Essential and Dispensible WW2 aircraft.

[Eunometic]

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.
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
By 1942 Supermarine was producing the Spitifre Mk XII which had a
single stage Griffon engine and could outrun the Tempest. Although
the mk XII also had poor altitude performance its handling was better.
It would be early 1944 before the Mk XIX entered service which had a
two stage Griffon.

Germany:

Since Germany lost the war I found it hard to determine what to put in
non essential so I've added the column 'might have'

Essential:
Me 109: Hurricane vintage aircraft but remained competitive untill
1945 when Me 109K-4's were capable of 455mph and 48000ft service
ceiling and even then there were versions such as the Me 109K-14 with
a two stage supercharged DB603L engine starting production but not
delivered as well as the DB603DSCM engine touching on 2000hp at 1.98
atm boost there were test of 2.3 and 2.4 atm going on at DB which
suggests a power of 2400hp and speed of 470-480mph.
The aircraft should have been replaced far earlier with something that
had lighter contol forces and better speed. It would have performed
better with superior fuel.

Fw 190: this aircraft filled in many of the Me 109's weaknesses.

ju 88: night fighter, high speed bomber, dive or slant bomber,
maritime patrol etc.

Ju 87: Devastating in combined arms breakthrough warfare and deadly
accurate. When its days were over it lived on as a night bomber and
ground attack aircraft with one of the lowest per mission loss rates
of any Luftwaffe aircraft.

He 111: early bombing workhorse
Do 217 Only 1200 produced but still effective as a night bomber and
guided missile carrier.
Arado 234: the jet aircraft provided essential reconaisance: it was
the first and only aircraft to survey the Normandy beach-head. Two
prototypes flew about 36 missions with their engines being reliable
during this process. They were both shot down by their own German
FLAK.
Fi 103 or V1. Extremely cheap to produce consumed massive allied
resources.

Non essential:
Do 17
Me 110: its role as a night fighter could have been taken by the Ju
88, I am aware of its success in the Early Polish and Soviet Campaigns
but I don't think these were decisive.


Might Have
Me 210/410 Quite a good aircraft that was to replace the Ju 88 and
Me 110. Fast, advanced armament, bomb bay, efficient etc but simply
too late due to programm mismanagment to survive in allied skies.
Me 262; probably was effective in staving of defeat by a few weeks.
He 219; succombed to political problems; an excellent night fighter
and unlike the Me 110 and early Ju 88 it had the speed to chase down
British bombers once diversionary raids and feints had been
ascertained.
He 177: engine problems were not tackled agressively. The B series
with 4 seperate engines could have made up the bulk of production and
provided the Luftwaffe with a reliable long range bomber of
exceptional performance
had courage preceded arse covering.



USA:

Essential:

P-40 USAAF effective fighter of excellent quality; it was quite
effective with appropriate tactics.
P-38 Had the range and performance to protect US bombers. It
prevented the German Airforce from fielding heavy aircraft firing
rockets, or impunely attacking bombers under the protection of heavy
armour.
B-17 Hightly survivable high altitude bomber.
B-24 Longer ranged then the B-17; its only virtue.
B-29 Defeat of japan almost impossible
B-25 Versatile and easy to fly in all theatres of war.
Wildcat, Hellcat, dauntless, avenger
P-47 Ready far earlier than the P-51.

Non Essential
B-26 not as versatile as the B-25 and for a medium bomber too
demanding of runway conditions.
Helldiver: too many handling problems.
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.

Vought corsair: took to long to perfect for carrier opperations;
Hellcat did a good enough job. Had the Ki 84 been available in
numbers and supplied with 100/130 octane fuel the corsair would have
been essential


Japan:

Essential:

Mitsubishi A6M zero and Betty.
Dinah, Ki 84

Non essential
All army types apart from the dinah and Ki 84


Soviet Union

Essential

Illushian Sturmovik, Pekelatov Pe2, Tupolev Tu 4, I-16

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.

