AIR: A Report to the People

“The people of the U.S. have a right to know, within those limits made necessary by military secrecy, the strengths and weaknesses of their fighting men and fighting machines.” So said the Office of War Information last week, issuing a calm and thorough report on a highly controversial subject: the performance of U.S. warplanes—how good are they? Excerpts from the report:

The test of battle is the only valid one for any Army or Navy plane.

Failure of the public to appreciate this fact, and the additional one that there is no all-purpose plane, has bred doubt and discouragement. From believing their warplanes the best in the world, some people have swung to a conviction that British, German and Japanese planes are superior. Then, their hopes brightened by accounts of American air victories, they have gone back to their original optimism.

The truth lies between the two extremes . . . The best the public can expect, and the best it will get, is that on average the equipment of the allied air forces shall be superior to the equipment of the enemy.

On Many Fronts. For the U.S., the requirements of this war are more varied than they are for any other combatant. In the Aleutians U.S. planes are operating over water, in cold and forbidding weather. In the Solomons operations are in stifling heat and drenching rains. In Australia and New Guinea a given aircraft in a single day may fly from subtropical temperatures to the chill of early spring. It is proof of the soundness of U.S. design and the versatility of American crews that operations do go on.

The Navy went into the war with considerable quantities of aircraft that were not of the latest type, and unquestionably suffered losses that could have been avoided, had the latest equipment been available. But secret battle reports show that the latest floating-base aircraft of the Navy are superior in all types.

In battle areas in the Pacific the disruption caused by the surprise Japanese attack and the necessity of retiring to bases inadequate to the technical demands of aircraft operation imposed conditions that no aircraft could meet fully in the early days of the war. Yet in the Pacific area, as in China, the overall battle score of Army aircraft has been much better than the enemy’s.

In the vital European theater our newest fighters have not been fully tried up to now. Appraisal of our older fighter types—the Bell P39 and the Curtiss P-40—compels the conclusion that they are not right for operation under today’s high-altitude tactics in Britain. Both are outclassed in the high-altitude field by the British Spitfire and the German Messerschmitt 109 and Focke-Wulf 190. But it is one of the paradoxes of aircraft performance that the P39 has proved a splendid weapon on the Russian and Aleutian fronts [where lower altitudes are the rule] and that the P-40 is a first-line fighter in Egypt.

Two newer fighter types, the twin-engined Lockheed P-38 (Lightning) and the single-engined Republic P47 (Thunderbolt), are in production and show great promise as high-altitude pursuit planes. Neither has been adequately tested in battle.

The Army’s four-motored bombers have proved superior in their categories in all theaters. Actual employment of the Boeing B-17 (Flying Fortress) over Europe has exceeded even the fondest expectations of its American proponents. It is a tribute to the determination of the Army Air Forces in developing this type of craft that the same kind of record has been made by the Consolidated B-24 in Egypt and in other areas.

U.S. medium and light bombers (B25, B26, etc.) are the best in the world. They have been tested in all theaters. U.S. scout bombers, product of the Navy’s longtime development of this destructive art, also are without peer among single-engine dive-bombers.

The firepower and protection of U.S. fighting aircraft (guns, armor and leakproof fuel tanks) are equal in all cases to the best our Allies and the enemy have in the air, and in some cases are decidedly superior. In these necessities, brought forth by the war, U.S. aircraft were deficient when the war began. It should be of great satisfaction to the American public that, when these deficiencies were remedied, the job was done with armor and with guns previously developed in the U.S.

Fighter Engines

The only liquid-cooled engine of American design now in mass production and general military use is the Allison. This engine drives the P-38, the P39 and the P-40. Its development was late in starting and was carried on under great difficulties. It has not yet caught up with its opposite numbers, Britain’s Rolls-Royce (also being manufactured in this country) and Germany’s Daimler-Benz.

When the first modern Allison was being manufactured for use in military planes, the minds of its makers and the Air Corps officers in charge of its development were on the turbosupercharger. This is in effect a rotary air pump, separate from the engine but driven by its exhaust gases, which furnishes sea-level pressures to the carburetion system far beyond the altitude range of the integral supercharger. An exclusively American development, it gave great altitude performance . . . in bombers and in the larger fighters. But in the smaller fighters which the Allison was to power, its incorporation in the design of the airplane proved, for that day, impossible.

