A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Naval Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Essential and Dispensible WW2 aircraft.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old October 3rd 07, 03:34 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval
The Amaurotean Capitalist
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16
Default Essential and Dispensible WW2 aircraft.

On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 06:10:50 -0700, Eunometic
wrote:

Yes but the P-47B or P-47C didn't have the tail tank and therefor
range yet.


The D didn't get it until the tear-drop canopy version, IIRC. In any
case, the N variant didn't turn up until the Merlin-engined P-51 -
with rear fuselage fuel tanks - had been in action for more than a
year.

If pressed to find a solution to extra tankage it would have been
possible to introduce a tanked wing earlier i feel.


Possibly; but when know that despite extending fighter escort range
being a critical priority for the USAAF, the P-47D with increased
internal fuel capacity wasn't available until well into 1944. You
might as well speculate what might have happened if the USAAF had
actually increased the internal fuel capacity of the Spitfire VIIIs
and IXs they had been using in the MTO for a full year before Giles
and Arnold got another two Spit IXs from the UK to do the same.

Or you could speculate about the USAAF overcoming institutional
resistance to the P-51 before the RAF had to ram the initial test
reports of the type down Arnold's throat.

One of the critical factors overlooked in all this is the pressure for
monthly production output to sustain combat operations. One reason
that the USAAF could rely upon the Merlin-engined P-51 is that it
didn't entail the reduction or cancellation of other types currently
in production.

Gavin Bailey


--
Solution elegant. Yes. Minor problem, use 25000 CPU cycle for 1
instruction, this why all need overclock Pentium. Dumbass.
- Bart Kwan En
  #22  
Old October 3rd 07, 03:45 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval
The Amaurotean Capitalist
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16
Default Essential and Dispensible WW2 aircraft.

On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 06:08:03 -0700, Eunometic
wrote:

The real reason the P-38 was transfered to the Pacific theater is
because it was in high demand over the not becuase it was a
failure.


It's clear from Doolittle's contemporary correspondence with Arnold
that turbo overspeeding, detonation and aerodynamic problems all
combined to make him prefer the P-51 over the P-38.

In the end the the P-38L-1-LO, could claim a combat radius of nearly
1,500 miles under ideal conditions which was far further than any P-51
could conceivably achieve.


Shame it would require a wait until June 1944 before any of them
appeared. Imagine trying that excuse with Arnold in June 1943: "Well,
we'll have the problems with the P-38 licked a year from now -
meanwhile we'll just have to accept enormous attrition in our
strategic bombing campaign or abandon it for the time being."

I actually meant the P-47N as this was the model with the wing
tankage. It could fly 2000 miles with 300 miles and 20 minutes
combate at full power and 5 minutes a WEP. Further than any P-51.


Shame it wasn't around until March 1945; between then and November
1943 the P-51 managed considerably more than the P-47N.

The P-38 and P-47 were available earlier.


June 1944 for the P-38L; March 1945 for the P-47N. First Schweinfurt
was in August 1943. Can you see the problem?

The P-51C carried its fuel
in its wings; the P-51D added a big tank in the tail that made it
unstable and uncombatworthy to fly.


The B's were fitted with the 75-gallon fuselage tank after delivery,
and before the D model appeared in combat.

As far as I can tell Happy Arnolds directive to Spaatz to develop long
range escorts didn't specify Mustangs.


No; but it was the type that addressed the requirement faster than any
of the others.

The Mustang was a fine plane but I think the P-38 and P-47 could have
done the job if pressed a little more than they were.


The USAAF was pressing both for more than they could deliver. The
P-51 succeeded because of their contemporary limitations.

Gavin Bailey

--
Solution elegant. Yes. Minor problem, use 25000 CPU cycle for 1
instruction, this why all need overclock Pentium. Dumbass.
- Bart Kwan En
  #23  
Old October 3rd 07, 04:19 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval
Gordon[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 57
Default Essential and Dispensible WW2 aircraft.

On Oct 3, 6:44 am, Eunometic wrote:

The tragedy of the Me 210 was that the problem were known even before
the moment the test pilot stepped out of the aircraft on its maiden
flight. He said that the tail needed to be lengthened by 1 meter or
so. To do that over 5million reich marks of jigs would need to be
scrapped. So instead slats were tried, these didn't work and actually
made things worse, a single large as opposed to two fins was tried;
that didn't work. When the Me 210C was ordered by the Hungarian air
force they bypassed the managerial and political problems and
incorporated the lengthened tail and slats which worked brilliantly
together.


I knew the Luftwaffe test pilot assigned to the Hungarian 210 project
until he passed away recently. He crashed the prototype due to a
switchology f*-up that at first was blamed on him, but eventually was
exonerated. He was a combat-scarred Bf 110 veteran (literally) that
was lucky to survive an attack on a HSS'd B-17 that set both his
aircraft and himself on fire. Given the choice to take over a desk or
a transfer to the Hungarian test program, he chose the latter.
According to Zittier, the uplock switch was not the German-designed
one, and as soon as he lifted off, the landing gear folded up, leaving
him out in the middle of a plowed field on his belly. Unhurt and with
little damage to the aircraft, he quickly returned to the air and
proved just how well the modifications worked. There were literally
no performance issues with the Hungarian machines and it threw a lot
of egg on the RLM's collective faces.