[Rob Arndt[_2_]]

On Oct 2, 5:06?am, Eunometic > wrote:
> 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.
> 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
> By 1942 Supermarine was producing the Spitifre Mk XII which had a
> single stage Griffon engine and could outrun the Tempest. Although
> the mk XII also had poor altitude performance its handling was better.
> It would be early 1944 before the Mk XIX entered service which had a
> two stage Griffon.
>
> Germany:
>
> Since Germany lost the war I found it hard to determine what to put in
> non essential so I've added the column 'might have'
>
> Essential:
> Me 109: Hurricane vintage aircraft but remained competitive untill
> 1945 when Me 109K-4's were capable of 455mph and 48000ft service
> ceiling and even then there were versions such as the Me 109K-14 with
> a two stage supercharged DB603L engine starting production but not
> delivered as well as the DB603DSCM engine touching on 2000hp at 1.98
> atm boost there were test of 2.3 and 2.4 atm going on at DB which
> suggests a power of 2400hp and speed of 470-480mph.
> The aircraft should have been replaced far earlier with something that
> had lighter contol forces and better speed. It would have performed
> better with superior fuel.
>
> Fw 190: this aircraft filled in many of the Me 109's weaknesses.
>
> ju 88: night fighter, high speed bomber, dive or slant bomber,
> maritime patrol etc.
>
> Ju 87: Devastating in combined arms breakthrough warfare and deadly
> accurate. When its days were over it lived on as a night bomber and
> ground attack aircraft with one of the lowest per mission loss rates
> of any Luftwaffe aircraft.
>
> He 111: early bombing workhorse
> Do 217 Only 1200 produced but still effective as a night bomber and
> guided missile carrier.
> Arado 234: the jet aircraft provided essential reconaisance: it was
> the first and only aircraft to survey the Normandy beach-head. Two
> prototypes flew about 36 missions with their engines being reliable
> during this process. They were both shot down by their own German
> FLAK.
> Fi 103 or V1. Extremely cheap to produce consumed massive allied
> resources.
>
> Non essential:
> Do 17
> Me 110: its role as a night fighter could have been taken by the Ju
> 88, I am aware of its success in the Early Polish and Soviet Campaigns
> but I don't think these were decisive.
>
> Might Have
> Me 210/410 Quite a good aircraft that was to replace the Ju 88 and
> Me 110. Fast, advanced armament, bomb bay, efficient etc but simply
> too late due to programm mismanagment to survive in allied skies.
> Me 262; probably was effective in staving of defeat by a few weeks.
> He 219; succombed to political problems; an excellent night fighter
> and unlike the Me 110 and early Ju 88 it had the speed to chase down
> British bombers once diversionary raids and feints had been
> ascertained.
> He 177: engine problems were not tackled agressively. The B series
> with 4 seperate engines could have made up the bulk of production and
> provided the Luftwaffe with a reliable long range bomber of
> exceptional performance
> had courage preceded arse covering.
>
> USA:
>
> Essential:
>
> P-40 USAAF effective fighter of excellent quality; it was quite
> effective with appropriate tactics.
> P-38 Had the range and performance to protect US bombers. It
> prevented the German Airforce from fielding heavy aircraft firing
> rockets, or impunely attacking bombers under the protection of heavy
> armour.
> B-17 Hightly survivable high altitude bomber.
> B-24 Longer ranged then the B-17; its only virtue.
> B-29 Defeat of japan almost impossible
> B-25 Versatile and easy to fly in all theatres of war.
> Wildcat, Hellcat, dauntless, avenger
> P-47 Ready far earlier than the P-51.
>
> Non Essential
> B-26 not as versatile as the B-25 and for a medium bomber too
> demanding of runway conditions.
> Helldiver: too many handling problems.
> 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.
>
> Vought corsair: took to long to perfect for carrier opperations;
> Hellcat did a good enough job. Had the Ki 84 been available in
> numbers and supplied with 100/130 octane fuel the corsair would have
> been essential
>
> Japan:
>
> Essential:
>
> Mitsubishi A6M zero and Betty.
> Dinah, Ki 84
>
> Non essential
> All army types apart from the dinah and Ki 84
>
> Soviet Union
>
> Essential
>
> Illushian Sturmovik, Pekelatov Pe2, Tupolev Tu 4, I-16
>
> 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.

Euno,

Very nice list, but I am surprised that the German section alone is
missing so many a/c:

Ar-196
Ar-240/440
Ba-349
Bv-138
Bv-222/238
DFS 230
Do-335
Fi-156
Fw-187
Fw-189
Fw Ta 152
Fw Ta 154
Fw-200
Go-229
He-100/112
He-162
Hs-123
Hs-129
Ju-52
Ju-86/89
Ju-188
Ju-290/390
Me-163
Me-261
Me-264
Me-321/323
Me P.1101

*plus all German rotorcraft

Some of these never became operational and yet could fill in the Might
Have Beens while others from my list were either Essential or Non-
Essential.

