[Guest]

This is a list of planes that could have realistically seen production and done quite well in combat in a war that was harder on the Americans.

P-67A-1MD - 1944



The Mac Donnel XP-67 Moonbat refitted with either a Packard V-1650 engine or an Allison V-1710 engine with two-stage supercharger in front of each engine nacelle and an GE I-20 turbojet or a Westinghouse 9.5" turbojet in the rear of each nacelle and a new gun selection of either 6 or 8x.50cal machine guns making a high-speed, long-range, and high maneuverability fighter that could have gone into immediate production.

B-42A - 1944



The production configuration of the Douglas XB-42A Mixmaster.

F15C - 1945



The production model of the Curtiss XF15C.

FR-1 - 1945



Actually went operational in March of 1945.

F2R-1/2 - 1946



This would be the production models of the Ryan XF2R Darkshark which was an upgraded FR-1 Fireball that used a turboprop. The F2R-1 would be from the XF2R-1 for the Navy and the F2R-2 is from the XF2R-2 for the Army Air Force. Would have most likely served as an escort fighter along-side the P-81A.

P-81A-1CO - 1945



The production model of the lightened and rearmed Consolidated YP-81 Silver Bullet. It would have served as a high-speed long-range escort fighter.

BTD-2 - 1945



A modified Douglas BTD Destroyer that incorporated jet power.

[Jaegita]

That P-81A-1CO looks very cool!

[caldrail]

This is a list of planes that could have realistically seen production and done quite well in combat

Woah. The aeroplanes above were protoypes, not production ready military aircraft. Test beds and proof of concept in other words. The XP67 had some poor flying characteristics for instance and wasn't any better overall than existing types. The authorities weren't about to disrupt production schedules to make way for another type without good reason. The XP81 might have cut it, but it was also a large, heavy, complex aeroplane which I doubt had the same versatilaty as existing aircraft in the inventory, and in any case, the entire strategic rationale for its acceptance into service was circumvented by events.

[XB-49]

Don't forget the Flying Flapjack



XF5U-1



V-173

The V-173 prototype first flew in 1942. It had a great STOL capability and was structually strong. The V-173 especially could have gone into service as a carrier based reconaissence/liason aircraft or a ground attack craft with 4x .50 machine guns. The XF5U-1 could have been a very good fighter if introduced earlier with an armament of either 6x .50 machine guns or 4x 20mm cannons in the nose and as seen in the prototype STOL capability and high structual strength.

[.041 Safety Wire]

Don't forget the Flying Flapjack



XF5U-1



V-173

The V-173 prototype first flew in 1942. It had a great STOL capability and was structually strong. The V-173 especially could have gone into service as a carrier based reconaissence/liason aircraft or a ground attack craft with 4x .50 machine guns. The XF5U-1 could have been a very good fighter if introduced earlier with an armament of either 6x .50 machine guns or 4x 20mm cannons in the nose and as seen in the prototype STOL capability and high structual strength.

V173 was horrendously underpowered and slow, I don't think it would have made a good ground attack aircraft. In its earlier forms it lacked adequate aileron authority. Boone Guyton had some very unflattering things to say about it.

[Ivan Putski]

The XP-67 Moonbat was designed as a long range bomber interceptor, it had problems with engine fires, a second prototype was under construction with mixed engines when the project was cancelled. The Xp-67 was no longer needed in it`s intended role, as neither Germany, nor Japan proposed a bomber threat. Many other a/c was cancelled for the same reasons, there was no longer a need for further development, when existing models could do the job.

[Kocur]

This is a list of planes that could have realistically seen production and done quite well in combat in a war that was harder on the Americans.

P-67A-1MD - 1944

The Mac Donnel XP-67 Moonbat refitted with either a Packard V-1650 engine or an Allison V-1710 engine with two-stage supercharger in front of each engine nacelle and an GE I-20 turbojet or a Westinghouse 9.5" turbojet in the rear of each nacelle and a new gun selection of either 6 or 8x.50cal machine guns making a high-speed, long-range, and high maneuverability fighter that could have gone into immediate production.

XP-67 with jet engines never got further than "talk" ( http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p67.html ), no way it could have been produced in 1944.

The production configuration of the Douglas XB-42A Mixmaster.

What do you mean "production configuration"...? XB-42 never had any "production configuration" and that particular one couldn't be further away from production, as it was made for purely experimental purposes and flew in March 1947 ( http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b42.html ).

The production model of the Curtiss XF15C.

Same thing, there was no such thing as "production model" of that plane.

The production model of the lightened and rearmed Consolidated YP-81 Silver Bullet.

Someone's fantasy again... YP-81s were never made ( http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p81.html ).

[XB-49]

Don't forget the Flying Flapjack



XF5U-1



V-173

The V-173 prototype first flew in 1942. It had a great STOL capability and was structually strong. The V-173 especially could have gone into service as a carrier based reconaissence/liason aircraft or a ground attack craft with 4x .50 machine guns. The XF5U-1 could have been a very good fighter if introduced earlier with an armament of either 6x .50 machine guns or 4x 20mm cannons in the nose and as seen in the prototype STOL capability and high structual strength.

