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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 03:31 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 10:01 PM |