I will leave it up to you to complete this list by telling us how you
would rate each one.

Rob

[[email protected]]

On Oct 2, 5:06 am, Eunometic > wrote:
> 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.
> 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
> By 1942 Supermarine was producing the Spitifre Mk XII which had a
> single stage Griffon engine and could outrun the Tempest. Although
> the mk XII also had poor altitude performance its handling was better.
> It would be early 1944 before the Mk XIX entered service which had a
> two stage Griffon.
>
> Germany:
>
> Since Germany lost the war I found it hard to determine what to put in
> non essential so I've added the column 'might have'
>
> Essential:
> Me 109: Hurricane vintage aircraft but remained competitive untill
> 1945 when Me 109K-4's were capable of 455mph and 48000ft service
> ceiling and even then there were versions such as the Me 109K-14 with
> a two stage supercharged DB603L engine starting production but not
> delivered as well as the DB603DSCM engine touching on 2000hp at 1.98
> atm boost there were test of 2.3 and 2.4 atm going on at DB which
> suggests a power of 2400hp and speed of 470-480mph.
> The aircraft should have been replaced far earlier with something that
> had lighter contol forces and better speed. It would have performed
> better with superior fuel.
>
> Fw 190: this aircraft filled in many of the Me 109's weaknesses.
>
> ju 88: night fighter, high speed bomber, dive or slant bomber,
> maritime patrol etc.
>
> Ju 87: Devastating in combined arms breakthrough warfare and deadly
> accurate. When its days were over it lived on as a night bomber and
> ground attack aircraft with one of the lowest per mission loss rates
> of any Luftwaffe aircraft.
>
> He 111: early bombing workhorse
> Do 217 Only 1200 produced but still effective as a night bomber and
> guided missile carrier.
> Arado 234: the jet aircraft provided essential reconaisance: it was
> the first and only aircraft to survey the Normandy beach-head. Two
> prototypes flew about 36 missions with their engines being reliable
> during this process. They were both shot down by their own German
> FLAK.
> Fi 103 or V1. Extremely cheap to produce consumed massive allied
> resources.
>
> Non essential:
> Do 17
> Me 110: its role as a night fighter could have been taken by the Ju
> 88, I am aware of its success in the Early Polish and Soviet Campaigns
> but I don't think these were decisive.
>
> Might Have
> Me 210/410 Quite a good aircraft that was to replace the Ju 88 and
> Me 110. Fast, advanced armament, bomb bay, efficient etc but simply
> too late due to programm mismanagment to survive in allied skies.
> Me 262; probably was effective in staving of defeat by a few weeks.
> He 219; succombed to political problems; an excellent night fighter
> and unlike the Me 110 and early Ju 88 it had the speed to chase down
> British bombers once diversionary raids and feints had been
> ascertained.
> He 177: engine problems were not tackled agressively. The B series
> with 4 seperate engines could have made up the bulk of production and
> provided the Luftwaffe with a reliable long range bomber of
> exceptional performance
> had courage preceded arse covering.
>
> USA:
>
> Essential:
>
> P-40 USAAF effective fighter of excellent quality; it was quite
> effective with appropriate tactics.
> P-38 Had the range and performance to protect US bombers. It
> prevented the German Airforce from fielding heavy aircraft firing
> rockets, or impunely attacking bombers under the protection of heavy
> armour.
> B-17 Hightly survivable high altitude bomber.
> B-24 Longer ranged then the B-17; its only virtue.
> B-29 Defeat of japan almost impossible
> B-25 Versatile and easy to fly in all theatres of war.
> Wildcat, Hellcat, dauntless, avenger
> P-47 Ready far earlier than the P-51.
>
> Non Essential
> B-26 not as versatile as the B-25 and for a medium bomber too
> demanding of runway conditions.
> Helldiver: too many handling problems.
> 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.
>
> Vought corsair: took to long to perfect for carrier opperations;
> Hellcat did a good enough job. Had the Ki 84 been available in
> numbers and supplied with 100/130 octane fuel the corsair would have
> been essential
>
> Japan:
>
> Essential:
>
> Mitsubishi A6M zero and Betty.
> Dinah, Ki 84
>
> Non essential
> All army types apart from the dinah and Ki 84
>
> Soviet Union
>
> Essential
>
> Illushian Sturmovik, Pekelatov Pe2, Tupolev Tu 4, I-16
>
> 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.



