weapons!

So based on these data points (available at the link I posted) why would the navy want the XF5F-1?

By the Way the F-35 you deride as being expensive is currently cheaper than some European fighters...

[Draco]

The navy and the army acted completely independently. The navy ruined the design by changing the P & W engine chosen by Grumman (which were used for the successful F4F). The army ordered the XP-50 and after wasting money scrapped it when an engine caused a crash.

It is obvious that with a little common snese and less arrogance the navy and army should have allowed Grumman free hand and plenty of resources to develop a much less expensive and more reliable fighter than the P-38, which was actually too a little too fast for the Zero and Ki-43.

It does not take a genius to see that a sleek plane with two of the same engines of an F4F, slightly larger wing area and designed by teh same company can have much higher speed, better visibility, survivability and range and carry more ammo It can alse make a much better bomber (as the P-38 was) and torpedo plane (like the Beaufighter).

The plane is even more formidable if the engine is bored out to increase HP 10% with the same weight.

Actually, it is surprising that the British and AMericans did not collaborate to design a naval fighter.

The P-51 was not designed in collaboration, but was greatly improved when the best British engine and prop were used on the best and much easily produced American wing and fuselage (compared to the Spitfire).

It is interesting in your source that in the late 1930s American experts concluded that the ideal single engine fighter would have liquid-cooled engine (like the P-51 and unlike the F4F, F6F, F4U or P-47) and the ideal fighter would have air-cooled engines (like the F5F, Beaufighter and Black Widow and unlike the P-38 & Mosquito).

[Hida Akechi]

The navy and the army acted completely independently. The navy ruined the design by changing the P & W engine chosen by Grumman (which were used for the successful F4F). The army ordered the XP-50 and after wasting money scrapped it when an engine caused a crash.

The F5F was a bust from the start. A sideshow. A distraction. The US made the correct decisions with the aircraft it ended up producing. Get over yourself. This isn't comic-book world. Junk heap contraptions sometimes are just junk heap contraptions.

[quote]It is obvious that with a little common snese and less arrogance the navy and army should have allowed Grumman free hand and plenty of resources to develop a much less expensive and more reliable fighter than the P-38, which was actually too a little too fast for the Zero and Ki-43.[quote]

You shouldn't use the term "common sense" until you actually find out what it means. Then you can show some. The arrogance part you got down.

It does not take a genius to see that a sleek plane with two of the same engines of an F4F, slightly larger wing area and designed by teh same company can have much higher speed, better visibility, survivability and range and carry more ammo It can alse make a much better bomber (as the P-38 was) and torpedo plane (like the Beaufighter).

None of those things were true. If they were, the F5F would have been put into production. It wasn't.

The plane is even more formidable if the engine is bored out to increase HP 10% with the same weight.

The hell it was. Nothing was "formidable" about that aircraft except the list of problems that had to be overcome before it was even considered seriously.

Actually, it is surprising that the British and AMericans did not collaborate to design a naval fighter.

The P-51 was not designed in collaboration, but was greatly improved when the best British engine and prop were used on the best and much easily produced American wing and fuselage (compared to the Spitfire).

It is interesting in your source that in the late 1930s American experts concluded that the ideal single engine fighter would have liquid-cooled engine (like the P-51 and unlike the F4F, F6F, F4U or P-47) and the ideal fighter would have air-cooled engines (like the F5F, Beaufighter and Black Widow and unlike the P-38 & Mosquito).

Um...

[Nebfer]

The navy and the army acted completely independently. The navy ruined the design by changing the P & W engine chosen by Grumman (which were used for the successful F4F). The army ordered the XP-50 and after wasting money scrapped it when an engine caused a crash.

Oh? The original engine was the P&W R-1535-96 - 825 hp, They substituted a Wright R-1820-40/42 1,200 HP eng

Also note said crash was of the only prototype, which means time wasted building a second prototype, of a plane that at the time dose not seem to be much better than current aircraft.

It does not take a genius to see that a sleek plane with two of the same engines of an F4F, slightly larger wing area and designed by teh same company can have much higher speed, better visibility, survivability and range and carry more ammo It can alse make a much better bomber (as the P-38 was) and torpedo plane (like the Beaufighter).

Higher speed? Nope the plane had a top speed with it's twin 1,200 HP engines of just under 360 mph at 17,000 feet. As we seem to have to keep reminding you that this was the performance of a aircraft that has yet to fly with 4x 50 cal MGs (~250 lbs) 1,600 rd of ammo (~420 lbs), 400 to 1,000 pounds of armor, who knows how much weight the self sealing fuel tanks would added, your looking at 1,200 to 2,000 pounds of extra weight, even with the bored out engines providing 1,350 HP (each) performance is going to suffer a fair bit. Never mind the weight required to fix some of the other issues the plane had, or other improvements, like folding wings (roughly 400 lbs, if the Wildcat is anything to go by). And you still think this plane would of been a far better plane than the Corsair which by the time the Skyrocket was canceled was braking 400mph, a speed the Skyrocket was unlikely to reach, the Hellcat also had better flight performance then the unequipped Skyrocket had. I gave you the official flight performance data both the Corsair and Hellcat where better in every category.

The plane is even more formidable if the engine is bored out to increase HP 10% with the same weight.

Not with a roughly 20% increase in weight at the lest for a combat model.
And this dose not factor in requirements for dive bombing...

Keep in mind if the plane was as good as you said it was then the USN would of put it into production, they would of been stupid not to, build a bunch of wildcats until it comes online in roughly 1943. But they did not, they only built a single prototype, if it was worth seriously looking into they likely would of built a few more to explore it's capability's a bit more.

