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

F-35's Costs Climb Along With Concerns



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old April 28th 06, 04:43 AM posted to sci.military.naval,rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default F-35's Costs Climb Along With Concerns

Ricardo wrote in
:



DeepSea wrote:
Ricardo wrote in
.uk:



buff82driver wrote:

http://www.military.com/features/0,1...html?ESRC=dod-

bz.
nl

How were they able to design and bring the P-51 into production
within one year
back during WW2? Why is it so expensive and take so long now?

You didn't really just ask that question, did you?

Ah maybe b/c they did not deal with highly complex technology that
has thousands of ways of failing and a few critical failures of very
tiny parts that don't even move can cause the plane to crash into
the ground. With WWII era planes about the most complex things were
the big ol' piston engines, retractable landing gear, bomb
sights...etc...today a few whiz kids could probably develop a WWII
era technology fighter plane better than any seen in WWII. All you
need is metal workers, engine mechanics/builders, and some pretty
solid aerodynamic students. If it was so easy now then the U.S.
would not make everyone else's air force into target practice.


And having a very reliable and tested British designed engine made
one hell of a contribution...




IIRC, the British engine had nothing to do with the design/inception
of the P-51. As designed and originally produced, the P51 was a
rather lackluster, VERY average fighter for its day. It wasn't until
the later addition of the British engine and a couple of (supporting)
airframe modifications that made it great.

DS


Agreed, but it is interesting to note that the original Mustang, with
its Allison F3R engine, only came into being as a result of the
British Purchasing Commission's earlier contact with NAA and the
purchase of the
Harvard trainer. NAA's wish to 'break into' the fighter market was
frustrated by the US Army Air Corps lack of interest in NAA's ideas on
the subject and the offer of the NA-73 fitted a British need at that
time. In the event, as you point out, this original design was VERY
average, the main concern from the British point of view being
performance above 15,000 feet - decidedly poor, although the aircraft
had considerable merit at low altitude.



That is interesting - I had no idea that British interest is what gave
the P-51 its start. The RAF bombers didn't do high altitude stuff, most
of the bombing against England was dive bombing, and the Brits already
had an outstanding all-around fighter in the Spitfire. What was the
Ministry's concern over high altitude performance?


DS
  #12  
Old April 28th 06, 07:55 AM posted to sci.military.naval,rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default F-35's Costs Climb Along With Concerns


"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.
BTW; as you specifically mentioned 'England', I've not addressed the
question of whether dive-bombers were used against Scotland, Northern
Ireland and/or Wales.

--

Brian


  #13  
Old April 28th 06, 09:15 AM posted to sci.military.naval,rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default F-35's Costs Climb Along With Concerns



DeepSea wrote:
Ricardo wrote in
:



DeepSea wrote:

Ricardo wrote in
.co.uk:



buff82driver wrote:


http://www.military.com/features/0,1...html?ESRC=dod-


bz.

nl

How were they able to design and bring the P-51 into production
within one year
back during WW2? Why is it so expensive and take so long now?

You didn't really just ask that question, did you?

Ah maybe b/c they did not deal with highly complex technology that
has thousands of ways of failing and a few critical failures of very
tiny parts that don't even move can cause the plane to crash into
the ground. With WWII era planes about the most complex things were
the big ol' piston engines, retractable landing gear, bomb
sights...etc...today a few whiz kids could probably develop a WWII
era technology fighter plane better than any seen in WWII. All you
need is metal workers, engine mechanics/builders, and some pretty
solid aerodynamic students. If it was so easy now then the U.S.
would not make everyone else's air force into target practice.


And having a very reliable and tested British designed engine made
one hell of a contribution...



IIRC, the British engine had nothing to do with the design/inception
of the P-51. As designed and originally produced, the P51 was a
rather lackluster, VERY average fighter for its day. It wasn't until
the later addition of the British engine and a couple of (supporting)
airframe modifications that made it great.

DS


Agreed, but it is interesting to note that the original Mustang, with
its Allison F3R engine, only came into being as a result of the
British Purchasing Commission's earlier contact with NAA and the
purchase of the
Harvard trainer. NAA's wish to 'break into' the fighter market was
frustrated by the US Army Air Corps lack of interest in NAA's ideas on
the subject and the offer of the NA-73 fitted a British need at that
time. In the event, as you point out, this original design was VERY
average, the main concern from the British point of view being
performance above 15,000 feet - decidedly poor, although the aircraft
had considerable merit at low altitude.




That is interesting - I had no idea that British interest is what gave
the P-51 its start. The RAF bombers didn't do high altitude stuff, most
of the bombing against England was dive bombing, and the Brits already
had an outstanding all-around fighter in the Spitfire. What was the
Ministry's concern over high altitude performance?