You are clearly unstable.

[Keith Willshaw[_2_]]

"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


> 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

> By 1942 Supermarine was producing the Spitifre Mk XII which had a
> single stage Griffon engine and could outrun the Tempest. Although
> the mk XII also had poor altitude performance its handling was better.
> It would be early 1944 before the Mk XIX entered service which had a
> two stage Griffon.
>
> Germany:
>
> Since Germany lost the war I found it hard to determine what to put in
> non essential so I've added the column 'might have'
>
> Essential:
> Me 109: Hurricane vintage aircraft but remained competitive untill
> 1945 when Me 109K-4's were capable of 455mph and 48000ft service
> ceiling and even then there were versions such as the Me 109K-14 with
> a two stage supercharged DB603L engine starting production but not
> delivered as well as the DB603DSCM engine touching on 2000hp at 1.98
> atm boost there were test of 2.3 and 2.4 atm going on at DB which
> suggests a power of 2400hp and speed of 470-480mph.
> The aircraft should have been replaced far earlier with something that
> had lighter contol forces and better speed. It would have performed
> better with superior fuel.
>
> Fw 190: this aircraft filled in many of the Me 109's weaknesses.
>
> ju 88: night fighter, high speed bomber, dive or slant bomber,
> maritime patrol etc.
>
> Ju 87: Devastating in combined arms breakthrough warfare and deadly
> accurate. When its days were over it lived on as a night bomber and
> ground attack aircraft with one of the lowest per mission loss rates
> of any Luftwaffe aircraft.
>
> He 111: early bombing workhorse
> Do 217 Only 1200 produced but still effective as a night bomber and
> guided missile carrier.
> Arado 234: the jet aircraft provided essential reconaisance: it was
> the first and only aircraft to survey the Normandy beach-head. Two
> prototypes flew about 36 missions with their engines being reliable
> during this process. They were both shot down by their own German
> FLAK.
> Fi 103 or V1. Extremely cheap to produce consumed massive allied
> resources.
>
> Non essential:
> Do 17
> Me 110: its role as a night fighter could have been taken by the Ju
> 88, I am aware of its success in the Early Polish and Soviet Campaigns
> but I don't think these were decisive.
>
>
> Might Have
> Me 210/410 Quite a good aircraft that was to replace the Ju 88 and

The Me-210 suffered from oscillation making it a poor gun platform and had
nasty stall
characteristics. The pilots HATED them and only a month after entering
service production was halted

> Me 110. Fast, advanced armament, bomb bay, efficient etc but simply
> too late due to programm mismanagment to survive in allied skies.

Say What !

The Me-110 entered service before the war started in 1939. While inadequate
against first line fighters in the West it played a valuable role as a NF
and
ground attack craft. It survived in service long after the Me-210's were
withdrawn.


Keith

[rob]

"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.

>
> Non Essential:
> Beaufighter;

Invaluable in the anti-shipping role. Made a large if not desicive
contribution to the campaign in N Africa by interdicting Rommels supplies.

Tempest and Typhoon
Wasn't the Tempest the quickest thing the RAF had for a while? Not inc
Meteor
These two types were very fine aircraft in the CAS and strike roles not to
mention all the V-1s the Tempest claimed. They probably wouldn't have been
missed much in the Air to Air role but unless you're putting iron on the
ground Air superiority is just for show thus I would say they were essential

[Gordon[_2_]]

On Oct 2, 7:06 am, Eunometic > wrote:

> 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.

Series numbers need to be included in your listing, as some marks of
each of these aircraft made far more of an impact than others. Eric
Brown told us that "by FAR [his emphasis], the Spitfire XIV was the
most outstanding British fighter of the war." For "best fighter of
the war", he left absolutely no doubt, stating that "...with the Me
262, it was apparent after a few flights that we were... years behind
in fighter development." He felt it was a superb fighter with good
range for the day, a remarkably heavy armament, and few vices.

> Mosquito; night bomber, night fighter, fast day bomber and most
> importanty reconaisance aircraft par excellance.

I think the amount of damage it did as an Intruder and marking targets
for Main Force heavies cannot be underestimated either.

> Lancaster; easy to fly, devastating war load.
> Wellington: Britains Medium bomber and an important coastal command
> aircraft.

