If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
F-35's Costs Climb Along With Concerns
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
: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 f horsepower). Note that this is sort of the same approach that lost Germany the war. Everything was hand-finished to very high standards, while us sloppy folks cranked out ten times as many tanks as they could because we let the tolerances be looser and eliminated a lot of the skilled 'touch-labor' in the finishing stages. -- "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute." -- Charles Pinckney |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
F-35's Costs Climb Along With Concerns
In article ,
"Kevin Brooks" wrote: "Ricardo" wrote in message k... 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. A one-time manager of mine flew Spitfires with 485(NZ) Squadron, including ground support post-D-Day. Near VE day, he was moved out to start transistioning to the Mustang, they expected to move to the Pacific, but VJ day fixed that. He said the liked the Mustang the best of anything he flew, but he was still glad he never had to "use" it. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
F-35's Costs Climb Along With Concerns
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
F-35's Costs Climb Along With Concerns
In article , DeepSea
wrote: 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. That would explain the British complaint with the early P-51's lack of high altitude performance. Based on the information I had, I (apparently incorrectly) assumed that there was no need for a fighter with good high altitude performance - I thought that most of the action during the BoB was down low where the early P-51 was actually pretty capable. The RAF were understandably further ahead of the power curve than USAAC with regards to what equipment was needed for the air battle. They had the recent experience of BoB and previously BoF. The German bombers came over in the mid-teens (probably due to oxygen issues) with fighter cover that started out in the high teens, but as the battles progressed and each side sought the advantage, the fighter cover started coming over in the low to mid-twenties. Thus the race for better performing fighters at "high" altitude. The USAAC was still stuck in the opinion that fighter battles would take place in the mid-teens. This didn't change until the US entered the war. That's why NAA had shown the Mustang I to the AAC with the Allison engine. It performed well at the mid-teens. It's what the AAC asked for, and you have to offer the customer what he wants. The British took them that way out of necessity, with their eyes open, and assigned them to roles that didn't require high altitude, until a fix could be found. The USAAC wan't that interested in the Mustang at first because they already had several figher projects well underway (P-38, P-47). WRT German dive bombing: the type most used for that was the JU-87 Stuka and they were such dead meat for the RAF that the Luftwaffe stopped sending them over early on in BoB. cheers -- Harry Andreas Engineering raconteur |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
F-35's Costs Climb Along With Concerns
Steve Hix wrote: In article , Ricardo wrote: What was the 'A-36' version of the Mustang? In brief, a dive bomber based on the early P-51 airframe, officially named "Apache". - Three-blade rather than four-blade prop. - Allison V-1710 engine, rather than Allison Merlin, as used in original Mustang. - Dive brakes included on inboard underside of wings, similar to Douglas Dauntless. About 500 made, used mostly in CBI and Mediterranean/North African theaters. The Collings Foundation is restoring one in Florida. Thanks Steve, Each day we learn a little more... Ricardo PS Allison Merlin? - I thought Packard were the boys for the Merlin production. Here I'm going to learn something else... |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
F-35's Costs Climb Along With Concerns
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
F-35's Costs Climb Along With Concerns
In article ,
Ricardo wrote: Steve Hix wrote: In article , Ricardo wrote: What was the 'A-36' version of the Mustang? In brief, a dive bomber based on the early P-51 airframe, officially named "Apache". - Three-blade rather than four-blade prop. - Allison V-1710 engine, rather than Allison Merlin, as used in original Mustang. - Dive brakes included on inboard underside of wings, similar to Douglas Dauntless. About 500 made, used mostly in CBI and Mediterranean/North African theaters. The Collings Foundation is restoring one in Florida. Thanks Steve, Each day we learn a little more... Ricardo PS Allison Merlin? - I thought Packard were the boys for the Merlin production. Here I'm going to learn something else... Duuuh. Packard is right. I blame it on the poison oak what I got around my eyes currently. Glasses are a *good* thing... |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
F-35's Costs Climb Along With Concerns
Paul J. Adam wrote:
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). Uh, I don't know about "regularly falling," but here is the best reference I could find (skip down to the Mk XVI part): http://www.spitfire.dk/chapter3.htm I always figured this happened because of the difference between British manufacturing (production tolerances designed for hand-fitted assembly, ie. not all pistons will fit well in all cylinders) vs American manufacturing (production tolerances matched for mass production, ie. all pistons will fit well enough in all cylinders). Then again, the article I cited suggests it may have been a problem limited to just one batch rather than the different industrial philosophies between Henry T. and Henry Royce. Was this thread about the F-35? |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
F-35's Costs Climb Along With Concerns
|
#40
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Washington DC airspace closing for good? | tony roberts | Piloting | 153 | August 11th 05 12:56 AM |
Jet Ranger Operating Costs? | greenwavepilot | Owning | 5 | February 3rd 05 03:31 PM |
The frustrating economics of aviation | C J Campbell | Piloting | 96 | July 21st 04 04:41 PM |
Club Management Issue | Geoffrey Barnes | Owning | 150 | March 30th 04 06:36 PM |
Angle of climb at Vx and glide angle when "overweight": five questions | Koopas Ly | Piloting | 16 | November 29th 03 10:01 PM |