DS


The initial air assaults on Britain dispelled the myth that dive bombing
was the way forward as in the face of determined fighter opposition the
dive bombers did not fare too well - despite how well it had done in
Spain and against the low countries of Europe.

Conventional bombing was more the norm for the Battle of Britain and the
service ceiling of the German bombers was between 25,000 and 30,000
feet, and for their escorting fighters between 35,000 and 40,000 feet,
although operationally they were likely to be a lot lower. Nonetheless
height is a crucial factor in aerial warfare and if you are 10,000 feet
above your enemy you are more likely to inflict damage and survive than
if you are 5,000 feet below him and desperately climbing to reach him.

At the height of the Battle of Britain the country's desperate need was
for fighter aircraft - any fighter aircraft - hence purchases from
American sources. However, by the time the early Mustang came on stream
that particular battle was virtually over, allied with which British
built fighter production had gained considerable momentum.

Ricardo
  #14  
Old April 28th 06, 02:16 PM posted to sci.military.naval,rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default F-35's Costs Climb Along With Concerns

"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.



BTW; as you specifically mentioned 'England', I've not addressed the
question of whether dive-bombers were used against Scotland, Northern
Ireland and/or Wales.


I have no knowledge of bombings against Scotland, Northern
Ireland and/or Wales whatsoever - any insights you have would be

appreciated.

DS


  #15  
Old April 28th 06, 02:22 PM posted to sci.military.naval,rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default F-35's Costs Climb Along With Concerns

Ricardo wrote in news:2bk4g.45435$xt.43024
@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk:



DeepSea wrote:
Ricardo wrote in
:



DeepSea wrote:

Ricardo wrote in
r.co.uk:



buff82driver wrote:


http://www.military.com/features/0,1...html?ESRC=dod-


bz.

nl

How were they able to design and bring the P-51 into production
within one year
back during WW2? Why is it so expensive and take so long now?

You didn't really just ask that question, did you?

Ah maybe b/c they did not deal with highly complex technology that
has thousands of ways of failing and a few critical failures of

very
tiny parts that don't even move can cause the plane to crash into
the ground. With WWII era planes about the most complex things

were
the big ol' piston engines, retractable landing gear, bomb
sights...etc...today a few whiz kids could probably develop a WWII
era technology fighter plane better than any seen in WWII. All you
need is metal workers, engine mechanics/builders, and some pretty
solid aerodynamic students. If it was so easy now then the U.S.
would not make everyone else's air force into target practice.


And having a very reliable and tested British designed engine made
one hell of a contribution...



IIRC, the British engine had nothing to do with the design/inception
of the P-51. As designed and originally produced, the P51 was a
rather lackluster, VERY average fighter for its day. It wasn't until
the later addition of the British engine and a couple of

(supporting)
airframe modifications that made it great.

DS

Agreed, but it is interesting to note that the original Mustang, with
its Allison F3R engine, only came into being as a result of the
British Purchasing Commission's earlier contact with NAA and the
purchase of the
Harvard trainer. NAA's wish to 'break into' the fighter market was
frustrated by the US Army Air Corps lack of interest in NAA's ideas

on
the subject and the offer of the NA-73 fitted a British need at that
time. In the event, as you point out, this original design was VERY
average, the main concern from the British point of view being
performance above 15,000 feet - decidedly poor, although the aircraft
had considerable merit at low altitude.




That is interesting - I had no idea that British interest is what

gave
the P-51 its start. The RAF bombers didn't do high altitude stuff,

most
of the bombing against England was dive bombing, and the Brits

already
had an outstanding all-around fighter in the Spitfire. What was the
Ministry's concern over high altitude performance?


DS


The initial air assaults on Britain dispelled the myth that dive

bombing
was the way forward as in the face of determined fighter opposition

the
dive bombers did not fare too well - despite how well it had done in
Spain and against the low countries of Europe.

Conventional bombing was more the norm for the Battle of Britain and

the
service ceiling of the German bombers was between 25,000 and 30,000
feet, and for their escorting fighters between 35,000 and 40,000 feet,
although operationally they were likely to be a lot lower. Nonetheless
height is a crucial factor in aerial warfare and if you are 10,000

feet
above your enemy you are more likely to inflict damage and survive

than
if you are 5,000 feet below him and desperately climbing to reach him.

At the height of the Battle of Britain the country's desperate need

was
for fighter aircraft - any fighter aircraft - hence purchases from
American sources. However, by the time the early Mustang came on

stream
that particular battle was virtually over, allied with which British
built fighter production had gained considerable momentum.

