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 |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
Essential and Dispensible WW2 aircraft.
Bob Matthews wrote: Daryl Hunt wrote: "The Amaurotean Capitalist" wrote The critical point is that the P-51 would not have been sustained in production without the RAF championing the type on the basis of the Merlin installation in mid-1942. It was never a part of USAAF procurement until October 1942, and it took substantive British efforts to get the USAAF to accept it as a major production type. So it's certainly a US aircraft, but it wouldn't have existed without substantial British input both in technological terms, and production advocacy from the initial Allison-engined British purchase contracts to the Merlin conversion. Gavin Bailey Keeping it in the whatif department. Whatif they had installed decent Turbos and Supers on the Allisons. What would that have done for even the P-40. Afterall, later productions on the P-38 and the P-47 would have had equal or more range and speed of the P-51C and the P-40 would have had near identical performance and speed. Really? Seems like the P40's wing and overall aerodynamics made it less efficient therefore slower with the same power. Indeed. The Mustang used a laminar flow wing design. The P-40 seems more like the British Hurricane (both older designs) and the Mustang more like the Spitfire. Graham |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
Essential and Dispensible WW2 aircraft.
In article .com,
Seven wrote: On Oct 5, 6:31 pm, Steve Hix wrote: In article . com, Seven wrote: On Oct 4, 11:00 pm, WaltBJ wrote: Nobody mentioned the B32. I saw a whole ramp full of them at Pyote AFB in 1951 on the way to USAF basic. Walt, I hate to do this, but the NMUSAF says you didn't. According to their records, the last of the B-32s was scrapped in 1949. Which is a shame, really. I *love* WWII-era aircraft, and would dearly love to be able to see one of these in person. Here's the link either way. http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/fac...et.asp?id=2535 Maybe PB4Y's at Pyote? The B-32 is a little larger, but the ratio sounds about the same. I haven't had any luck finding records online records of PB4Ys (-1 or -2) at Pyote, but the absence of proof is not the proof of absence, as they say. I found a few records for PB4Y-1s being retired to Litchfield in the early 50s, but the year wasn't specified. The same source said that the PB4Y-2s remained in inventory until the 60s, when they were relegated to desert storage and presumably scrapped. Some of them ended up fighting fires. Watching one come rumbling low over my house, and diving into the canyon between there and St. Helena above the Napa Valley to dump retardant was pretty impressive, back in 1977. |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Essential and Dispensible WW2 aircraft.
In article ,
Eeyore wrote: It wasn't a question of 'making the effort'. Britain didn't have the manufacturing CAPACITY. That was recognised very early on and was why NA was asked to design the Mustang in the first place. North American initiated the P-51 design on their own. The British got it when they came to ask NAA to make P-40's for them, and Edgar Schmued's team said they could do better; it had been in the works for quite a while. |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
Essential and Dispensible WW2 aircraft.
On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 16:33:25 -0700, "Scott M. Kozel"
wrote: Well, the British apparently didn't want to make the effort to fund and build almost 15,000 Mustangs along with with over 16,000 units of that engine designed for that aircraft. The U.S. did. Only after the British pursuaded them to. Meanwhile the British did consider assembling Mustangs in Britain and prioritising the supply of Rolls-Royce Merlin 60-engines for them if two-stage Packard Merlins were unavailable. This willigness to disrupt production and procurement plans of their premier engine and aircraft type (the Spitfire IX) demonstrated a considerably higher interest in the Merlin Mustang than the USAAF originally had. Gavin Bailey -- Solution elegant. Yes. Minor problem, use 25000 CPU cycle for 1 instruction, this why all need overclock Pentium. Dumbass. - Bart Kwan En |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
Essential and Dispensible WW2 aircraft.
