Was the Vultee P-66 Vanguard really that bad? (2024)

This page has quotes claimed to be by someone that flew it that gives some insight. I know nothing about this page otherwise however.

Possibly helpful article.

I think that page says it all -

From what I see the P-66 was nothing more than an attempt to capitalize on Vultee's successful trainer line. They took a risk on developing the aircraft as a private venture and lucked out when they received US Government and foreign orders.

It's obvious it's performance was poor when compared with other fighters of the day.

Admiral Beez said:

Wikipedia has nothing good to say about the Vanguard, but with 340 mph top speed, four guns, rate of climb of 2,520 ft/min and 850 mile range, the Vanguard doesn't read that terribly. Certainly no worse than the Buffalo.

Click to expand...

I think the P66 suffered from several disadvantages:
1) Late out of the gate. It's development was begun two or three years later than other aircraft of similar design performance, and then it's development was slower than that of other companies that had prior fighter experience. By the time it saw combat the state of the art had moved on.
2) It started from a design approach that tried to make one basic airframe perform multiple tasks with engines ranging from 450 to 1200 horsepower. (230 to 1200 if you count the hypothetical primary trainer version) This is a tricky task for even a highly experienced manufacturer to pull off, let alone one with less than ten years under its belt.
3) Despite its wide track landing gear it had a pronounced tendency to groundloop, resulting in high attrition due to landing mishaps. This might have been due to the tail surfaces being a bit small for the horsepower and the fuselage a bit short coupled.
4) While it was designed primarily for agility, and its pilots praised that feature, by the time it saw service it was outclassed by the Japanese aircraft it encountered.
5) It's co*ckpit had poor human factors engineering, with awkward placement of controls and instruments, leading to pilot error mishaps, especially by poorly trained Chinese pilots.
Too many strikes against it.

XBe02Drvr said:

1) Late out of the gate. It's development was begun two or three years later than other aircraft of similar design performance, and then it's development was slower than that of other companies that had prior fighter experience. By the time it saw combat the state of the art had moved on.

Click to expand...

This is the main problem. IMO - the 1st requirement of a weapon of war is timing; if that requirement is not met, the particular weapon of war fails flat.
People found the way to remedy the tendencies to ground loop, reinforced/modified the airframe, find the way to train pilots better.

tomo pauk said:

This is the main problem. IMO - the 1st requirement of a weapon of war is timing; if that requirement is not met, the particular weapon of war fails flat.
People found the way to remedy the tendencies to ground loop, reinforced/modified the airframe, find the way to train pilots better.

Click to expand...

Agree about the timing, as mentioned I think timing helped Vultee sell the P-66. Whether it was profitable or not, IDK?

As far as aircraft performance/ control tendencies - you're only going to be able to modify the airframe or induce additional training so much to cover for "bad behavior." I think the P-66 was a design beyond that based on the noted pilot report and other references.

tomo pauk said:

People found the way to remedy the tendencies to ground loop, reinforced/modified the airframe, find the way to train pilots better.

Click to expand...

FLYBOYJ said:

As far as aircraft performance/ control tendencies - you're only going to be able to modify the airframe or induce additional training so much to cover for "bad behavior." I think the P-66 was a design beyond that based on the noted pilot report and other references

Click to expand...

The remedies were a bit too little, too late. Initial teething problems have shot down many a design more promising than the P66.

Admiral Beez said:

The tail on the Vanguard reminds me of the Corsair's. Is there any designer connection?

Click to expand...

I doubt it. Vultee was an ex Lockheed engineer, the company was in California. Vought/ Sikorsky was located in Connecticut.

XBe02Drvr said:

The remedies were a bit too little, too late. Initial teething problems have shot down many a design more promising than the P66.

Click to expand...

Can't polish a turd!

FLYBOYJ said:

Agree about the timing, as mentioned I think timing helped Vultee sell the P-66. Whether it was profitable or not, IDK?

Click to expand...

Just roll it into the sales price of all those BT Vibrators. "Adult toy" customers are in no position to quibble over small surcharges.

A friend of mine was maintenance chief for the 10th Photo Recon Squadron, flying F-4's and deployed to India in 1942. He saw P-66's being assembled there and the results were not good. He had enough problems trying to get their F-4's put back together after being stuffed into crates by people who had no idea what they were doing. he even ended up using some P-66's parts to get their Lightnings back in the air. While the Chinese pilots were second to none in their ability to destroy aircraft, there probably were not many P-66's that made into the air for long, anyway, and no doubt reliability was terrible.

Single-engined fighters with less than 2000 cubic inch engines were obsolete by 1942, the sole exception being the Merlin Mustang and Spit IX, and that was due to their two stage superchargerd liquid cooled engines that effectively gave a lot more cubes under the hood. But you do have to wonder why, if the Zeke and Oscar were competitive, that the P-66 and Curtiss CW-21 could not have been used more effectively. In fact the Mohawk IV soldiered on in the CBI for years after it was considered a death trap elsewhere.

special ed said:

It may have been worse than the groundhog but easier to fly.

Click to expand...

So the enemy will probably kill me but my airplane probably won't?

Where do I sign up? Or run away? I don't know which way to go.

MIflyer said:

While the Chinese pilots were second to none in their ability to destroy aircraft,

Click to expand...

Because the veteran Chinese pilots found ways to get into the P43s, and the nuggets, fresh from stateside training, came straight from initial fighter training in the infamous Niagara groundhog. They weren't ready for a high powered tail dragger, especially a squirrelly one like the P66.
A short coupled, exaggerated wide stance tail dragger like the P66 requires extra finesse with brakes and throttle to keep it straight on the ground. A little more throttle is needed to get it started into a turn, then when the tailwheel swivels you've suddenly got too much, and snatch the throttle back, but it keeps turning, so you stomp on opposite rudder. Unfortunately, your undersized rudder on its short fuselage moment has been deprived of slip stream, and doesn't have the authority to stop your turn, so inertia and gyroscopic precession take over and round an' round she goes. Your frantic efforts on the brake to stop this ground loop serve only to pitch her up on her nose, sudden-stopping the engine and wrenching the prop. In Jakarta, there are no spare engines or props to be had. 'Nother one bites the dust!

SaparotRob said:

So I guess it was that bad, really.

Click to expand...

Well, it wasn't "Brewster" bad, just had several issues that just kept it from being better than it could have been.

Admiral Beez said:

The tail on the Vanguard reminds me of the Corsair's. Is there any designer connection?

Click to expand...

How true it is - I don't know - but author John Wegg, mentions the Model 48 Vanguard was patterned on the Hughes H-1B racer - both designed by Palmer.