Ricardo


Can you recommend any British primary source, or at least British
authored material detailing the events leading to P-51 development. I
find it very interesting that the development of one of the US's best
pieces of military hardware grew out of a (rather desperate) British
requirement.

DS
  #16  
Old April 28th 06, 04:05 PM posted to sci.military.naval,rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default F-35's Costs Climb Along With Concerns



DeepSea wrote:
Ricardo wrote in news:2bk4g.45435$xt.43024
@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk:



DeepSea wrote:

Ricardo wrote in
.uk:



DeepSea wrote:


Ricardo wrote in
er.co.uk:




buff82driver wrote:



http://www.military.com/features/0,1...html?ESRC=dod-

bz.


nl

How were they able to design and bring the P-51 into production
within one year
back during WW2? Why is it so expensive and take so long now?

You didn't really just ask that question, did you?

Ah maybe b/c they did not deal with highly complex technology that
has thousands of ways of failing and a few critical failures of


very

tiny parts that don't even move can cause the plane to crash into
the ground. With WWII era planes about the most complex things


were

the big ol' piston engines, retractable landing gear, bomb
sights...etc...today a few whiz kids could probably develop a WWII
era technology fighter plane better than any seen in WWII. All you
need is metal workers, engine mechanics/builders, and some pretty
solid aerodynamic students. If it was so easy now then the U.S.
would not make everyone else's air force into target practice.


And having a very reliable and tested British designed engine made
one hell of a contribution...



IIRC, the British engine had nothing to do with the design/inception
of the P-51. As designed and originally produced, the P51 was a
rather lackluster, VERY average fighter for its day. It wasn't until
the later addition of the British engine and a couple of


(supporting)

airframe modifications that made it great.

DS

Agreed, but it is interesting to note that the original Mustang, with
its Allison F3R engine, only came into being as a result of the
British Purchasing Commission's earlier contact with NAA and the
purchase of the
Harvard trainer. NAA's wish to 'break into' the fighter market was
frustrated by the US Army Air Corps lack of interest in NAA's ideas


on

the subject and the offer of the NA-73 fitted a British need at that
time. In the event, as you point out, this original design was VERY
average, the main concern from the British point of view being
performance above 15,000 feet - decidedly poor, although the aircraft
had considerable merit at low altitude.



That is interesting - I had no idea that British interest is what


gave

the P-51 its start. The RAF bombers didn't do high altitude stuff,


most

of the bombing against England was dive bombing, and the Brits


already

had an outstanding all-around fighter in the Spitfire. What was the
Ministry's concern over high altitude performance?


DS


The initial air assaults on Britain dispelled the myth that dive


bombing

was the way forward as in the face of determined fighter opposition


the

dive bombers did not fare too well - despite how well it had done in
Spain and against the low countries of Europe.

Conventional bombing was more the norm for the Battle of Britain and


the

service ceiling of the German bombers was between 25,000 and 30,000
feet, and for their escorting fighters between 35,000 and 40,000 feet,
although operationally they were likely to be a lot lower. Nonetheless
height is a crucial factor in aerial warfare and if you are 10,000


feet

above your enemy you are more likely to inflict damage and survive


than

if you are 5,000 feet below him and desperately climbing to reach him.

At the height of the Battle of Britain the country's desperate need


was

for fighter aircraft - any fighter aircraft - hence purchases from
American sources. However, by the time the early Mustang came on


stream

that particular battle was virtually over, allied with which British
built fighter production had gained considerable momentum.

Ricardo



Can you recommend any British primary source, or at least British
authored material detailing the events leading to P-51 development. I
find it very interesting that the development of one of the US's best
pieces of military hardware grew out of a (rather desperate) British
requirement.

DS


Hi DS,

I'm afraid I can't pinpoint any specific British source about the early
days, but try the sites shown here where you will find a lot of
interesting information - not least about US attitudes at that time. The
Wikipedia summary under 'genesis' is probably the best with regard to
British involvement.

The book 'Classic Aircraft Fighters' by Bill Gunston, ISBN 0 600 349950
- 1978 - also gives useful information.

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/air_power/ap9.htm
http://www.geocities.com/koala51d/
http://www.aviation-history.com/north-american/p51.html
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/p51.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-51_Mustang#Genesis
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p51_1.html

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.

I hope this helps.

Ricardo
  #17  
Old April 28th 06, 05:41 PM posted to sci.military.naval,rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default F-35's Costs Climb Along With Concerns

In article , Ricardo
wrote:

The initial air assaults on Britain dispelled the myth that dive bombing
was the way forward as in the face of determined fighter opposition the
dive bombers did not fare too well - despite how well it had done in
Spain and against the low countries of Europe.