Gordon

  #24  
Old October 3rd 07, 04:31 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval
Scott M. Kozel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14
Default Essential and Dispensible WW2 aircraft.

Eeyore wrote:

Eunometic wrote:
Essential and Dispensible WW2 aircraft.
***********************************************
USA:


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.


You'd have to be nuts to think the P-51 wasn't essential. It was vital in
Europe.

Why you list it under USA is odd too since it was originally designed for the
RAF as the Mustang. The USAAF only adopted it later.

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.


  #25  
Old October 3rd 07, 05:29 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval
The Amaurotean Capitalist
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16
Default Essential and Dispensible WW2 aircraft.

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



--
Solution elegant. Yes. Minor problem, use 25000 CPU cycle for 1
instruction, this why all need overclock Pentium. Dumbass.
- Bart Kwan En
  #26  
Old October 3rd 07, 10:34 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval
Daryl Hunt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 63
Default Essential and Dispensible WW2 aircraft.


"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.



  #27  
Old October 4th 07, 01:43 AM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval
dumbstruck
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4
Default Essential and Dispensible WW2 aircraft.

On Oct 3, 3:38 am, Eunometic wrote:
I'm slowly getting convinced that it was essential but retain doubts.


How about posting a revision of your list, fixing the couple important
typos and any concessions you might have been pursuaded into?

  #28  
Old October 4th 07, 02:17 AM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval
Scott M. Kozel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14
Default Essential and Dispensible WW2 aircraft.

The Amaurotean Capitalist wrote:

"Scott M. Kozel" wrote:

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.


Given that with the Allison engine that the P-51 on the balance had
significantly better performance than previous U.S. fighters, even
with that engine it most likely would have been built in substantial
quantities and been a useful fighter aircraft.

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.


I would agree that there were "substantive British efforts" in the
preliminary design of the aircraft, and that the Merlin engine design
substantially increased the performance of the aircraft.

The main production version of the P-51 was powered by the Packard
V-1650-3, built by the Packard Motor Car Company of Detroit, Michigan,
USA, and it was a two-stage two-speed supercharged 12-cylinder Packard-
built version of the Rolls-Royce Merlin engine. The P-51 was armed
with six of the aircraft version of the .50 caliber (12.7 mm) Browning
machine guns.

I would give a lot of credit to British efforts in the preliminary
design of the aircraft and its ultimate engine.

When I said that the P-51 was a "predominently U.S. aircraft", that is
because its final design and production was in the U.S., that over
15,000 P-51 airframes were built by North American Aviation in the
U.S., powered by engines built by Packard in the U.S., with the raw
materials and labor provided from the U.S., and that the project was
paid for by the U.S. government.

  #29  
Old October 4th 07, 02:26 AM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval
Robert Sveinson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 103
Default Essential and Dispensible WW2 aircraft.


"Scott M. Kozel" wrote in message
ups.com...


When I said that the P-51 was a "predominently U.S. aircraft", that is
because its final design and production was in the U.S., that over
15,000 P-51 airframes were built by North American Aviation in the
U.S., powered by engines built by Packard in the U.S., with the raw
materials and labor provided from the U.S., and that the project was
paid for by the U.S. government.


Weren't P-51s also built in Australia?


  #30  
Old October 4th 07, 05:31 AM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval
Eeyore[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 163
Default Essential and Dispensible WW2 aircraft.



"Scott M. Kozel" wrote:

The Amaurotean Capitalist wrote:

"Scott M. Kozel" wrote:

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.


Given that with the Allison engine that the P-51 on the balance had
significantly better performance than previous U.S. fighters, even
with that engine it most likely would have been built in substantial
quantities and been a useful fighter aircraft.


The RAF didn't really have confidence in it with the Allison. In particular its
high level performance was poor so it wasn't a good fighter choice. IIRC the RAF
used the Allsion engined version for ground attack a bit where the failings
weren't so obvious.

Graham

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Two essential items... john smith Piloting 19 December 26th 06 03:48 AM
Delaware LLC Owned Aircraft California Based Aircraft ChrisEllis Piloting 6 January 17th 06 04:47 AM
Commercial rating: complex aircraft required aircraft for practical test? Marc J. Zeitlin Piloting 22 November 24th 05 05:11 AM
Exclusive Custom Home Plans, and Essential information about building your New Home orange tree Home Built 4 November 20th 05 05:37 PM
Experience transitioning from C-172 to complex aircraft as potential first owned aircraft? Jack Allison Owning 12 June 14th 04 08:01 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:45 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.