Which significant WWII combat aircraft where designed after the war started?

[Krusty]

The request for a plane to replace the wildcat may have been placed on the books before the war, but the specific plans for the F6F itself weren't put in place until after the war started. Using pilot experience in combat, the plans incorporated all the USN pilots wanted against the Japanese planes.

Kind of implies the plans were drawn up AFTER the war started, no?

[MiloMorai]

The request for a plane to replace the wildcat may have been placed on the books before the war, but the specific plans for the F6F itself weren't put in place until after the war started. Using pilot experience in combat, the plans incorporated all the USN pilots wanted against the Japanese planes.

Kind of implies the plans were drawn up AFTER the war started, no?

So Grumman designed built and prepared the a/c for its first flight in just 6 months? What was Grumman doing from June 30 1941 then when the contract was signed for the prototype?

The second Hellcat prototype had the R-2800 installed for more performance due to combat with the A6Ms.

[morfiend]

Karnak,real interesting topic are you only considering airframes that saw combat or would A/C that had a flying prototype qualify???

[AWwrgwy]

So Grumman designed built and prepared the a/c for its first flight in just 6 months? What was Grumman doing from June 30 1941 then when the contract was signed for the prototype?

Grumman had to build a new facility, Plant Number 3, to produce the Hellcat. Obtaining the structural steel for the buildings was a challenge, met in part by the purchase of scrap from the Second Avenue El. Even before Plant Number 3 was finished, Hellcats began rolling off the production lines. Another Grumman test pilot, Selden "Connie" Converse took up a production F6F-3 for the first time on October 3, 1942. Grumman's Hellcat output picked up quickly: 12 planes in the last quarter of 1942, 128 in the first quarter of 1943, and then 130 in the month of April, 1943. Eventually they would be churning out 500 per month.

wrongway

[Saxman]

On June 30, 1941 the Navy ordered the prototypes XF6F-1 and XF6F-2. They were to have the Wright R-2600-16 engine, producing 1,700 horsepower, on the -1 and a Wright 2800-16 fitted with a turbo-supercharger on the -2.

Guess that removes the F6F.

[Karnak]

Karnak,real interesting topic are you only considering airframes that saw combat or would A/C that had a flying prototype qualify???

Anything is interesting, but I was mainly interested in the ones that managed to get in and be used.

The thought that sparked the question was how much of WWII was actually fought with equipment that had been designed to theoretical needs in the 1930s and then been hodgepodged to do what actually turned out to be needed.  How few aircraft that were built based on the lessons learned in combat that actually managed to see combat.

[Saxman]

The thing is, some aircraft that were first designed before the war began were STILL influenced by combat observations before they actually entered production.

As I mentioned before, look at the F4U Corsair. The original design in 1937/38 called for two .50cal in the nose and a pair of .30cal in each wing, much like the P-40B. Additionally, they had the idea of loading bomblets in bays under the wings that the Corsair would drop into bomber formations from above. Fuel tanks were solely in the wings so the cockpit was further forward. It wasn't until the response to observations of combat over Britain and Europe that the cowl guns and bomblet bays were eliminated, the four .30s replaced with six .50cal, and the cockpit was moved aft to accommodate the fuselage fuel tank.

So the Corsair was originally designed under those theoretical needs of the 1930s, but the final production version was actually BUILT based on the lessons learned in combat.

[Karnak]

True, so it could be that designs that were still in very fluid stages of development count as much as ones that started after the war began.

[Masherbrum]

Ta-152.   

[Motherland]

Ta-152.   

The Ta-152 was based on the Fw.190... that's like saying the Dora was as well.

[Masherbrum]

The Ta-152 was based on the Fw.190... that's like saying the Dora was as well.

Semantics.   Several of the Ta152's features were used a long time after WWII.   It was a redesign of the Dora, which came into being around 43-44 itself.   

[Krusty]

The 190d/ta152 was so different in design from anything before in the 190 line it could be considered a new design entirely.

It would be like saying the F6F is part of the wildcat design, IMO 

EDIT: More likely saying the P-40 is part of the P-36 design! A simple engine change never before yielded such major results.

[Widewing]

Guess that removes the F6F.

How does placing an order disqualify the F6F? Design work began in earnest in August of 1941. The initial design was submitted in December of 1941, but was almost immediately revised with the Navy's order of January 1942. Design work continued through May of 1942.

I've spent 30 years in Design Engineering. A design is finalized until prototypes are built, tested and approved. This did not occur for the F6F until July of 1942. 13 months later, F6Fs were in combat. No other major combatant in WWII went from prototype to combat in anything approaching the 13 months for the F6F-3. It isn't a design until it's ready to fly.

Look at the XF4U-1. Vought submitted their proposal in April of 1938! It took them 13 months to build and test the prototype. The prototype didn't fly until  May of 1940. It wasn't until June of 1942 that the first production F4U-1 flew and none saw combat until February of 1943. That's 33 months from prototype to combat.

My regards,

Widewing

[Motherland]

The 190d/ta152 was so different in design from anything before in the 190 line it could be considered a new design entirely.

The Fw 190D was a stopgap design to get a Jumo 213 engined 190 into production while the Ta-152 was being prepared. That's why production started with the D-9, with no preceding D-1, -2, -3, etc.- the Fw 190D-9 was an Fw 190A-9 with only the modifications required for the Jumo 213 to operate and for the airframe to have acceptable stability. The only modifications made in the D-9 airframe that distinguish it from the earlier A series airframe were changes in the bulk head due to the dimensions of the Jumo 213, and of course the addition of the .5m section of tail between the attachment point of the tailplane and the forward section of the fuselage (and the required extension of the control rods going to the rudder, elevators etc.) .

The Ta-152 was much more heavily modified of course, but I would say that the extent of modification between the Fw 190A and the Ta-152 does not eclipse in any amount of significance the difference between, say the Bf 109E and the Bf 109F (or G maybe).

[Stoney]

The Fw 190D was a stopgap design to get a Jumo 213 engined 190 into production while the Ta-152 was being prepared. That's why production started with the D-9, with no preceding D-1, -2, -3, etc.- the Fw 190D-9 was an Fw 190A-9 with only the modifications required for the Jumo 213 to operate and for the airframe to have acceptable stability. The only modifications made in the D-9 airframe that distinguish it from the earlier A series airframe were changes in the bulk head due to the dimensions of the Jumo 213, and of course the addition of the .5m section of tail between the attachment point of the tailplane and the forward section of the fuselage (and the required extension of the control rods going to the rudder, elevators etc.) .

The Ta-152 was much more heavily modified of course, but I would say that the extent of modification between the Fw 190A and the Ta-152 does not eclipse in any amount of significance the difference between, say the Bf 109E and the Bf 109F (or G maybe).

From an aerodynamic standpoint, there was a very large difference between the 152 and 190D9.  Comparitively, there was little aerodynamic difference between the 109E and F.  Just another way of looking at it.  From an aerodynamic perspective, the Ta-152 might as well be a different aircraft.  I'd say a similar comparison for the 190/152 would be the difference between a P-47 and the P-72, whereas the 109 comparison would be more akin to the difference between a P-47D and a P-47N.