Source: “The Pentagon Paradox”
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
July 28, 1943
Memo to Mr. W.T. Schwendler
Our present development program for complete new designs of airplanes (consisting of XF7F and XTB2B) is subject to criticism from the following standpoints. It is based on airplanes becoming very much larger and heavier and also upon the general acceptance by the Bureau of twin engine types.
Controversial as to Size and as to Twin-Engine
Both of these airplanes are enormous, - in comparison to types now in service. There is little doubt that this increase in size is justified for land based operation. However, the practicability of airplanes of this size for carrier operation is not as yet proved. Furthermore, regardless of our feeling as to the advantages of twin engines, the Bureau has not as yet accepted this whole heartedly. After cessation of the war, it will be impossible to prove out in Service our ideas as to the real value of these design in Wartime, - and we will therefore be in a position of having to accept the Bureau's opinion as to whether or not such large airplanes, or even twin engine airplanes are suitable for the Navy's use. Although the Navy has been obliged to operate from land bases in Wartime, they have not as yet ordered combat type planes purely for land work. Peace time orders will be tied in to carrier operations more than ever.
Small Converted Carriers
The small converted carriers are doing a good job. They are still being built by the dozen. Because they are so numerous and cheap, they can be used where a large carrier would not dare operate for fear of risk of loss. In this respect they may prove more practical than the large carrier.
The Navy will undoubtedly retain and operate most of these after termination of the War. Their problem will be to procure suitable planes of small size for these carriers.
Proposed Addition to Experimental Design Program
A small fighter plane, which could (without question) be used on large or small carriers, and with a performance superior to the F6F, would be a valuable addition to our experimental program, - if for no other reason than to keep all our eggs out of one basket.
What I have in mind for a starter is as follows:
(a) Airplane
-same size and dimension as "Wildcat".
(b) Gross
Weight - 8,500 Pounds (Normal).
(c) Engine - 2800 - 2
Speed.
(d) Armament - 4 (50 Caliber - (rapid Fire Type)) with
250 rounds each.
(e) Fuel - Internal Protected Fuel
Approximately 17 0 gallons
(f) Other Features - Blister Type
of Cockpit Canopy
(g) Other Deviation from "Wildcat"
-
Complete change
in Landing Gear to obtain proper tread and propeller
clearance.
(h) Performance - Superior in every way to
"Hellcat".
(i) Loadings 8500/2100 =4.+
Lbs/Horsepower
8500/200
= 33 Lbs/Square Foot
Advantages of inclusion in Experimental Program
Many Bureau Officers have expressed interest in a small fighter. Roy Simpler who commanded a "Wildcat" Squadron in Pacific, and is now in Bureau, brought up the subject only last week. No one in Bureau would be basically against such a project.
Recommendation
It is recommended that a design study be made along lines proposed above, before approaching Bureau, to determine limitation to Useful Load. Recommend that this study be given priority over the Jet Propulsion Studies.
[Signed L. Grumman]
P.S. In order to check Bureau tendency to overload, this design should be sold as a "converted-carrier" fighter.