Eeyore wrote:
"Scott M. Kozel" wrote: Eeyore wrote: If they thought they could have done better as you seem to suggest, they could have designed a brand new engine but they didn't. Well, the British apparently didn't want to make the effort to fund and build almost 15,000 Mustangs along with with over 16,000 units of that engine designed for that aircraft. The U.S. did. It wasn't a question of 'making the effort'. Britain didn't have the manufacturing CAPACITY. That was recognised very early on and was why NA was asked to design the Mustang in the first place. Do you seriously think that Britain was in any position to win the war alone ? None of the Allies were in any position to win the war alone. It took a total effort from a whole assembledge of nations for several years to defeat the Axis. |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
Essential and Dispensible WW2 aircraft.
"Bob Matthews" wrote in message news:bEBNi.119918$Xa3.77553@attbi_s22... Daryl Hunt wrote: "The Amaurotean Capitalist" wrote in message ... On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 08:31:19 -0700, "Scott M. Kozel" wrote: The critical improvement to the Mustang was the fitting of the RR Merlin engine which was an RAF idea. Given that over 15,000 P-51s were built by North American Aviation in the U.S. and paid for by the U.S. government, it was predominently a U.S. aircraft. Like you said, the later models did use the Merlin engine. The critical point is that the P-51 would not have been sustained in production without the RAF championing the type on the basis of the Merlin installation in mid-1942. It was never a part of USAAF procurement until October 1942, and it took substantive British efforts to get the USAAF to accept it as a major production type. So it's certainly a US aircraft, but it wouldn't have existed without substantial British input both in technological terms, and production advocacy from the initial Allison-engined British purchase contracts to the Merlin conversion. Gavin Bailey Keeping it in the whatif department. Whatif they had installed decent Turbos and Supers on the Allisons. What would that have done for even the P-40. Afterall, later productions on the P-38 and the P-47 would have had equal or more range and speed of the P-51C and the P-40 would have had near identical performance and speed. Really? Seems like the P40's wing and overall aerodynamics made it less efficient therefore slower with the same power. And the P-40 was a winner near the ground even as it was. An F-5 camera ship was jumped by an FW-190. The pilot did all the things that made the 38 real hard to follow including dropping to about 20 feet on the deck and power out. The FW followed the F-5 knowing he had a kill. He spread his airplane all over the countryside because he had one hell of a torque factor near the ground. Just using ONE small flight characteristic to say that X is better than Y never has made sense. But we are in the What-ifs and not the how it was. |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
Essential and Dispensible WW2 aircraft.
wrote in message g.com... And on the horizon? Yes, the mighty P-75.... Well, perhaps the Bell P-63 Kingcobra, which didn't have the P-51's performance, but did have the two stage supercharger that was originally intended for the P-39, and might have performed well under combat conditions. It was capagle of carrying two large external fuel tanks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-63_Kingcobra Brian The 63 was in bad need of the Packard but it was denied it and it goes on to be an also ran used primarily by the Soviet Union on the Lend Lease Program. Just what the devil were those people thinking when they didn't produce more Packard/merlins. |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
Essential and Dispensible WW2 aircraft.
Steve Hix wrote:
In article .com, Seven wrote: On Oct 5, 6:31 pm, Steve Hix wrote: In article . com, Seven wrote: On Oct 4, 11:00 pm, WaltBJ wrote: Nobody mentioned the B32. I saw a whole ramp full of them at Pyote AFB in 1951 on the way to USAF basic. Walt, I hate to do this, but the NMUSAF says you didn't. According to their records, the last of the B-32s was scrapped in 1949. Which is a shame, really. I *love* WWII-era aircraft, and would dearly love to be able to see one of these in person. Here's the link either way. http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/fac...et.asp?id=2535 Maybe PB4Y's at Pyote? The B-32 is a little larger, but the ratio sounds about the same. I haven't had any luck finding records online records of PB4Ys (-1 or -2) at Pyote, but the absence of proof is not the proof of absence, as they say. I found a few records for PB4Y-1s being retired to Litchfield in the early 50s, but the year wasn't specified. The same source said that the PB4Y-2s remained in inventory until the 60s, when they were relegated to desert storage and presumably scrapped. Some of them ended up fighting fires. Watching one come rumbling low over my house, and diving into the canyon between there and St. Helena above the Napa Valley to dump retardant was pretty impressive, back in 1977. Yep, that is just about the time that I saw one at the airport in Winters just off of I-505, IIRC. The crew was kind enough to let a buddy and I climb around it. The guys that fly these old borate bombers are true heroes. -- Heaven is where the police are British, the chefs Italian, the mechanics German, the lovers French and it is all organized by the Swiss. Hell is where the police are German, the chefs British, the mechanics French, the lovers Swiss and it is all organized by Italians. http://new.photos.yahoo.com/paul1cart/albums/ |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
Essential and Dispensible WW2 aircraft.
