F-35's Costs Climb Along With Concerns

Ricardo wrote in
.uk:



buff82driver wrote:
http://www.military.com/features/0,1...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

DeepSea wrote:
Ricardo wrote in
.uk:



buff82driver wrote:

http://www.military.com/features/0,1...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.

And the rest, as we say, is history...

Ricardo

Ricardo wrote in
:



DeepSea wrote:
Ricardo wrote in
.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

"DeepSea" wrote in message
. 136...

snip

.... . The RAF bombers didn't do high altitude stuff, _most_
of the bombing _against England was dive bombing_,

Really? Please define _most_ and _dive_ bombing, in your statement.
FWIW, AIUI, _Dive_ bombers were used against the Chain Home sites at the
beginning of the Luftwaffe's Bombing campaign - and against such defined
sites the dive bombers would have been an appropriate resource to task, but
AFAIK the bombing campaigns against Liverpool, Coventry, Plymouth,
Portsmouth, Southampton, London et.al were carried out at night by waves of
'level' bombers. Your information may of course be more accurate - I await
your disclosures with interest.
BTW; as you specifically mentioned 'England', I've not addressed the
question of whether dive-bombers were used against Scotland, Northern
Ireland and/or Wales.

--

Brian

"Brian Sharrock" wrote in
:


"DeepSea" wrote in message
. 136...

snip

.... . The RAF bombers didn't do high altitude stuff, _most_
of the bombing _against England was dive bombing_,

Really? Please define _most_ and _dive_ bombing, in your statement.
FWIW, AIUI, _Dive_ bombers were used against the Chain Home sites at
the beginning of the Luftwaffe's Bombing campaign - and against such
defined sites the dive bombers would have been an appropriate resource
to task, but AFAIK the bombing campaigns against Liverpool, Coventry,
Plymouth, Portsmouth, Southampton, London et.al were carried out at
night by waves of 'level' bombers. Your information may of course be
more accurate - I await your disclosures with interest.

Maybe not. I'm not a historian, I'm an engineer with an interest in
history. That being said, here's what I (think) I know.

Most - (significantly) more than half

Dive Bombing - technique that involves the release of bombs at high
speed/low altitude.

My comments are derived from a talk I attended last year while at the US
Army's General Staff College. The talk was given by a British Army
corporal who served as a courier in the early days of the Battle of
Britain. He was wounded (badly) in one of the attacks, and spent the
rest of the war recouperating and learning to walk again. He used the
terms "most" and "dive bombing" during his talk. Over the course of
about an hour and ten minutes, he described being on the recieving end
of the German strikes. He only saw "level" bombing on one occasion
(directed at an area target), but at a relatively low level, estimated
to be less than 10,000 feet, and at night.



BTW; as you specifically mentioned 'England', I've not addressed the
question of whether dive-bombers were used against Scotland, Northern
Ireland and/or Wales.

I have no knowledge of bombings against Scotland, Northern
Ireland and/or Wales whatsoever - any insights you have would be
appreciated.

DS

In article , DeepSea
wrote:

Dive Bombing - technique that involves the release of bombs at high
speed/low altitude.

High speed/low altitude is not what dive bombing is all about.
Speed and altitude are residuals of the dive bombing process.
Dive bombing is getting the aircraft "pointed" at the target,
necessitating a dive. The bomb is released in the dive and the a/c pulls away.
High speed is not a requirement, and as practiced in WWII, not even wanted.
Hence the addition of dive (speed) brakes on the A-36 version of the Mustang.
After bomb release, the aircraft is at a lower altitude, but only by necessity.


My comments are derived from a talk I attended last year while at the US
Army's General Staff College. The talk was given by a British Army
corporal who served as a courier in the early days of the Battle of
Britain. He was wounded (badly) in one of the attacks, and spent the
rest of the war recouperating and learning to walk again. He used the
terms "most" and "dive bombing" during his talk. Over the course of
about an hour and ten minutes, he described being on the recieving end
of the German strikes. He only saw "level" bombing on one occasion
(directed at an area target), but at a relatively low level, estimated
to be less than 10,000 feet, and at night.

