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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Two essential items... | john smith | Piloting | 19 | December 26th 06 02:48 AM |
Delaware LLC Owned Aircraft California Based Aircraft | ChrisEllis | Piloting | 6 | January 17th 06 03:47 AM |
Commercial rating: complex aircraft required aircraft for practical test? | Marc J. Zeitlin | Piloting | 22 | November 24th 05 04:11 AM |
Exclusive Custom Home Plans, and Essential information about building your New Home | orange tree | Home Built | 4 | November 20th 05 04:37 PM |
Experience transitioning from C-172 to complex aircraft as potential first owned aircraft? | Jack Allison | Owning | 12 | June 14th 04 08:01 PM |