V173 was horrendously underpowered and slow, I don't think it would have made a good ground attack aircraft. In its earlier forms it lacked adequate aileron authority. Boone Guyton had some very unflattering things to say about it.

Charles Lindbergh didn't say anything was wrong with it. Forget ground attack. :oops:

[Guest]

Now, did anyone who said that these planes were prototypes or haven't seen combat or were not production ready bother to read the top of the post.

"This is a list of planes that could have realistically seen production and done quite well in combat in a war that was harder on the Americans."

Now, the XP-67 could have been put into production right away according to McDonnell. I wonder why. Oh, that's right, because they weren't making any planes. It would have been a realitively easy change too and it was all talked about. Swap out the engines for those mentioned above and replace the cannons with machine guns and start rolling them off the line. Try reading more then just one source next time, like a book. The XP-67 was designed as a bomber interceptor, yes; however, once the need for such a plane no longer existed, there was talk of modifying the plane to be a long range escort with the changes I have listed above. There was also talk about making a gorund attack version of this plane. The escort seems most promising seeing as once the maneuverability problems had mostly been sorted out after original flight testing and since giving it more powerful engines should have sorted out the rest. Fly it like a Merlin powered P-38 with jets and you have a golden escort fighter.

Oh, about the Mixmaster... Let's see here, the first flight was in 1944. Now, let's just say that the war had been more difficult for the Allies. A bomber with an average top speed around 433mph would have been really nice to have. They may have gone to a YB-42, and then to a B-42A.

There were 13 YP-81's ordered. The order was canceled once the need for a faster long range escort was alleviated by capturing vital islands in the Pacific. Now, let's just say that something went wrong and those islands weren't captured. The YP-81's may have been delievered. Low and behold, a P-81A-1CO may have made it in time for Operation Downfall. Look at that...

The XF5U was indeed a great fighter. The only major problem noted was vibrations during takeoff and landing. If circumstances would have been different, it may have been included in the war. The only reason I didn't list it is that this is a list of mixed power fighters. The XF5U only had radials.

Now, I hope that clears everything up. If you people didn't realize that this was theoretical by reading the top line or seeing the production designation of these experimental planes, then I don't know what to say for you. The only plane that got opperational service out of these was the FR-1 Fireball. Hope that sorts everything out.

[Chaoic16]

Now, did anyone who said that these planes were prototypes or haven't seen combat or were not production ready bother to read the top of the post.

"This is a list of planes that could have realistically seen production and done quite well in combat in a war that was harder on the Americans."

Now, the XP-67 could have been put into production right away according to McDonnell. I wonder why. Oh, that's right, because they weren't making any planes. It would have been a realitively easy change too and it was all talked about. Swap out the engines for those mentioned above and replace the cannons with machine guns and start rolling them off the line. Try reading more then just one source next time, like a book. The XP-67 was designed as a bomber interceptor, yes; however, once the need for such a plane no longer existed, there was talk of modifying the plane to be a long range escort with the changes I have listed above. There was also talk about making a gorund attack version of this plane. The escort seems most promising seeing as once the maneuverability problems had mostly been sorted out after original flight testing and since giving it more powerful engines should have sorted out the rest. Fly it like a Merlin powered P-38 with jets and you have a golden escort fighter.

Oh, about the Mixmaster... Let's see here, the first flight was in 1944. Now, let's just say that the war had been more difficult for the Allies. A bomber with an average top speed around 433mph would have been really nice to have. They may have gone to a YB-42, and then to a B-42A.

There were 13 YP-81's ordered. The order was canceled once the need for a faster long range escort was alleviated by capturing vital islands in the Pacific. Now, let's just say that something went wrong and those islands weren't captured. The YP-81's may have been delievered. Low and behold, a P-81A-1CO may have made it in time for Operation Downfall. Look at that...

The XF5U was indeed a great fighter. The only major problem noted was vibrations during takeoff and landing. If circumstances would have been different, it may have been included in the war. The only reason I didn't list it is that this is a list of mixed power fighters. The XF5U only had radials.

Now, I hope that clears everything up. If you people didn't realize that this was theoretical by reading the top line or seeing the production designation of these experimental planes, then I don't know what to say for you. The only plane that got opperational service out of these was the FR-1 Fireball. Hope that sorts everything out.

Your way of thinking is truly brillant! This is perfect example of thinking and seeing toward history in mulit-dimensions way with an alternative history included instead of just seeing history in a single linear way. ONLY if this forum have a features of giving a +1 award, I'd of given that to you.

8)


Chaoic out...

[Loht773]

A plane wich was an X plane but I would recomend anyway (and no, its not a Pulqui!) is the Hughes XF-11. It was a promising aircraft, and 100 were ordered but WW2 ended and the prototype crashed because of an oil leak, wich ment the proyect was to be canceled by the United States goverment. The plane was very handy at high speeds but had handling problems at lower altitudes, it was a hard plane to fly. Wich one the one hand its dangerous but on the other it could be a chalenge to IL-2 pilots therefore, fun!








Cheers!

