Sitting around chatting the other day and someone asked me “What was the first all metal aircraft to fly ?” I said that I didn’t know but I know a man who does 😉
Over to you.

The honour is given to the Junkers J1 in all the refs, and I can find no reason to doubt it.

But floating around in that loose pile of disorganised info commonly called my brain is a vague recollection that there was a pre WW1 French design which was built but did not fly. If I can remember where I saw that (if indeed I did, and it wasn’t the grog) I’ll post it. :confused:

Boy I bet there were some red faces over this…

http://www.gunnies.pac.com.au/gallery/grand_slam.htm

Sounds a little apocryphal to me – still sillier things have happened. Back in the early 20th Century a well known collector of American Civil War relics used two fully loaded shells as andirons in his fire place – after several years of winter fires they blew up and took the house with them.

After the Civil War many surplus musket barrels were sold as fence posts – many turned out to contain full loads. So there might be some truth in the story.

Malcolm – I suspect the question was asked because it could produce some intereresting discussions on a scenario that ‘almost might have happened’. The P-40 was available in late 1940, so it is certainly not comparable to asking ‘what if the RAF had Hawker Hunters in the BoB?’.

Threads such as this should be joined in the spirit in which they were created.

The points regarding RAF armament selction are very valid.

Late 1940 is the operative phrase – in fact post BoB. Therefore my example of the Hawker Hunter is perfectly valid if equally imaginary. Frankly I can’t see what the problem is. If he had asked what if the RAF had P36s then it might have become an even plausible “what if” – though why anyone would wish those obsolete junk heaps on Dowding and his troops I cannot imagine.

What if questions are silly, they don’t add anything to the study of aviation history and they are scientifically invalid. I am not apologising for being harsh on this because I am a professional and well qualified historian MA, PH.D etc.

I don’t mind if people have a little fun, but getting upset because I politely pointed out that his original scenario lacked historical credibility is, IMHO indefensible. P36s perhaps, even Dewoitine D520s or the MS406 fit historically. The P40C does not – what more can I say. Should someone go and smooth his ruffled feathers. :confused:

I know, let’s take it to its most bizarre extreme and ask what if the British had not had any Spitfires or Hurricanes and instead were licence producing the BF109Es – nows there’s a really silly scenario that “what iffers” would love.

I used to like this forum because people actually talked about real aircraft and history – now I am seriously doubting its value.

My dear Mr. McKay, that is what we do here, discuss what was and what could have been/might have been….if you don’t like it, don’t subscribe to the thread. Lord knows we would’nt want you to use your imagination, god forbid. Relevance has nothing to do with it…it was a combat fought 65 years ago and there’s nothing NOW that we can do to change it (except create a time machine and go back with the schematics for all the bigger and better planes of WWII…or for that matter of the Jet age, and change history). MY BOOK on WWII planes says the top speed of the P-40C was 345 miles an hour at 15,000 ft-YOURS may say something different…let’s assume it’s somewhere in between. Obviously anything under 350 MPH was NOT the optimal speed for fighting in the skies of europe in a WWII fighter, and maneuverability at height was a must. Question answered. Pertinence has nothing to do with it, and you don’t have to be insulting in your response. It is that kind of ‘attitude’ that has members of this forum leaving for OTHER forums.

M

Dear me, I am sorry if you view my answer as insulting to you.

I was simply pointing out the facts concerning the P40C, its availability, performance and possible relevance in the BoB. If you had wanted me to agree entirely with your imagined scenario then you should have asked.

I am always polite and happy to help, if asked politely. Now I have put my polite hat on – the P40C was the answer to the RAF’s prayers in the BoB. Its superior performance to the Spitfire and Hurricane and the fact that the RAF failed to call upon the thousands that were available and the pilots trained to fly them, is entirely responsible for Britain nearly losing the BoB.

See I stand corrected. :p

Can anyone possibly tell me the AVERAGE height of Luftwaffe Heinkels and Dorniers when the came in on their bombing runs over UK cities? THis may help to determine whether or not the P-40’s would have been of any use in attacking them….but I have to believe either way that they COULD be attacked by the P-40’s, even if their performance was’nt optimized for that altitude…I show a max service ceiling for the C model of 32,400 ft, with an optimized SPEED height of 15,000 ft (345 mph)….

