Essential and Dispensible WW2 aircraft.

In article , "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

Nope -- it was "Apache."

On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 15:10:50 -0700, "Scott M. Kozel"
wrote:

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.

The USAAF examined the alternatives, were presented with a
British-sponsored alternative pushed by senior British officers,
Winston Churchill to Harry Hopkins and FDR, and at the May-June
discussions over the second Arnold-Towers-Portal agreement over
aircraft allocations. The USAAF alternatives available at this point
(mid-'42) were the P-38 which was only just entering substantive
production after critical aerodynamic problems and with engine output
limitations, the P-39 which was being discredited by combat reports
from the south-west Pacific, and the P-40 which was suffering from the
same altitude performance limitations as the P-39 was currently being
produced with a Packard Merlin 20 series engine to address that
shortcoming, while the P-47 remained the great white hope of USAAF
fighter procurement.

The decision to continue Mustang production with a Merlin-engined
variant originated with the British.

They wern't "pushed" to do anything that they didn't intentionally
decide to do.

They were; the Merlin-engined P-51 would not have existed if it had
not been for the British initiative of April-June 1942. The test
reports Arnold used in his memoirs to defend his fighter procurement
policy against media critics were British ones submitted to him by the
Slessor mission of early June 1942 which convinced him to continue
Mustang production at British behest.

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.

The Merlin-engined Mustang only became a part of USAAF procurement
policy by means of British agency, and the Mustang also only existed
to start with as a result of British agency.

As I said, the British efforts were in the preliminary design.

And as I've pointed out, the USAAF had no interest in the Mustang, nor
had any idea about a Merlin-engined Mustang until the British
presented them with it, and in addition swapped Spitfires for an
undertaking to produce them with an allocation of 200 to the RAF.

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.

Who said they did?

Look, I'm not trying to make this a competetion of U.S. and British

Neither am I. I am pointing out the historical facts involved in
Merlin-Mustang procurement.

I merely stepped into this thread when someone questioned why the P-51
was listed under USA aircraft.

It was an American aircraft; nevertheless it would not have existed
without British agency in terms of sponsoring the initial design
(although the technological and development work was almost entirely
done by North American) and furthermore it wouldn't have existed in a
Merlin-engined variant without the British pushing it upon the USAAF
at a time in mid-1942 when Arnold's fighter procurement policy was
subject to significant public misgivings.

Gavin Bailey

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

"rob" wrote in message ...

"Eunometic" wrote
Essential
Wellington: Britains Medium bomber and an important coastal command
aircraft.

For a short while, they probably wouldn't have missed it had it not been
designed.


I have to disagree. The Wellington was the best bomber available until
the Lancaster and Halifax came along, the fact that over 11,000 were
produced speaks for itself.

Keith

"Eunometic" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Oct 3, 7:41 am, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:
"Eunometic" wrote in message

ps.com...



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.

I strongly disagree. It played an essential role both as a nightfighter
and
in the shipping strike role in the ETO and their long range made
them extremely valuable ground attack aircraft in the far east

It's contemporary the the Mosquito could also do that job, and much
better at that.

The Beau was in service a full year before the Mosquito and with its
twin air cooled radials was much more resistant to damage in the
low level strike role. I knew a coastal command pilot who flew
both types and he reckoned the Beau was the better choice for low
level shipping strikes, one hit in the cooling system on the Mosquito and
you could lose an engine

What I don't like about it was that if confronted by german airforce
day fighters it was
in deep trouble. It needed an escort; whereas the mosquito coastal
command aircraft actualy took on Fw 190.

And lost if the German pilot knew his business, the Mosquito
was outclassed by German single seat fighters and the coastal command
version

If given a choice of choosing between 1000 extra Mosquito vs 1000 less
beaufighter?



Timing old boy, in 1942 and 1943 there simply were not the Mosquitos
available,
the first FB VI didnt fly until June 1942 but the Beaufighter Mk IC entered
service in May 1941 and played a vital role in the shpping strikes from
Malta that devastated the logistics of the Afrika Corps. It was also
much more suitable for use in the Far East where the Mosquito was to suffer
from severe problems due to its wooden construction




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

It could and did however make an excellent ground attack aircraft
and played a vital role in the western campaign attacking the
Wehrmacht

I don't deny it. It was kind of successful, napier and tail breakages
aside but as far as I can see the Mk XII Griffon spit could do a
better job and was available at the right time.

Immagine putting the engineers who were working on the the Typhoon/
Tempest and the Sabre to work on things more essential
such as a B-29 class bomber using the centaurus or a fast medium
bomber.


B-29 type bombers were neither needed or affordable and the policy
was to buy US made medium bombers. The Tempest was needed to
counter the V-1 and FW-190 raids on the south coast and the Typhoon
replaced the Hurricane IID in the ground attack role, both were essential
roles.


Generally the British (air ministry, raf etc) had the knack of
abandoning loosing designs and making pragmatic choices.


Just so, they decided NOT to pursue the Victory bomber design by
Barnes Wallis for exceedingly pragmatic reasons, this was indeed a
British aircraft designed for the same high altitude role filled by the
B-29.