Now, however, a two-stage, two-speed supercharger has been developed and thoroughly tested. This is an elaboration which in effect gives the pilot a high gear for his supercharger when his airplane has climbed beyond the best limits of his low-speed blower. Allison motors with this supercharger now are being manufactured and flown, and will shortly be in quantity production. They will vastly improve the performance of Allison-powered aircraft. Today the Allison engine is already a vastly better engine than many of its critics have made it out; few, if any, other liquid-cooled power plants are as rugged or as responsive to field maintenance. Since Pearl Harbor its horsepower output has been stepped up nearly 40%.

Fighters

Curtiss P-40—single-engine, liquid-cooled. Most discussed of all U.S. combat aircraft, this fighter has the virtues of heavy hitting power, excellent armor, high diving speed, and the leakproof tanks common to all U.S. combat aircraft. Against the Zero it has proved, on the average, to be superior. But most P-40 pilots frankly say that they would like more altitude, if they could still maintain their advantages of superior firepower and protection.

Bell P39 (Airacobra)—single-engine, liquid-cooled. A part sharer in the criticism heaped on the P-40, the P39 has roughly the same limitations and the same positive virtues. Developments now being made in this design give the promise of much improved performance.

North American P-51 (Mustang)—single-engine, liquid-cooled. Newest of the Allison-powered U. S. pursuits, it has roughly the same limitations on altitude performance as other single-engine Allison craft. Improvement in the power plant and other technical changes promise a sensational improvement in altitude performance.

Lockheed P-38 (Lightning). A two-engine (liquid-cooled) pursuit plane, the P-38 has so far had only limited tests in action, notably in the Aleutians. Its performance has been brilliant. Turbo-supercharged, it has excellent high-altitude performance. At its best altitude it is one of the world’s fastest fighting aircraft. Constant improvements are being made.

Republic P47 (Thunderbolt). Powered by one of the largest U.S. air-cooled engines, the P47 has been thoroughly tested, is in service and in production. Its trial by battle is not far off.

Grumman F₄F (Wildcat). The Navy’s standard fighter, as of today, the F₄F is unquestionably the best carrier fighter now in battle service.

Heavy Bombers

Boeing B-17 (Flying Fortress). A tried and thoroughly tested model with an unequaled combat record (four-engine air-cooled, turbo-supercharged), the B-17 has indicated by its work in the Pacific, and over Europe as well, that it can carry out high-altitude day-bombing missions under the protection of its own guns and without fighter escort.

Consolidated 8-24 (Liberator) — four-motored, air-cooled. In the Pacific, in northern Africa, Europe and the Aleutians the B-24 has shown itself a top-flight performer.

Medium and Light Bombers

North American B-25 (Mitchell) — a battle-tested (two-engine, air-cooled) aircraft of speed, long range and good load-carrying characteristics, chiefly dramatized for the public by the raid on Tokyo. No airplane of the same class in friendly or enemy air forces is known to equal it.

Martin B-26 (Martian) — two-engine air-cooled. This is also a battle-tested plane, comparable with the B25. No nation but the U.S., so far as is known, has so efficient a plane in its class.

Douglas A20 (Boston or Havoc)—a light (two-engine, air-cooled) bomber widely used by the British in the European and Egyptian theaters. Flexible in its performance, it has also been employed with modifications as a heavy fighter. It is unquestionably one of the best in its class.

Douglas SBD (Dauntless). The Navy’s carrier-based standard dive-bomber (singleengine, air-cooled), this craft is the best in the world in its category. It will shortly be supplemented by a newer design, now in production.

Grumman TBF (Avenger) — singleengine, air-cooled. This plane made its battle debut at Midway. A bigger, more powerful and more advanced airplane than the once-standard Douglas Devastator, the TBF is the best carrier-based torpedo plane so far seen in action.

No super-plane is this Zero, captured in the Aleutians. It is well built, flies beautifully, but has no armor, less power (900 h.p.), less speed (about 300 m.p.h.), less firepower (two cannon, two machine guns) than the best U.S. fighters.