Essential and Dispensible WW2 aircraft.

"Eeyore" wrote ...

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.

Used as a dive bomber no less, A-36 Invader I believe was its name

rob wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote ...

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.

Used as a dive bomber no less, A-36 Invader I believe was its name

Although it was still just the 'Mustang I' to the RAF.

I found this intruiging ...

" No funds were available for new fighter contracts in Fiscal Year 1942 but
General Oliver Echols wanted to ensure the P-51 remained in production.[4] Since
appropriations were available for an attack aircraft, Echols specified
modifications to the P-51 to turn it into a dive bomber. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_A-36

The joys of rigid budgets.

Graham

On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 18:17:29 -0700, "Scott M. Kozel"
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.

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.

You might think so, but what actually happened is that the USAAF kept
the North American production lines in Los Angeles going when the
British Mustang I and British-requested lend-lease Mustang IA orders
were completed by ordering 500 A-36 Dive Bombers. Until the British
intervened, the USAAF had little interest in the P-51.

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

You miss the fact that the British were instrumental in keeping
Mustang production going and were instrumental in pushing continued
production alongside the introduction of the Merlin engine. Neither
of these initiatives came from the USAAF.

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.

I completely agree. And yet it wouldn't have existed, in either
Allison or Merlin-engined variants, without the British.

Gavin Bailey

--
Solution elegant. Yes. Minor problem, use 25000 CPU cycle for 1
instruction, this why all need overclock Pentium. Dumbass.
- Bart Kwan En

On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 06:29:09 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:

I found this intruiging ...

" No funds were available for new fighter contracts in Fiscal Year 1942 but
General Oliver Echols wanted to ensure the P-51 remained in production.[4] Since
appropriations were available for an attack aircraft, Echols specified
modifications to the P-51 to turn it into a dive bomber. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_A-36

The joys of rigid budgets.

No aircraft procurement decision in war time was ever driven by
funding issues alone. The USAAF could, and frequently did, return to
Congress for supplementary appropriations or for the re-allocation of
existing appropriations which often didn't require Congressional
approval. The critical issue was production availability, not
finance.

I believe Echols accepted the A-36 because it kept existing North
American production going while the USAAF had no use for the P-51
except as a reconnaisance machine in small numbers. Therefore nobody
cared if P-51 production was diverted to fulfil an army-support
requirement which they obviously didn't want the P-38, P-39, P-40 or
P-47 being used for.

Gavin Bailey

--
Solution elegant. Yes. Minor problem, use 25000 CPU cycle for 1
instruction, this why all need overclock Pentium. Dumbass.
- Bart Kwan En

On Oct 4, 12:39 am, "rob" wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote ...

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.

Used as a dive bomber no less, A-36 Invader I believe was its name

Apache.....the A-26 was the Invader.

Uzytkownik "Eunometic" napisal w wiadomosci
ps.com...

Soviet Union

Essential

Illushian Sturmovik, Pekelatov Pe2, Tupolev Tu 4, I-16

Obvious typos: Ilyushin Shturmovik, Petlyakov Pe-2, Tupolev Tu-2 (Tu-4
Bull's first flight: May 1947).

Why do you think I-16 was essential? It was outdated at the time of
'Fall Barbarossa' and suffered great loses (both on the ground and in
combat). Replaced by MiG-3, Yak-1/Yak-3 and Yak-7/Yak-9 series. Yak-3
entered in 1944 was most succesful of all 1/3/7/9 series. Yak-7/Yak-9
being parallel to Yak-1/Yak-3 could be marked 'dispensible'; on the
other hand Yak-9 with 16769 built (all versions, 1942-48) was most
produced Yakovlev's piston fighter.

I would add La-5/La7 series. La-5 (without Gorbunov and Gudkov) entered
production in 1942 and followed by its modification La-7 (1944) was the
best Soviet fighter of WWII.

I would add also Polikarpov Po-2 to the essentials. It was very usefull
in supporting insurgents behind German lines which was more significant
than on any other war theatre.

Missed Ilyushin Il-4, the most important Soviet medium bomber.

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.

Typos again: Yakovlev.

Yak fighters belong the essentials IMO. LaGG-1/LaGG-3 (Lavochkin,
Gorbunov & Gudkov) was failure. It was replaced by La-5 (Lavochkin's own
modification of LaGG-3).

MiG-3 was essential at the beginning of German-Soviet war being the only
operational fighter of contemporary design (Yak-1 was not yet
operational and most aircraft were damaged on the ground and abandoned).
It suffered losses due to lack of experienced pilots but the airframe
was comparable to contemporary enemy's fighters. It played great role in
defending Moscow in 1941, Leningrad and Stalingrad. Shifted to the Far
East by 1943, where it saw no action.

--
JasiekS
Warsaw, Poland

On Oct 4, 9:33 pm, "JasiekS"
wrote:
Uzytkownik "Eunometic" napisal w wiadomoscinews:1191326783.161221.83770@w3g2000hsg. googlegroups.com...

Soviet Union
Essential
Illushian Sturmovik, Pekelatov Pe2, Tupolev Tu 4, I-16

Obvious typos: Ilyushin Shturmovik, Petlyakov Pe-2, Tupolev Tu-2 (Tu-4
Bull's first flight: May 1947).

Why do you think I-16 was essential?

Maybe the VVS soviet airforce was better of without the rata since it
cost many pilots lives without much benefit. Having said that late
model I-16 were almost as fast as the Hawker Hurricane.

