DeepSea wrote:
Ricardo wrote in news:2bk4g.45435$xt.43024
@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk:
DeepSea wrote:
Ricardo wrote in
.uk:
DeepSea wrote:
Ricardo wrote in
er.co.uk:
buff82driver wrote:
http://www.military.com/features/0,1...html?ESRC=dod-
bz.
nl
How were they able to design and bring the P-51 into production
within one year
back during WW2? Why is it so expensive and take so long now?
You didn't really just ask that question, did you?
Ah maybe b/c they did not deal with highly complex technology that
has thousands of ways of failing and a few critical failures of
very
tiny parts that don't even move can cause the plane to crash into
the ground. With WWII era planes about the most complex things
were
the big ol' piston engines, retractable landing gear, bomb
sights...etc...today a few whiz kids could probably develop a WWII
era technology fighter plane better than any seen in WWII. All you
need is metal workers, engine mechanics/builders, and some pretty
solid aerodynamic students. If it was so easy now then the U.S.
would not make everyone else's air force into target practice.
And having a very reliable and tested British designed engine made
one hell of a contribution...
IIRC, the British engine had nothing to do with the design/inception
of the P-51. As designed and originally produced, the P51 was a
rather lackluster, VERY average fighter for its day. It wasn't until
the later addition of the British engine and a couple of
(supporting)
airframe modifications that made it great.
DS
Agreed, but it is interesting to note that the original Mustang, with
its Allison F3R engine, only came into being as a result of the
British Purchasing Commission's earlier contact with NAA and the
purchase of the
Harvard trainer. NAA's wish to 'break into' the fighter market was
frustrated by the US Army Air Corps lack of interest in NAA's ideas
on
the subject and the offer of the NA-73 fitted a British need at that
time. In the event, as you point out, this original design was VERY
average, the main concern from the British point of view being
performance above 15,000 feet - decidedly poor, although the aircraft
had considerable merit at low altitude.
That is interesting - I had no idea that British interest is what
gave
the P-51 its start. The RAF bombers didn't do high altitude stuff,
most
of the bombing against England was dive bombing, and the Brits
already
had an outstanding all-around fighter in the Spitfire. What was the
Ministry's concern over high altitude performance?
DS
The initial air assaults on Britain dispelled the myth that dive
bombing
was the way forward as in the face of determined fighter opposition
the
dive bombers did not fare too well - despite how well it had done in
Spain and against the low countries of Europe.
Conventional bombing was more the norm for the Battle of Britain and
the
service ceiling of the German bombers was between 25,000 and 30,000
feet, and for their escorting fighters between 35,000 and 40,000 feet,
although operationally they were likely to be a lot lower. Nonetheless
height is a crucial factor in aerial warfare and if you are 10,000
feet
above your enemy you are more likely to inflict damage and survive
than
if you are 5,000 feet below him and desperately climbing to reach him.
At the height of the Battle of Britain the country's desperate need
was
for fighter aircraft - any fighter aircraft - hence purchases from
American sources. However, by the time the early Mustang came on
stream
that particular battle was virtually over, allied with which British
built fighter production had gained considerable momentum.
Ricardo
Can you recommend any British primary source, or at least British
authored material detailing the events leading to P-51 development. I
find it very interesting that the development of one of the US's best
pieces of military hardware grew out of a (rather desperate) British
requirement.
DS
Hi DS,
I'm afraid I can't pinpoint any specific British source about the early
days, but try the sites shown here where you will find a lot of
interesting information - not least about US attitudes at that time. The
Wikipedia summary under 'genesis' is probably the best with regard to
British involvement.
The book 'Classic Aircraft Fighters' by Bill Gunston, ISBN 0 600 349950
- 1978 - also gives useful information.
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/air_power/ap9.htm
http://www.geocities.com/koala51d/
http://www.aviation-history.com/north-american/p51.html
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/p51.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-51_Mustang#Genesis
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p51_1.html
Incidentally, a few sources have claimed that the Packard built Merlin,
whilst a superb engine, lacked the power levels of the Rolls Royce
version. This, it is claimed, was because the British kept secret the
composition of the phosphor-bronze bearings that they used in the
engine. No, I can't quote a source/s.
I hope this helps.
Ricardo