M

Makes no difference really – average height of the German bombers was around 15,000 or above. Sometimes lower, but the real problem as far as you are concerned is that the P40 family was not available. The P40E was not developed until 1941 and the P40C was not available in any quantity worth a damn in 1940 (even in America). The first P40Cs used by the British were ex-French contract and were not delivered until late 1940 (after the BoB), and were diverted to the ME. Bear in mind that the top speed of the P40C was only 328 mph, which was at 15,000 feet. Below and above this dropped off.

In 1941 some were trialled in Britain, not as fighters but as Army Co-op aircraft (like the Allison engined P51s were later) as low level recon a/c. They were found to be totally inadequate for combat in the European theatre. Poor perfomance at altitude over 15,000 feet and below par beneath that – just because they could fly higher doesn’t mean they could actually do anything when they were there.

In 1941 a top speed of 328 mph at 15,000 feet was asking for trouble. They did not last long and remaining a/c were sent to the ME, where conditions were less dangerous for them.

So apart from the fact that they weren’t available for use in the BoB the other problem is that the British defence was built around quantity production of two fighters (Hurricane & Spitfire) and the engine (Merlin) which powered them. To have used any other fighter in quantity would have required new factories for both aircraft and engines which would have been a waste of resources because the real problem was pilot numbers not aircraft numbers.

Your question about the possible use of P40s in the BoB is as pertinent as asking would the BoB been over quicker if the RAF had Hawker Hunters available. Except that with the P40 the RAF would have lost the BoB – why? because you can’t fight a battle with something that wasn’t available.

They stripped it of just about everything that wasn’t needed to make it fly. The cut the top open to load the torpedos from above & this resulted in the worlds only open cockpit B17.
There was a funny part when they’re on the way back from a test & therefore somewhat light in their stripped down form. They come up alongside a formation of B24’s whereupon the copilot stands up in the cockpit & salutes the B24’s as they accelerate past in their open cockpit bomber 😀

….thereby proving that a B17 was faster than a B24….

Actually those aircraft were modified to be remote controlled flying bombs. The cut away cockpit was to allow the pilot who was responsible for take off to bail out once the accompanying control a/c took over. John F Kennedy’s older brother Joseph was involved in these experiments.

Seriously the B17 was quite incapable of lifting any of the larger British bombs its useful bomb load was about that of a Wellington. Its bomb bay was quite incapable of modifications for anything larger than the standard American 1000 pounders.

The only US aircraft capable of lifting the Tallboy and Grand Slam was the B29 and that was only done after the war.

The P40C would have been quite useless in the BoB simply because its best combat altitude was well below where the action was happening. It might have had some chance against low level raiders if they had played fair and throttled back so it could catch up.

They weren’t all that hot in N Africa either where the slower Italian types were their preferred prey. The later P40E was good at low altitude (below c.15,000 feet) but only if the Luftwaffe was feeling playful and wanted to give them a chance.

Both the P40C and the E put their 50 cals to better use straffing ground targets or, in dive passes on unsuspecting enemy aircraft where their weight and speed built up in a dive gave then the velocity to get out of harm’s way if they missed.

As for Buffalos and Martlets in the BoB I think the result would have been Swastikas flying over Buckingham Palace. Seriously there were no American aircraft capable of taking on the Luftwaffe and winning in 1040 or 1941, Only by 1943 when the P38 and P47 came on stream, and 1944 when the P51 was available did the US have fighters that were on par with either British or German aircraft.

I think just how woefully inadequate American fighters like the P40, P39, Buffalo or F4F were is never quite understood. Ground attack capability is all well and good but fighter v fighter combat in Europe was way out of their league. Even the Buffalos combat record in Finland was owed only to the fact that the Russians never fielded an A team there until late 1944, and when that happened Finland folded very quickly.

Better vision – remember that the biplane fighters that aircraft like the Spitfire superseded had great all round vision, and for many pilots the enclosed cockpits of the higher performance fighters were initially received with some resistance.

The change to bubble type canopies would have been sooner but unframed perspex canopy construction was in its infancy. The original bulged canopy on the highback Spitfires was quite groundbreaking in the late 30s.

The pressure of war forced the technology to develop very fast so by war’s end most fighters were being produced in low back bubble hood configurations.

There was also some speed increases but this was due as much to better engine performance as reduction in drag.