Keith

The Amaurotean Capitalist wrote:

"Scott M. Kozel" wrote:

The Merlin-engined Mustang only became a part of USAAF procurement
policy by means of British agency, and the Mustang also only existed
to start with as a result of British agency.

You keep calling it a "Merlin-engined Mustang" while in fact those
built by NAA utilized a Packard built engine that was a modifification
of the Merlin design.

I merely stepped into this thread when someone questioned why the P-51
was listed under USA aircraft.

It was an American aircraft; nevertheless it would not have existed
without British agency in terms of sponsoring the initial design
(although the technological and development work was almost entirely
done by North American) and furthermore it wouldn't have existed in a
Merlin-engined variant without the British pushing it upon the USAAF
at a time in mid-1942 when Arnold's fighter procurement policy was
subject to significant public misgivings.

Nevertheless it would not have existed in quantities that could have a
measurable impact on the war without U.S. final design and
manufacturing.

If there was no P-51 then some other design could have been developed,
such as the advanced P-47 being completed much sooner.

On Oct 5, 7:20 am, "Scott M. Kozel" wrote:
The Amaurotean Capitalist wrote:



"Scott M. Kozel" wrote:

The Merlin-engined Mustang only became a part of USAAF procurement
policy by means of British agency, and the Mustang also only existed
to start with as a result of British agency.

You keep calling it a "Merlin-engined Mustang" while in fact those
built by NAA utilized a Packard built engine that was a modifification
of the Merlin design.

I merely stepped into this thread when someone questioned why the P-51
was listed under USA aircraft.

It was an American aircraft; nevertheless it would not have existed
without British agency in terms of sponsoring the initial design
(although the technological and development work was almost entirely
done by North American) and furthermore it wouldn't have existed in a
Merlin-engined variant without the British pushing it upon the USAAF
at a time in mid-1942 when Arnold's fighter procurement policy was
subject to significant public misgivings.

Nevertheless it would not have existed in quantities that could have a
measurable impact on the war without U.S. final design and
manufacturing.

If there was no P-51 then some other design could have been developed,
such as the advanced P-47 being completed much sooner.

You're assuming the resources put into the Mustang would've been
used on the T-Bolt....they might've just as easily gone into more
P-40s or at least derivatives like the P-60.

On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 04:20:20 -0700, "Scott M. Kozel"
wrote:

You keep calling it a "Merlin-engined Mustang"

Because it used a Merlin engine. QED.

while in fact those
built by NAA utilized a Packard built engine that was a modifification
of the Merlin design.

The Merlin 61 used in the initial Spitfire IX's was also a
modification of the Merlin design. The fact remains that the V-1650-3
and -7 were two-stage Merlins produced under licence by Packard.

If there was no P-51 then some other design could have been developed,
such as the advanced P-47 being completed much sooner.

If there was no P-51 then North American would have been producing
more B-25's at their Dallas plant and probably at Inglewood as well.
Which leaves the US with what they had at the time; the P-38, the
P-39, the P-40 and the P-47. Now which of these are you going to stop
production of in order to develop a better long-range fighter design?
The longer-ranged P-47D doesn't come along until April 1944 (and
requires that British Typhoon tear-drop canopy in any case), the
dive-brake-equipped and longer-range P-38L doesn't appear until May
1944, and neither the P-39 nor the P-40 are ever going to become
high-performance, high-altitude long-range fighters.

And on the horizon? Yes, the mighty P-75....

Gavin Bailey


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

The Amaurotean Capitalist wrote:

"Scott M. Kozel" wrote:

You keep calling it a "Merlin-engined Mustang"

Because it used a Merlin engine. QED.

No, it used ---

while in fact those
built by NAA utilized a Packard built engine that was a modifification
of the Merlin design.

The Merlin 61 used in the initial Spitfire IX's was also a
modification of the Merlin design. The fact remains that the V-1650-3
and -7 were two-stage Merlins produced under licence by Packard.

That is partially true. Packard modified the turbocharger to produce
more high-altitude power, and modified the alloys of some of the major
engine components to adapt the engine to U.S. mass production
engineering and processes. The Rolls-Royce Merlin engines were hand-
built. U.S. mass production processes allowed vastly greater
quantities (over 16,000) of the V-1650 to be built in a timely and
reliable manner. Packard added considerably to the design of the
engine, which includes and is integral with its production processes.

If there was no P-51 then North American would have been producing
more B-25's at their Dallas plant and probably at Inglewood as well.
Which leaves the US with what they had at the time; the P-38, the
P-39, the P-40 and the P-47. Now which of these are you going to stop
production of in order to develop a better long-range fighter design?
The longer-ranged P-47D doesn't come along until April 1944 (and
requires that British Typhoon tear-drop canopy in any case), the
dive-brake-equipped and longer-range P-38L doesn't appear until May
1944, and neither the P-39 nor the P-40 are ever going to become
high-performance, high-altitude long-range fighters.