On 2 Oct, 13:06, Eunometic wrote:
Essential and Dispensible WW2 aircraft. *********************************************** I've created a list of aircraft of WW2 that were essential to that side and also others that were dispensible in the sense that their place could easily have been taken by other aircraft or that were so ineffective that they were not needed at all. A great deal of effort was spent on aircraft that did not perform and were 'war loosers' while there was also a great deal of duplication of effort on aircraft that added nothing special and detracted from gains in production. United Kingdom Essential: Hurricane; had to be avialable in numbers for battle of britain Spitfire; had to provide quality fighter throughout the war an amenable to all rolls. Mosquito; night bomber, night fighter, fast day bomber and most importanty reconaisance aircraft par excellance. Lancaster; easy to fly, devastating war load. Wellington: Britains Medium bomber and an important coastal command aircraft. Non Essential: Beaufighter; not a useless aircraft as it could take damage but its roll could have been taken by others. It kept bristol busy. Hampden; Halifax; a good aircraft but Lancaster was better. Stirling; a waste of time although a saluatory lesson. Tempest and Typhoon: These aicraft had very poor high altitude performance and the typhoon had handling difficulties, was not particularly fast due to its thick wing and its airframe tended to snap of at the tail By 1942 Supermarine was producing the Spitifre Mk XII which had a single stage Griffon engine and could outrun the Tempest. Although the mk XII also had poor altitude performance its handling was better. It would be early 1944 before the Mk XIX entered service which had a two stage Griffon. Germany: Since Germany lost the war I found it hard to determine what to put in non essential so I've added the column 'might have' Essential: Me 109: Hurricane vintage aircraft but remained competitive untill 1945 when Me 109K-4's were capable of 455mph and 48000ft service ceiling and even then there were versions such as the Me 109K-14 with a two stage supercharged DB603L engine starting production but not delivered as well as the DB603DSCM engine touching on 2000hp at 1.98 atm boost there were test of 2.3 and 2.4 atm going on at DB which suggests a power of 2400hp and speed of 470-480mph. The aircraft should have been replaced far earlier with something that had lighter contol forces and better speed. It would have performed better with superior fuel. Fw 190: this aircraft filled in many of the Me 109's weaknesses. ju 88: night fighter, high speed bomber, dive or slant bomber, maritime patrol etc. Ju 87: Devastating in combined arms breakthrough warfare and deadly accurate. When its days were over it lived on as a night bomber and ground attack aircraft with one of the lowest per mission loss rates of any Luftwaffe aircraft. He 111: early bombing workhorse Do 217 Only 1200 produced but still effective as a night bomber and guided missile carrier. Arado 234: the jet aircraft provided essential reconaisance: it was the first and only aircraft to survey the Normandy beach-head. Two prototypes flew about 36 missions with their engines being reliable during this process. They were both shot down by their own German FLAK. Fi 103 or V1. Extremely cheap to produce consumed massive allied resources. Non essential: Do 17 Me 110: its role as a night fighter could have been taken by the Ju 88, I am aware of its success in the Early Polish and Soviet Campaigns but I don't think these were decisive. Might Have Me 210/410 Quite a good aircraft that was to replace the Ju 88 and Me 110. Fast, advanced armament, bomb bay, efficient etc but simply too late due to programm mismanagment to survive in allied skies. Me 262; probably was effective in staving of defeat by a few weeks. He 219; succombed to political problems; an excellent night fighter and unlike the Me 110 and early Ju 88 it had the speed to chase down British bombers once diversionary raids and feints had been ascertained. He 177: engine problems were not tackled agressively. The B series with 4 seperate engines could have made up