[XB-49]

A plane wich was an X plane but I would recomend anyway (and no, its not a Pulqui!) is the Hughes XF-11. It was a promising aircraft, and 100 were ordered but WW2 ended and the prototype crashed because of an oil leak, wich ment the proyect was to be canceled by the United States goverment. The plane was very handy at high speeds but had handling problems at lower altitudes, it was a hard plane to fly. Wich one the one hand its dangerous but on the other it could be a chalenge to IL-2 pilots therefore, fun!








Cheers!

Ah, the little b*gger almost killed Mr Hughes. :lol:





It's not a mixed power aircraft but it could have seen service (invasion of Japan?) if Hughes wasn't so picky with it and were given more materials to build it.



Scale comparision to a C-47! hock:

It's massive with a length of 218 ft, wingspan of 319 ft and height of 79 ft. It has the capacity to carry 750 fully armed troops or a Sherman tank. It has a range of 4,800 km cruising speed of 354 km/h and a service ceiling of 20,900 ft. It will probably be a massive challenge to fly and easy picking for just about anything making it therefore fun to fly.

[rossmum]

The XF-11 would be really nice to have ingame as far as X-planes go (I'd rather see more WWII birds first, but I would like to fly the XF-11 at some point). Now the Tainan team have got working contra-props, it's not like it'd be impossible, either.

[Kocur]

Now, did anyone who said that these planes were prototypes or haven't seen combat or were not production ready bother to read the top of the post.

"This is a list of planes that could have realistically seen production and done quite well in combat in a war that was harder on the Americans."

What attracts my attention is excess of optimism in that word...

Now, the XP-67 could have been put into production right away according to McDonnell. I wonder why. Oh, that's right, because they weren't making any planes. It would have been a realitively easy change too and it was all talked about. Swap out the engines for those mentioned above and replace the cannons with machine guns and start rolling them off the line. Try reading more then just one source next time, like a book.

If I were to return the favour, I would suggest to try to read about how much time it takes to test prototypes before "production configuration" is reached and then how much time it takes then to prepare production lines. Then there is a lot of time between planes leaving plants and first units being combat-ready. Like F8F: ordered in November 1943, prototype flying in August 1944 and first unit combat-ready in May-June 1945, and yet not making it to war. And that was a plane with no novelties, like new engines, all 100% well known technology, no change of propultion during development.
Could there have been mixed-power P-67? Sure it could, as it was well in envelope of technological capabilities. Could it have been realistically combat ready during WW2? No, not really.

Of course it takes no effort to change assumptions in one's alternative history. Like...
Could US WW2 fighters have been armed with modern Gatling guns? Sure they could! All it would take would be merely starting the program somewhere in 1920s instead of 1946, to get the same results as in reality after 18 years. Or twice shorter, had the desingers worked twice as hard. Or four times shorter, had they worked four times as hard...

[caldrail]

Now, did anyone who said that these planes were prototypes or haven't seen combat or were not production ready bother to read the top of the post.

"This is a list of planes that could have realistically seen production and done quite well in combat in a war that was harder on the Americans."

Now, the XP-67 could have been put into production right away according to McDonnell. I wonder why. Oh, that's right, because they weren't making any planes. It would have been a realitively easy change too and it was all talked about. Swap out the engines for those mentioned above and replace the cannons with machine guns and start rolling them off the line. Try reading more then just one source next time, like a book. The XP-67 was designed as a bomber interceptor, yes; however, once the need for such a plane no longer existed, there was talk of modifying the plane to be a long range escort with the changes I have listed above. There was also talk about making a gorund attack version of this plane. The escort seems most promising seeing as once the maneuverability problems had mostly been sorted out after original flight testing and since giving it more powerful engines should have sorted out the rest. Fly it like a Merlin powered P-38 with jets and you have a golden escort fighter.

Your enthusiasm for the XP67 is noted, but all the same, McDonnell were being a bit optimistic when they said it was production ready. It wasn't even close.
In December 1943, at the start of the testing programme, the experimental Continental engines caught fire and new ones weren't available to allow flight testing until March 1944. USAAF pilots found the aircraft had poor acceleration, a long take off run, an unimpressive climb rate, and in flight the aeroplane was found to be only neutrally stable laterally and thus tended to 'dutch roll'. Mr Green had this to say...

Official performance tests were be undertaken in September 1944, but on the 6th of that month the XP67 was irreperably damaged by fire. This accident, the unsatisfactory nature of certain aspects of the fighters performance, and the inordinate amount of time to complete the second prototype combined to result in the termination of the development contract.
Warplanes of the Second World War: Fighters, Volume Four (William Green)

The XP81 was on target for service with the USAAF, but the end of the war terminated the development contract. A production order for the Ryan Fireball (something like 1000 airframes were scheduled) was cancelled for the same reason and only 26 examples were delivered. The 'Flying Flapjack' was an experimental prototype and wouldn't have been considered for production as a military machine. It was more likely the company designers would have used any research data considered useful to design a purpose-built military aeroplane based on the same principles - which they didn't, as I understand it (But I'm wrong about that, see the 'Flapjack' link below)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_XP-67
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consolidated_Vultee_XP-81
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FR_Fireball
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XB-42_Mixmaster
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_flapjack