Strange to see the Wimpy in here but we simply must include something
from Mr. Wallis. :)


> He 111: early bombing workhorse

Redundant, I think, if you are including the Ju on your list, as it
was clearly superior in all regards.

> Do 217 Only 1200 produced but still effective as a night bomber and
> guided missile carrier.

very few successes in this role. As a night bomber, it was
inefficient and could not survive most attacks. I think the Ju 88 was
"Essential", and the Do was not.


> Might Have
> Me 210/410 Quite a good aircraft that was to replace the Ju 88 and
> Me 110. Fast, advanced armament, bomb bay, efficient etc but simply
> too late due to programm mismanagment to survive in allied skies.

Strongly disagree. I have known Me 210 / 410 pilots and they thought
the 210 was "ghastly" "horrible to fly", and the 410 was "too complex;
filled with gadgets" although the Gruppe commander of the
Schnellbombers said he really thought the glass panel between the feet
was an excellent idea. I don't know what role the 210/410s filled
that other aircraft could not have done better.

> He 219; succombed to political problems; an excellent night fighter
> and unlike the Me 110 and early Ju 88 it had the speed to chase down
> British bombers once diversionary raids and feints had been
> ascertained.

I think it was essential, just stupidly ignored.

> He 177: engine problems were not tackled agressively. The B series
> with 4 seperate engines could have made up the bulk of production and
> provided the Luftwaffe with a reliable long range bomber of
> exceptional performance
> had courage preceded arse covering.

By the time it matured into an effective bomber, its bases were under
Allied-controlled skies, making good use impossible. Germany needed a
heavy bomber in 1940-41; by 1944, they were just targets for roving
Allied fighters.


> USA:
>
> Essential:
>
> P-40 USAAF effective fighter of excellent quality; it was quite
> effective with appropriate tactics.

What a lot of people don't fully realize is that this aircraft was
just about all we had for the first two years of the war, and it
remained in service long after it was made obsolete by others. Until
the unready P-38s and the thirsty P-47Cs came along, P-40s were just
about it!

> P-38 Had the range and performance to protect US bombers. It
> prevented the German Airforce from fielding heavy aircraft firing
> rockets, or impunely attacking bombers under the protection of heavy
> armour.

Hmmmmm... It seems in my memory that the rocket-firing German
fighters were mostly treated roughly by P-47s and the gunners aboard
the heavy bombers.

> B-17 Hightly survivable high altitude bomber.
> B-24 Longer ranged then the B-17; its only virtue.

Greater warload as well. I think these were both essential.

> B-25 Versatile and easy to fly in all theatres of war.
> Wildcat, Hellcat, dauntless, avenger

Not sure if we actually "needed" the Avenger. The IJN was primarily
bombed out of existance, not torpedoed out of existance (not counting
the tremendous job done by the Silent Service, of course).

> P-47 Ready far earlier than the P-51.
>
> Non Essential
> B-26 not as versatile as the B-25 and for a medium bomber too
> demanding of runway conditions.

But faster, which is important if you are in amongst enemy fighters.

> Helldiver: too many handling problems.

Blew. Only "replacement aircraft" that I know of that was taken out
of service and "replaced" by the aircraft it was supposed to replace.
Crews called it "the Beast", and I have to date never met anyone that
liked it in any way.

> 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.

Cost and battlefield effectiveness - P-38s would have had a very
difficult time against airfield defenses and in other roles where the
51 excelled. Primarily, the P-51 beat everyone else in its fielded
numbers; what is better, five squadrons of P-38s or 25 squadrons of
Mustangs, with a much higher sortie rate and far lower price tag?

> Vought corsair: took to long to perfect for carrier opperations;

A Navy Captain told me, "That _____-___ ____ of ____ wasn't worth the
trouble - we were forced to take it by politicians." He was a loyal
Grumman customer and saw no need whatever for the F4U.

> Hellcat did a good enough job.

You have a talent for understatement.

> Had the Ki 84 been available in
> numbers and supplied with 100/130 octane fuel the corsair would have
> been essential

naaaaa.