If there was no P-51 then some U.S. company would have greatly
accelerated the production of something of similar performance. Most
likely an advanced P-38 and/or P-47.

Both the U.S. and the British each produced a number of excellent
advanced warplanes in WWII. In a universe without the P-51, certainly
something else of similar performance would have been produced.

On Oct 5, 11:26 am, "Scott M. Kozel" wrote:
The Amaurotean Capitalist wrote:



"Scott M. Kozel" wrote:

You keep calling it a "Merlin-engined Mustang"

Because it used a Merlin engine. QED.

No, it used ---

while in fact those
built by NAA utilized a Packard built engine that was a modifification
of the Merlin design.

The Merlin 61 used in the initial Spitfire IX's was also a
modification of the Merlin design. The fact remains that the V-1650-3
and -7 were two-stage Merlins produced under licence by Packard.

That is partially true. Packard modified the turbocharger to produce
more high-altitude power, and modified the alloys of some of the major
engine components to adapt the engine to U.S. mass production
engineering and processes. The Rolls-Royce Merlin engines were hand-
built. U.S. mass production processes allowed vastly greater
quantities (over 16,000) of the V-1650 to be built in a timely and
reliable manner. Packard added considerably to the design of the
engine, which includes and is integral with its production processes.

If there was no P-51 then North American would have been producing
more B-25's at their Dallas plant and probably at Inglewood as well.
Which leaves the US with what they had at the time; the P-38, the
P-39, the P-40 and the P-47. Now which of these are you going to stop
production of in order to develop a better long-range fighter design?
The longer-ranged P-47D doesn't come along until April 1944 (and
requires that British Typhoon tear-drop canopy in any case), the
dive-brake-equipped and longer-range P-38L doesn't appear until May
1944, and neither the P-39 nor the P-40 are ever going to become
high-performance, high-altitude long-range fighters.

If there was no P-51 then some U.S. company would have greatly
accelerated the production of something of similar performance. Most
likely an advanced P-38 and/or P-47.

Both the U.S. and the British each produced a number of excellent
advanced warplanes in WWII. In a universe without the P-51, certainly
something else of similar performance would have been produced.

Corsairs and Hellcats over Europe? I agree with your statement, but
couldn't the same be said for any other plane on the list?

On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 08:26:27 -0700, "Scott M. Kozel"
wrote:

The Merlin 61 used in the initial Spitfire IX's was also a
modification of the Merlin design. The fact remains that the V-1650-3
and -7 were two-stage Merlins produced under licence by Packard.

That is partially true.

No, it's completely true.

Packard modified the turbocharger to produce
more high-altitude power,

1. The V-1650-3 and -7 used two-stage, two-speed supercharging driven
from the engine crank, not turbo-charging.

2. The gearing ratios on the supercharger and the compression ratios
were generally no different to that on the Merlin 60 series. The only
commentary I have ever seen in relevant British contemporary records
recorded a 1,000 feet lower full-throttle height for the Merlin 266 in
the Spitfire XVI. Other than that, the only comment by end-users I've
seen was criticism by pilots in 145 Wing in Belgium who converted to
the Spitfire XVI and complained that they produced less power at low
altitude than the Merlin 66-engined Spitfire LF.IXB's that they had
used previously. For a while their wing leader continued to fly his
LF.IXB for that reason. However, I think it's pretty clear that the
RAF didn't consider this a major problem and I would agree with them.

and modified the alloys of some of the major
engine components to adapt the engine to U.S. mass production
engineering and processes. The Rolls-Royce Merlin engines were hand-
built.

No, they were mass-produced at several factories in Britain, notably
Trafford Park in Manchester and Hillingdon outside Glasgow as well as
the original Rolls-Royce production lines at Derby and Crewe. The
Derby works spent considerable time on R&D which involved disturbing
volume production, but this was not true of the other sites.

U.S. mass production processes allowed vastly greater
quantities (over 16,000) of the V-1650 to be built in a timely and
reliable manner.

You should check out British production of the Merlin before making
this kind of inaccurate comparative assertion.

Packard added considerably to the design of the
engine, which includes and is integral with its production processes.

Packard certainly made modifications to the engine to account for the
use of US anciliary equipment such as coolant pipe clips and pump
drives - well, at least after delivery of the first batch of them to
Britain without that equipment.

If there was no P-51 then some U.S. company would have greatly
accelerated the production of something of similar performance.

So demonstrate this, based upon the historical evidence... I'm not
being antagonistic (although it might sound like it), just pointing
out that assertions which don't take into account the historical
reality aren't that valuable.

Both the U.S. and the British each produced a number of excellent
advanced warplanes in WWII. In a universe without the P-51, certainly
something else of similar performance would have been produced.

There certainly would have been more urgency to get something going;
however the options were limited.

I suspect a second production facility for the P-38 and a major
engineering drive to sort out the engine and aerodynamic problems were
the most likely, alongside stuffing more tankage in the P-47 and
something more than a token gesture at doing the same with the
Spitfire. However, none of these would have produced an answer in the
same time-frame as the P-51 did.

Gavin Bailey

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