The MiG 3 and Yak 1 was only just beginning delivery and the latter
had quality problems.


It was outdated at the time of
'Fall Barbarossa' and suffered great loses (both on the ground and in
combat). Replaced by MiG-3, Yak-1/Yak-3 and Yak-7/Yak-9 series. Yak-3
entered in 1944 was most succesful of all 1/3/7/9 series. Yak-7/Yak-9
being parallel to Yak-1/Yak-3 could be marked 'dispensible'; on the
other hand Yak-9 with 16769 built (all versions, 1942-48) was most
produced Yakovlev's piston fighter.

I would add La-5/La7 series. La-5 (without Gorbunov and Gudkov) entered
production in 1942 and followed by its modification La-7 (1944) was the
best Soviet fighter of WWII.

I would add also Polikarpov Po-2 to the essentials. It was very usefull
in supporting insurgents behind German lines which was more significant
than on any other war theatre.

Missed Ilyushin Il-4, the most important Soviet medium bomber.

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.

Typos again: Yakovlev.

Yak fighters belong the essentials IMO. LaGG-1/LaGG-3 (Lavochkin,
Gorbunov & Gudkov) was failure. It was replaced by La-5 (Lavochkin's own
modification of LaGG-3).

MiG-3 was essential at the beginning of German-Soviet war being the only
operational fighter of contemporary design (Yak-1 was not yet
operational and most aircraft were damaged on the ground and abandoned).
It suffered losses due to lack of experienced pilots but the airframe
was comparable to contemporary enemy's fighters. It played great role in
defending Moscow in 1941, Leningrad and Stalingrad. Shifted to the Far
East by 1943, where it saw no action.

--
JasiekS
Warsaw, Poland

Thankyou.

The Amaurotean Capitalist wrote:

"Scott M. Kozel" wrote:

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

You miss the fact that the British were instrumental in keeping
Mustang production going and were instrumental in pushing continued
production alongside the introduction of the Merlin engine. Neither
of these initiatives came from the USAAF.

The USAAF examined the alternatives, and decided to build the P-51.
They wern't "pushed" to do anything that they didn't intentionally
decide to do.

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.

I completely agree. And yet it wouldn't have existed, in either
Allison or Merlin-engined variants, without the British.

I'm not sure what is your point. It wouldn't have existed, without
the U.S., either, at least not in quantities that would have had any
measurable impact on the war.

As I said, the British efforts were in the preliminary design. It was
NAA and Packard that built over 15,000 of the main models of the P-51,
in the U.S.; the British did not do that.

Look, I'm not trying to make this a competetion of U.S. and British; I
merely stepped into this thread when someone questioned why the P-51
was listed under USA aircraft.

A few corrections. Yes the later P51s had an 85 gallon fuel tank
behind the cocpit. However, this tank was supposed to be used up first
to avoid CG problems/limits to manuevering. If the pilot ignored this
restriction, chances are the USAAC lost a good airplane and a weak
pilot.
P38 - I had an instructor who flew F5s in the Pacific. 8010 hours and
a couple times - 12 hours. Awkward if the GIs showed up in flight - he
had a couple tales about that involving the jettison of maps, etc.
P39/P40 - both fairly capable at low altitude meaning below say 3000
MSL. Here is where good combat training showed its value. Alone, one
has a problem; as part of a flight there is someone to team with to
fight the enemy, a la the Thach weave.
Nobody mentioned the B32. I saw a whole ramp full of them at Pyote AFB
in 1951 on the way to USAF basic.
Anything designed by Brewster.
Budd RB-1 Conestoga - twin engine ramp loading stainless steel
aircraft. A hulk exists at Pima. I saw one at Mines Field (LAX) as a
kid.
Fisher XP75. Mongrel abortion.
A lot of XP planes were doomed because the 'hyper' engines they were
designed for were not produced.
Lightweight fighters - a great 1937 idea that didn't pan out.
Walt BJ

In article . com,
WaltBJ wrote:

A few corrections. Yes the later P51s had an 85 gallon fuel tank
behind the cocpit. However, this tank was supposed to be used up first
to avoid CG problems/limits to manuevering. If the pilot ignored this
restriction, chances are the USAAC lost a good airplane and a weak
pilot.
P38 - I had an instructor who flew F5s in the Pacific. 8010 hours and
a couple times - 12 hours. Awkward if the GIs showed up in flight - he
had a couple tales about that involving the jettison of maps, etc.
P39/P40 - both fairly capable at low altitude meaning below say 3000
MSL. Here is where good combat training showed its value. Alone, one
has a problem; as part of a flight there is someone to team with to
fight the enemy, a la the Thach weave.
Nobody mentioned the B32. I saw a whole ramp full of them at Pyote AFB
in 1951 on the way to USAF basic.
Anything designed by Brewster.

If some of the stories are true, anything *made* by Brewster could be
questionable. The manufacturing side of the company had problems just
starting with management.

Budd RB-1 Conestoga - twin engine ramp loading stainless steel
aircraft. A hulk exists at Pima. I saw one at Mines Field (LAX) as a
kid.
Fisher XP75. Mongrel abortion.
A lot of XP planes were doomed because the 'hyper' engines they were
designed for were not produced.

Continental, Lycoming, Rolls-Royce, etc all seemed to come up with the
idea of X-layout engines (and coupling existing engines for bigger
outputs) around the same time.

Did *any* of them actually work out?

Lightweight fighters - a great 1937 idea that didn't pan out.
Walt BJ