the bulk of production and provided the Luftwaffe with a reliable long range bomber of exceptional performance had courage preceded arse covering. USA: Essential: P-40 USAAF effective fighter of excellent quality; it was quite effective with appropriate tactics. P-38 Had the range and performance to protect US bombers. It prevented the German Airforce from fielding heavy aircraft firing rockets, or impunely attacking bombers under the protection of heavy armour. B-17 Hightly survivable high altitude bomber. B-24 Longer ranged then the B-17; its only virtue. B-29 Defeat of japan almost impossible B-25 Versatile and easy to fly in all theatres of war. Wildcat, Hellcat, dauntless, avenger P-47 Ready far earlier than the P-51. Non Essential B-26 not as versatile as the B-25 and for a medium bomber too demanding of runway conditions. Helldiver: too many handling problems. P-51; the P-38 had sufficient range to cover untill the P-47M with a wett wing which actually could excede the range of the P-51. Vought corsair: took to long to perfect for carrier opperations; Hellcat did a good enough job. Had the Ki 84 been available in numbers and supplied with 100/130 octane fuel the corsair would have been essential Japan: Essential: Mitsubishi A6M zero and Betty. Dinah, Ki 84 Non essential All army types apart from the dinah and Ki 84 Soviet Union Essential Illushian Sturmovik, Pekelatov Pe2, Tupolev Tu 4, I-16 Unsure; Yakalove, LaGG, MiG series of fighters seemed to overlap in function. The MiG 3 only failing to secure production because its engine was needed. I think the concept of essential and non essential is absurd to be honest - sorry, Guy |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
Essential and Dispensible WW2 aircraft.
On Oct 8, 9:33 am, guy wrote:
On 2 Oct, 13:06, Eunometic wrote: Essential and Dispensible WW2 aircraft. *********************************************** I've created a list of aircraft of WW2 that were essential to that side and also others that were dispensible in the sense that their place could easily have been taken by other aircraft or that were so ineffective that they were not needed at all. A great deal of effort was spent on aircraft that did not perform and were 'war loosers' while there was also a great deal of duplication of effort on aircraft that added nothing special and detracted from gains in production. United Kingdom Essential: Hurricane; had to be avialable in numbers for battle of britain Spitfire; had to provide quality fighter throughout the war an amenable to all rolls. Mosquito; night bomber, night fighter, fast day bomber and most importanty reconaisance aircraft par excellance. Lancaster; easy to fly, devastating war load. Wellington: Britains Medium bomber and an important coastal command aircraft. Non Essential: Beaufighter; not a useless aircraft as it could take damage but its roll could have been taken by others. It kept bristol busy. Hampden; Halifax; a good aircraft but Lancaster was better. Stirling; a waste of time although a saluatory lesson. Tempest and Typhoon: These aicraft had very poor high altitude performance and the typhoon had handling difficulties, was not particularly fast due to its thick wing and its airframe tended to snap of at the tail By 1942 Supermarine was producing the Spitifre Mk XII which had a single stage Griffon engine and could outrun the Tempest. Although the mk XII also had poor altitude performance its handling was better. It would be early 1944 before the Mk XIX entered service which had a two stage Griffon. Germany: Since Germany lost the war I found it hard to determine what to put in non essential so I've added the column 'might have' Essential: Me 109: Hurricane vintage aircraft but remained competitive untill 1945 when Me 109K-4's were capable of 455mph and 48000ft service ceiling and even then there were versions such as the Me 109K-14 with a two stage supercharged DB603L engine starting production but not delivered as well as the DB603DSCM engine touching on 2000hp at 1.98 atm boost there were test of 2.3 and 2.4 atm going on at DB which suggests a power of 2400hp and speed of 470-480mph. The aircraft should have been replaced