> Japan:
>
> Essential:
>
> Mitsubishi A6M zero and Betty.
> Dinah, Ki 84
>
> Non essential
> All army types apart from the dinah and Ki 84
>
> Soviet Union
>
> Essential
>
> Illushian Sturmovik, Pekelatov Pe2, Tupolev Tu 4, I-16

The last LaGG and the Yak 9 absolutely should be on your list.

v/r
Gordon

[Dean A. Markley]

Eunometic wrote:
> 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.
> 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
> By 1942 Supermarine was producing the Spitifre Mk XII which had a
> single stage Griffon engine and could outrun the Tempest. Although
> the mk XII also had poor altitude performance its handling was better.
> It would be early 1944 before the Mk XIX entered service which had a
> two stage Griffon.
>
> Germany:
>
> Since Germany lost the war I found it hard to determine what to put in
> non essential so I've added the column 'might have'
>
> Essential:
> Me 109: Hurricane vintage aircraft but remained competitive untill
> 1945 when Me 109K-4's were capable of 455mph and 48000ft service
> ceiling and even then there were versions such as the Me 109K-14 with
> a two stage supercharged DB603L engine starting production but not
> delivered as well as the DB603DSCM engine touching on 2000hp at 1.98
> atm boost there were test of 2.3 and 2.4 atm going on at DB which
> suggests a power of 2400hp and speed of 470-480mph.
> The aircraft should have been replaced far earlier with something that
> had lighter contol forces and better speed. It would have performed
> better with superior fuel.
>
> Fw 190: this aircraft filled in many of the Me 109's weaknesses.
>
> ju 88: night fighter, high speed bomber, dive or slant bomber,
> maritime patrol etc.
>
> Ju 87: Devastating in combined arms breakthrough warfare and deadly
> accurate. When its days were over it lived on as a night bomber and
> ground attack aircraft with one of the lowest per mission loss rates
> of any Luftwaffe aircraft.
>
> He 111: early bombing workhorse
> Do 217 Only 1200 produced but still effective as a night bomber and
> guided missile carrier.
> Arado 234: the jet aircraft provided essential reconaisance: it was
> the first and only aircraft to survey the Normandy beach-head. Two
> prototypes flew about 36 missions with their engines being reliable
> during this process. They were both shot down by their own German
> FLAK.
> Fi 103 or V1. Extremely cheap to produce consumed massive allied
> resources.
>
> Non essential:
> Do 17
> Me 110: its role as a night fighter could have been taken by the Ju
> 88, I am aware of its success in the Early Polish and Soviet Campaigns
> but I don't think these were decisive.
>
>
> Might Have
> Me 210/410 Quite a good aircraft that was to replace the Ju 88 and
> Me 110. Fast, advanced armament, bomb bay, efficient etc but simply
> too late due to programm mismanagment to survive in allied skies.
> Me 262; probably was effective in staving of defeat by a few weeks.
> He 219; succombed to political problems; an excellent night fighter
> and unlike the Me 110 and early Ju 88 it had the speed to chase down
> British bombers once diversionary raids and feints had been
> ascertained.
> He 177: engine problems were not tackled agressively. The B series
> with 4 seperate engines could have made up the bulk of production and
> provided the Luftwaffe with a reliable long range bomber of
> exceptional performance
> had courage preceded arse covering.
>
>
>
> USA:
>
> Essential:
>
> P-40 USAAF effective fighter of excellent quality; it was quite
> effective with appropriate tactics.
> P-38 Had the range and performance to protect US bombers. It
> prevented the German Airforce from fielding heavy aircraft firing
> rockets, or impunely attacking bombers under the protection of heavy
> armour.
> B-17 Hightly survivable high altitude bomber.
> B-24 Longer ranged then the B-17; its only virtue.
> B-29 Defeat of japan almost impossible
> B-25 Versatile and easy to fly in all theatres of war.
> Wildcat, Hellcat, dauntless, avenger
> P-47 Ready far earlier than the P-51.
>
> Non Essential
> B-26 not as versatile as the B-25 and for a medium bomber too
> demanding of runway conditions.
> Helldiver: too many handling problems.
> 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.
>
> Vought corsair: took to long to perfect for carrier opperations;
> Hellcat did a good enough job. Had the Ki 84 been available in
> numbers and supplied with 100/130 octane fuel the corsair would have
> been essential
>
>
> Japan:
>
> Essential:
>
> Mitsubishi A6M zero and Betty.
> Dinah, Ki 84
>
> Non essential
> All army types apart from the dinah and Ki 84
>
>
> Soviet Union
>
> Essential
>
> Illushian Sturmovik, Pekelatov Pe2, Tupolev Tu 4, I-16
>
> 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.
>
20/20 hindsight is a wonderful thing to possess!