You were very lucky to have been able to attend such a rare event.
Those veterns are rapidly dying. I hope the interview was taped.

cheers

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

Harry Andreas wrote:
In article , DeepSea
wrote:


Dive Bombing - technique that involves the release of bombs at high
speed/low altitude.


High speed/low altitude is not what dive bombing is all about.
Speed and altitude are residuals of the dive bombing process.
Dive bombing is getting the aircraft "pointed" at the target,
necessitating a dive. The bomb is released in the dive and the a/c pulls away.
High speed is not a requirement, and as practiced in WWII, not even wanted.
Hence the addition of dive (speed) brakes on the A-36 version of the Mustang.
After bomb release, the aircraft is at a lower altitude, but only by necessity.



My comments are derived from a talk I attended last year while at the US
Army's General Staff College. The talk was given by a British Army
corporal who served as a courier in the early days of the Battle of
Britain. He was wounded (badly) in one of the attacks, and spent the
rest of the war recouperating and learning to walk again. He used the
terms "most" and "dive bombing" during his talk. Over the course of
about an hour and ten minutes, he described being on the recieving end
of the German strikes. He only saw "level" bombing on one occasion
(directed at an area target), but at a relatively low level, estimated
to be less than 10,000 feet, and at night.


You were very lucky to have been able to attend such a rare event.
Those veterns are rapidly dying. I hope the interview was taped.

cheers

What was the 'A-36' version of the Mustang?

Cheers,

Ricardo

On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 08:16:27 -0500, DeepSea
wrote:

Maybe not. I'm not a historian, I'm an engineer with an interest in
history. That being said, here's what I (think) I know.

Most - (significantly) more than half

Dive Bombing - technique that involves the release of bombs at high
speed/low altitude.

My comments are derived from a talk I attended last year while at the US
Army's General Staff College. The talk was given by a British Army
corporal who served as a courier in the early days of the Battle of
Britain. He was wounded (badly) in one of the attacks, and spent the
rest of the war recouperating and learning to walk again. He used the
terms "most" and "dive bombing" during his talk.

OK, if you are an engineer, then you should start by considering that
a "corporal" courier who was wounded by a dive bomber is probably not
authoritative on what dive bombing is all about.

Now, take your engineering prowess and consider the geometry of level
versus high angle release of a bomb--by diving at the target (in the
simplest iteration) you reduce the aircraft's travel over the ground
and hence increase the accuracy.

If you wish to go to higher levels of math, you need to consider dive
angle, airspeed, bank, sight depression from flight path, wind drift
both before and after release (aircraft first then bomb),
accelerations (g-loads), aerodynamic drag of bomb and a few other
things to begin to get what dive bombing is about.

But, don't ask corporals--they may know something about their
particular field, but it may not be dive bombing.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 08:16:27 -0500, DeepSea
wrote:

Maybe not. I'm not a historian, I'm an engineer with an interest in
history. That being said, here's what I (think) I know.

Most - (significantly) more than half

Dive Bombing - technique that involves the release of bombs at high
speed/low altitude.

My comments are derived from a talk I attended last year while at the US
Army's General Staff College. The talk was given by a British Army
corporal who served as a courier in the early days of the Battle of
Britain. He was wounded (badly) in one of the attacks, and spent the
rest of the war recouperating and learning to walk again. He used the
terms "most" and "dive bombing" during his talk.

So you extrapolated from one man's experience the assumption that _most_
bombing of England(sic) was performed bt _Dive-bombers_?


OK, if you are an engineer, then you should start by considering that
a "corporal" courier who was wounded by a dive bomber is probably not
authoritative on what dive bombing is all about.

Now, take your engineering prowess and consider the geometry of level
versus high angle release of a bomb--by diving at the target (in the
simplest iteration) you reduce the aircraft's travel over the ground
and hence increase the accuracy.

