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 |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Essential and Dispensible WW2 aircraft.
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 |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Essential and Dispensible WW2 aircraft.
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 |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Essential and Dispensible WW2 aircraft.
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 |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Essential and Dispensible WW2 aircraft.
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. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Essential and Dispensible WW2 aircraft.
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 |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Essential and Dispensible WW2 aircraft.
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. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Essential and Dispensible WW2 aircraft.
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. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Essential and Dispensible WW2 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 |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Essential and Dispensible WW2 aircraft.
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 |
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 |