Conventional bombing was more the norm for the Battle of Britain and the
service ceiling of the German bombers was between 25,000 and 30,000
feet, and for their escorting fighters between 35,000 and 40,000 feet,
although operationally they were likely to be a lot lower. Nonetheless
height is a crucial factor in aerial warfare and if you are 10,000 feet
above your enemy you are more likely to inflict damage and survive than
if you are 5,000 feet below him and desperately climbing to reach him.



Ricardo, I believe that your figures are uniformly 10,000 feet too high.
All the reports that I've read for the BoB mention the bombers coming in
between 15 and 20 thousand with fighter cover about 5 thousand higher.
After the BoB altitudes went higher, that was one of the lessons learned.


At the height of the Battle of Britain the country's desperate need was
for fighter aircraft - any fighter aircraft - hence purchases from
American sources. However, by the time the early Mustang came on stream
that particular battle was virtually over, allied with which British
built fighter production had gained considerable momentum.


Yet the Mustang I's equipped a large number of squadrons.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur
  #18  
Old April 28th 06, 05:51 PM posted to sci.military.naval,rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default F-35's Costs Climb Along With Concerns

In article , DeepSea
wrote:

Dive Bombing - technique that involves the release of bombs at high
speed/low altitude.


High speed/low altitude is not what dive bombing is all about.
Speed and altitude are residuals of the dive bombing process.
Dive bombing is getting the aircraft "pointed" at the target,
necessitating a dive. The bomb is released in the dive and the a/c pulls away.
High speed is not a requirement, and as practiced in WWII, not even wanted.
Hence the addition of dive (speed) brakes on the A-36 version of the Mustang.
After bomb release, the aircraft is at a lower altitude, but only by necessity.


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.


You were very lucky to have been able to attend such a rare event.
Those veterns are rapidly dying. I hope the interview was taped.

cheers

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur
  #19  
Old April 28th 06, 06:02 PM posted to sci.military.naval,rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default F-35's Costs Climb Along With Concerns

On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 08:16:27 -0500, DeepSea
wrote:

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.


OK, if you are an engineer, then you should start by considering that
a "corporal" courier who was wounded by a dive bomber is probably not
authoritative on what dive bombing is all about.

Now, take your engineering prowess and consider the geometry of level
versus high angle release of a bomb--by diving at the target (in the
simplest iteration) you reduce the aircraft's travel over the ground
and hence increase the accuracy.

If you wish to go to higher levels of math, you need to consider dive
angle, airspeed, bank, sight depression from flight path, wind drift
both before and after release (aircraft first then bomb),
accelerations (g-loads), aerodynamic drag of bomb and a few other
things to begin to get what dive bombing is about.

But, don't ask corporals--they may know something about their
particular field, but it may not be dive bombing.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com
  #20  
Old April 28th 06, 07:01 PM posted to sci.military.naval,rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default F-35's Costs Climb Along With Concerns



Harry Andreas wrote:
In article , Ricardo
wrote:


The initial air assaults on Britain dispelled the myth that dive bombing
was the way forward as in the face of determined fighter opposition the
dive bombers did not fare too well - despite how well it had done in
Spain and against the low countries of Europe.

Conventional bombing was more the norm for the Battle of Britain and the
service ceiling of the German bombers was between 25,000 and 30,000
feet, and for their escorting fighters between 35,000 and 40,000 feet,
although operationally they were likely to be a lot lower. Nonetheless
height is a crucial factor in aerial warfare and if you are 10,000 feet
above your enemy you are more likely to inflict damage and survive than
if you are 5,000 feet below him and desperately climbing to reach him.




Ricardo, I believe that your figures are uniformly 10,000 feet too high.
All the reports that I've read for the BoB mention the bombers coming in
between 15 and 20 thousand with fighter cover about 5 thousand higher.
After the BoB altitudes went higher, that was one of the lessons learned.



At the height of the Battle of Britain the country's desperate need was
for fighter aircraft - any fighter aircraft - hence purchases from
American sources. However, by the time the early Mustang came on stream
that particular battle was virtually over, allied with which British
built fighter production had gained considerable momentum.



Yet the Mustang I's equipped a large number of squadrons.

Hi Harry,

I was quoting the maximum operating heights for the categories of
aircraft but concede that much of the action took place at lower level.

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. The first Mustang to arrive was on 24
october 1941.

Ricardo
 




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
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 04:31 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 11:01 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:55 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.