Actually, it is surprising that the British and AMericans did not collaborate to design a naval fighter.

Perhaps they did, but why would they? The two have different operational practices and requirements that makes it difficult to cooperate on these things, what may be acceptable for the US might be unworkable for the British.

[Dibble201Bty]

It is interesting in your source that in the late 1930s American experts concluded that the ideal single engine fighter would have liquid-cooled engine (like the P-51 and unlike the F4F, F6F, F4U or P-47) and the ideal fighter would have air-cooled engines (like the F5F, Beaufighter and Black Widow and unlike the P-38 & Mosquito).

What's that meant to mean? I do hope you you are not sideswiping my beloved Mosquito as a heap of junk or at least, not very good?

Paul

[Draco]

Only as a fighter. A crew of 2, liquid cooled engines (vulnerable) and a large wing are not good characteristics for a fighter.
It was excellent as a bomber which could outrun fighters and was difficult for Flak to hit.

Although the MMM is better, less expensive and much easier to make.

[Dibble201Bty]

Only as a fighter. A crew of 2, liquid cooled engines (vulnerable) and a large wing are not good characteristics for a fighter.
It was excellent as a bomber which could outrun fighters and was difficult for Flak to hit.

Although the MMM is better, less expensive and much easier to make.

BBB? MMM? What the heck do they mean?

So far people are tolerating your thread and contributing to it. Making it less understandable and moving from bomber to fighter concepts make it even more a mess.

The Mosquito was only conceived as a fighter in it's original MkII and Night Fighter types, thereafter together with a handfull of High altitude Mk NF XV's 'which was another four bladed airscrew Mosquito', the Mosquito was mainly a fighter bomber & Bomber capable of holding it's own in a dog-fight in certain situations.

Essentially the Mosquito was a:

Photographic Reconnaissance
Fighter ( day/night long range fighter MkII)
Day and Night Bomber
Night-Fighter
Fighter-Bomber
Trainer
Meteorological Reconnaissance
Coastal Strike
Bomber support
Airliner
Intruder and Ranger
Pathfinder and target marker
Torpedo-Reconnaissance (for carrier use)
Torpedo-Fighter/Bomber
Target Tug.

I'm sure that bolting a couple of air-cooled engines to the Mosquito would have made it half the plane it was.

Paul

[Draco]

If you read back a few posts BBB is the triple B-17, by extension, MMM is the triple Mosquito.

That's what I mean, the Mosquito was excellent for many roles, just not an idieal fighter.

[Dibble201Bty]

Seeing as this Thread is a bit 'odd'. Here's something to peruse.

Paul

[Draco]

The Whirlwind is an excellent example of a missed opportunity for utter lack of common sense in RAF.
The British wasted excellent Merlin engines on lousy planes at a critical time (Defiant, Battle, etc) and used the lousy RR Peregrine for the Whirlwind.

Had they not produced any of the ridiculous planes and designed the Whirlwind to use Merlins, it would have been a formidable bomber destroyer during the BoB, which the Bf-109 could not chase.

The Merlin Whirlwind is much faster and more maneuverable than Mossie, a nighmare for Göring. It is also a very much better and infinitely more survivable bomber than the slow Battle (which had a crew of 3, so it resulted in heavy casualties).

Incredibly, the twin engine Whirlwind has very similar wing area to the Spitfire (250 Vs.241 ft2) and smaller than the Battle's (422 ft2) and exactly the same as the Defiant (which had a very heavy 4 MG turret!).
A Merlin Defiant with a 400 ft2 wing would have been ideal (high speed and rate of climb). over 1,000 Defiants and 2,000 Battles were made. 1,000 Merlin Whirlwinds would have cost much less than the 3,000 aberrations and kicked butt.

[T. A. Gardner]

The Whirlwind is an excellent example of a missed opportunity for utter lack of common sense in RAF.
The British wasted excellent Merlin engines on lousy planes at a critical time (Defiant, Battle, etc) and used the lousy RR Peregrine for the Whirlwind.

The Whirlwind couldn't fit a Merlin and was the only aircraft in RAF use using the Peregrine engine. Hence, the decision to end Peregrine production in favor of expanding Merlin production and with the end of the former production of the Whirlwind ended too.

Had they not produced any of the ridiculous planes and designed the Whirlwind to use Merlins, it would have been a formidable bomber destroyer during the BoB, which the Bf-109 could not chase.

When Westland developed the Whirlwind the Peregrine was in production and the Merlin wasn't. It was a reasonable move to use a proven engine instead of an unproven one.

The Merlin Whirlwind is much faster and more maneuverable than Mossie, a nighmare for Göring. It is also a very much better and infinitely more survivable bomber than the slow Battle (which had a crew of 3, so it resulted in heavy casualties).

The Merlin Whirlwind would be called a Welkin. Of course, you don't know that like you don't know much of anything. That's right, Westland did build the Whirlwind equivalent in a Merlin engine plane.... The Welkin.



And, no it's not better than a Mosquito except as a high altitude fighter and even then not by any wide margin.

[Draco]

No, the Welkin was another useless aberration with an extremely long and thick wing with terrible compressibility problems and lousy maneuverability (low rate of roll, etc,)

Think of the Merlin-Whilrwind with a 400 ft2 wing as an enhanced fighter Mosquito (crew of 1, narrower, shorter fuselage and slightly smaller wing and horizontal stabilizer area, reduced fuel capacity and bomb load and better maneuverability). A superb fighter.