If you wish to go to higher levels of math, you need to consider dive
angle, airspeed, bank, sight depression from flight path, wind drift
both before and after release (aircraft first then bomb),
accelerations (g-loads), aerodynamic drag of bomb and a few other
things to begin to get what dive bombing is about.

But, don't ask corporals--they may know something about their
particular field, but it may not be dive bombing.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com


I concur with Ed Rasimus's comments above...
It could be that the 'British Army Courier Corporal' - interesting that no
Regiment or Corps was cited - did actually experience situations where
_most_ of the _bombing_
was by dive-bombers. This was not the experience of the majority (=
significantly more than half) of the British population suffering from the
'Blitz' on cities. {Isn't there a saying about one swallow not making a
summer? Perhaps one Corporal's anecdotes do not a form a basis for a
deduction}.

The experiences endured by my mother and her neighbours {most of the menfolk
were on active service} is summarised on the Liverpool blitz web-site
http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/nof/blitz/index.html

extract
The seven nights of the 1941 May Blitz (1st-7th May) were the heaviest
consecutive nights of bombing experienced by Liverpool during the whole of
the Second World War. In those few nights around 681 planes dropped 870
tonnes of high explosives and over 112,000 incendiaries (firebombs) on the
area, killing over 1,700 people and making around 76,000 homeless.

/extract

Not much mention of Dive Bombers there! The Luftwaffe _did_ have
Dive-Bombers, these were aircraft specifically designed for
Close-Air-Support of advancing troops and AIUI such aircraft were directed
by their pilots along a line-of-sight towards their target; the aircraft's
systems automagically performed a J-curve manoeuvre which had the effect of
taking the aircraft away and above the target while the ordnance continued
along the line-of-sight to impact. Such aircraft were tasked against known
targets, predominantly the Chain Home stations and airfields. AIUI, the
aircraft-weapon systems was a success but not many Teutonic aircrew made a
second sortie.

--



Brian

Ed Rasimus wrote in
:

On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 08:16:27 -0500, DeepSea
wrote:

Maybe not. I'm not a historian, I'm an engineer with an interest in
history. That being said, here's what I (think) I know.

Most - (significantly) more than half

Dive Bombing - technique that involves the release of bombs at high
speed/low altitude.

My comments are derived from a talk I attended last year while at the
US
Army's General Staff College. The talk was given by a British Army
corporal who served as a courier in the early days of the Battle of
Britain. He was wounded (badly) in one of the attacks, and spent the
rest of the war recouperating and learning to walk again. He used the
terms "most" and "dive bombing" during his talk.

OK, if you are an engineer, then you should start by considering that
a "corporal" courier who was wounded by a dive bomber is probably not
authoritative on what dive bombing is all about.

The discussion was not about "what dive bombing is all about", the
technicalities or merits of dive bombing, nor was the talk. Simply that
in his experience, he mostly saw dive bombing. This was important to my
point of view because his talk was my only exposure to primary source
material on the subject (at least until Brian posted the weblink).




Now, take your engineering prowess and consider the geometry of level
versus high angle release of a bomb--by diving at the target (in the
simplest iteration) you reduce the aircraft's travel over the ground
and hence increase the accuracy.

If you wish to go to higher levels of math, you need to consider dive
angle, airspeed, bank, sight depression from flight path, wind drift
both before and after release (aircraft first then bomb),
accelerations (g-loads), aerodynamic drag of bomb and a few other
things to begin to get what dive bombing is about.

But, don't ask corporals--they may know something about their
particular field, but it may not be dive bombing.

The question was never posed - to the corporal or this group (at least
by me). Again, my discussion with Ricardo had nothing to do with how
dive bombing was supposed to work, or even if it worked; only that it
did occur and in what relative proportion to other types of bombing
procedures used by the Germans during the Battle of Britain. I'm
reasonably certain that an expert's knowledge and experience was not
required to tell the difference between dive bombing and high altitude
"level" bombing, at least as practiced during the Battle of Britain. In
any event, your input of related information is noted and appreciated.

DS








Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com