F-35's Costs Climb Along With Concerns

DeepSea wrote:

"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.

In respect of *the Battle of Britain* only it's possible that most of the
bombing ( on RAF fields ) may have been dive bombing.

The Blitz on London that followed ( and other bombing raids on various UK
cities ) most certainly wasn't the same however.

Graham

DeepSea wrote:
Ricardo wrote in
:



DeepSea wrote:

Ricardo wrote in
.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

Ricardo wrote in news:2bk4g.45435$xt.43024
@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk:



DeepSea wrote:
Ricardo wrote in
:



DeepSea wrote:

Ricardo wrote in
r.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

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

In message , Ricardo
writes
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.

On the other hand, I heard - from "old factory hands" lecturing on
manufacturing technique at Highbury College in 1988 - that a big
difference between Packard and Rolls-Royce was in fitting the cylinder
head.

Rolls-Royce used a precision hand-scraped metal-to-metal fit. Very
effective, though extremely demanding in scarce skilled labour.
(Attempting to 'file flat' is a useful exercise for a trainee mechanical
engineer; it teaches a certain humility in demanding surface finishes)

Packard cleaned up the castings, milled the mating faces approximately
flat (at least, compared to a metal-metal seal) and put a gasket between
them. I don't recall hearing tales of P-51s routinely or regularly
falling from the skies when their engines failed, nor of the Packard
Spitfires being execrated for unreliability (or, for that matter, lack
of horsepower).


--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

In article ,
(Ricardo) wrote:

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.

The Packard Merlin did differ as far as I know but also as far
as I know it was not because of secrets. The British versions
were to closer tolerances requiring much more skill in assembly.
In "Sigh for a Merlin" a fault called skew gear failure was
traced to a difference in assembly order from Rolls Royce in one
of the (British) shadow factories.

Ken Young

In article , Ricardo
wrote:

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.


Ricardo, I believe that your figures are uniformly 10,000 feet too high.
All the reports that I've read for the BoB mention the bombers coming in
between 15 and 20 thousand with fighter cover about 5 thousand higher.
After the BoB altitudes went higher, that was one of the lessons learned.


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.

Yet the Mustang I's equipped a large number of squadrons.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

Harry Andreas wrote:
In article , Ricardo
wrote:


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.



Ricardo, I believe that your figures are uniformly 10,000 feet too high.
All the reports that I've read for the BoB mention the bombers coming in
between 15 and 20 thousand with fighter cover about 5 thousand higher.
After the BoB altitudes went higher, that was one of the lessons learned.



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.


Yet the Mustang I's equipped a large number of squadrons.

Hi Harry,

I was quoting the maximum operating heights for the categories of
aircraft but concede that much of the action took place at lower level.

The Mustang was not a participant in the Battle of Britain and, as far
as I'm aware was used for 'army liaison duties' with the Army
Co-operation Command which was established in December 1940 and also
with the Combined Operations Unit. The first Mustang to arrive was on 24
october 1941.

Ricardo

"Ricardo" wrote in message
k...


Harry Andreas wrote:
In article , Ricardo
wrote:


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.



Ricardo, I believe that your figures are uniformly 10,000 feet too
high.
All the reports that I've read for the BoB mention the bombers coming in
between 15 and 20 thousand with fighter cover about 5 thousand higher.
After the BoB altitudes went higher, that was one of the lessons learned.



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.


Yet the Mustang I's equipped a large number of squadrons.

Hi Harry,

I was quoting the maximum operating heights for the categories of
aircraft but concede that much of the action took place at lower level.

The Mustang was not a participant in the Battle of Britain and, as far
as I'm aware was used for 'army liaison duties' with the Army
Co-operation Command which was established in December 1940 and also with
the Combined Operations Unit.

Only true in regards to the Mustang I and IA; the later Mustang III served
with a number of RAF units in the (primarily) air-to-air fighter role and
performed escort for both USAAF and RAF bombing missions. P-51D/K variants
served with the RAF for a couple of years after the war was over.

Brooks
The first Mustang to arrive was on 24
october 1941.

Ricardo

Ricardo wrote:

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,

Entirely over by over a year in fact !

Graham