far earlier with something that had lighter contol forces and better speed. It would have performed better with superior fuel. Fw 190: this aircraft filled in many of the Me 109's weaknesses. ju 88: night fighter, high speed bomber, dive or slant bomber, maritime patrol etc. Ju 87: Devastating in combined arms breakthrough warfare and deadly accurate. When its days were over it lived on as a night bomber and ground attack aircraft with one of the lowest per mission loss rates of any Luftwaffe aircraft. He 111: early bombing workhorse Do 217 Only 1200 produced but still effective as a night bomber and guided missile carrier. Arado 234: the jet aircraft provided essential reconaisance: it was the first and only aircraft to survey the Normandy beach-head. Two prototypes flew about 36 missions with their engines being reliable during this process. They were both shot down by their own German FLAK. Fi 103 or V1. Extremely cheap to produce consumed massive allied resources. Non essential: Do 17 Me 110: its role as a night fighter could have been taken by the Ju 88, I am aware of its success in the Early Polish and Soviet Campaigns but I don't think these were decisive. Might Have Me 210/410 Quite a good aircraft that was to replace the Ju 88 and Me 110. Fast, advanced armament, bomb bay, efficient etc but simply too late due to programm mismanagment to survive in allied skies. Me 262; probably was effective in staving of defeat by a few weeks. He 219; succombed to political problems; an excellent night fighter and unlike the Me 110 and early Ju 88 it had the speed to chase down British bombers once diversionary raids and feints had been ascertained. He 177: engine problems were not tackled agressively. The B series with 4 seperate engines could have made up the bulk of production and provided the Luftwaffe with a reliable long range bomber of exceptional performance had courage preceded arse covering. USA: Essential: P-40 USAAF effective fighter of excellent quality; it was quite effective with appropriate tactics. P-38 Had the range and performance to protect US bombers. It prevented the German Airforce from fielding heavy aircraft firing rockets, or impunely attacking bombers under the protection of heavy armour. B-17 Hightly survivable high altitude bomber. B-24 Longer ranged then the B-17; its only virtue. B-29 Defeat of japan almost impossible B-25 Versatile and easy to fly in all theatres of war. Wildcat, Hellcat, dauntless, avenger P-47 Ready far earlier than the P-51. Non Essential B-26 not as versatile as the B-25 and for a medium bomber too demanding of runway conditions. Helldiver: too many handling problems. P-51; the P-38 had sufficient range to cover untill the P-47M with a wett wing which actually could excede the range of the P-51. Vought corsair: took to long to perfect for carrier opperations; Hellcat did a good enough job. Had the Ki 84 been available in numbers and supplied with 100/130 octane fuel the corsair would have been essential Japan: Essential: Mitsubishi A6M zero and Betty. Dinah, Ki 84 Non essential All army types apart from the dinah and Ki 84 Soviet Union Essential Illushian Sturmovik, Pekelatov Pe2, Tupolev Tu 4, I-16 Unsure; Yakalove, LaGG, MiG series of fighters seemed to overlap in function. The MiG 3 only failing to secure production because its engine was needed. I think the concept of essential and non essential is absurd to be honest - sorry, Guy I don't disagree, but it has resulted in an interesting, on-topic thread. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Two essential items... | john smith | Piloting | 19 | December 26th 06 02:48 AM |
Delaware LLC Owned Aircraft California Based Aircraft | ChrisEllis | Piloting | 6 | January 17th 06 03:47 AM |
Commercial rating: complex aircraft required aircraft for practical test? | Marc J. Zeitlin | Piloting | 22 | November 24th 05 04:11 AM |
Exclusive Custom Home Plans, and Essential information about building your New Home | orange tree | Home Built | 4 | November 20th 05 04:37 PM |
Experience transitioning from C-172 to complex aircraft as potential first owned aircraft? | Jack Allison | Owning | 12 | June 14th 04 08:01 PM |