[Rob Arndt[_2_]]

On Oct 2, 3:49?pm, "Dean A. Markley" > wrote:
> Eunometic wrote:
> > 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.
> > 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
> > By 1942 Supermarine was producing the Spitifre Mk XII which had a
> > single stage Griffon engine and could outrun the Tempest. Although
> > the mk XII also had poor altitude performance its handling was better.
> > It would be early 1944 before the Mk XIX entered service which had a
> > two stage Griffon.
>
> > Germany:
>
> > Since Germany lost the war I found it hard to determine what to put in
> > non essential so I've added the column 'might have'
>
> > Essential:
> > Me 109: Hurricane vintage aircraft but remained competitive untill
> > 1945 when Me 109K-4's were capable of 455mph and 48000ft service
> > ceiling and even then there were versions such as the Me 109K-14 with
> > a two stage supercharged DB603L engine starting production but not
> > delivered as well as the DB603DSCM engine touching on 2000hp at 1.98
> > atm boost there were test of 2.3 and 2.4 atm going on at DB which
> > suggests a power of 2400hp and speed of 470-480mph.
> > The aircraft should have been replaced far earlier with something that
> > had lighter contol forces and better speed. It would have performed
> > better with superior fuel.
>
> > Fw 190: this aircraft filled in many of the Me 109's weaknesses.
>
> > ju 88: night fighter, high speed bomber, dive or slant bomber,
> > maritime patrol etc.
>
> > Ju 87: Devastating in combined arms breakthrough warfare and deadly
> > accurate. When its days were over it lived on as a night bomber and
> > ground attack aircraft with one of the lowest per mission loss rates
> > of any Luftwaffe aircraft.
>
> > He 111: early bombing workhorse
> > Do 217 Only 1200 produced but still effective as a night bomber and
> > guided missile carrier.
> > Arado 234: the jet aircraft provided essential reconaisance: it was
> > the first and only aircraft to survey the Normandy beach-head. Two
> > prototypes flew about 36 missions with their engines being reliable
> > during this process. They were both shot down by their own German
> > FLAK.
> > Fi 103 or V1. Extremely cheap to produce consumed massive allied
> > resources.
>
> > Non essential:
> > Do 17
> > Me 110: its role as a night fighter could have been taken by the Ju
> > 88, I am aware of its success in the Early Polish and Soviet Campaigns
> > but I don't think these were decisive.
>
> > Might Have
> > Me 210/410 Quite a good aircraft that was to replace the Ju 88 and
> > Me 110. Fast, advanced armament, bomb bay, efficient etc but simply
> > too late due to programm mismanagment to survive in allied skies.
> > Me 262; probably was effective in staving of defeat by a few weeks.
> > He 219; succombed to political problems; an excellent night fighter
> > and unlike the Me 110 and early Ju 88 it had the speed to chase down
> > British bombers once diversionary raids and feints had been
> > ascertained.
> > He 177: engine problems were not tackled agressively. The B series
> > with 4 seperate engines could have made up the bulk of production and
> > provided the Luftwaffe with a reliable long range bomber of
> > exceptional performance
> > had courage preceded arse covering.
>
> > USA:
>
> > Essential:
>
> > P-40 USAAF effective fighter of excellent quality; it was quite
> > effective with appropriate tactics.
> > P-38 Had the range and performance to protect US bombers. It
> > prevented the German Airforce from fielding heavy aircraft firing
> > rockets, or impunely attacking bombers under the protection of heavy
> > armour.
> > B-17 Hightly survivable high altitude bomber.
> > B-24 Longer ranged then the B-17; its only virtue.
> > B-29 Defeat of japan almost impossible
> > B-25 Versatile and easy to fly in all theatres of war.
> > Wildcat, Hellcat, dauntless, avenger
> > P-47 Ready far earlier than the P-51.
>
> > Non Essential
> > B-26 not as versatile as the B-25 and for a medium bomber too
> > demanding of runway conditions.
> > Helldiver: too many handling problems.
> > 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.
>
> > Vought corsair: took to long to perfect for carrier opperations;
> > Hellcat did a good enough job. Had the Ki 84 been available in
> > numbers and supplied with 100/130 octane fuel the corsair would have
> > been essential
>
> > Japan:
>
> > Essential:
>
> > Mitsubishi A6M zero and Betty.
> > Dinah, Ki 84
>
> > Non essential
> > All army types apart from the dinah and Ki 84
>
> > Soviet Union
>
> > Essential
>
> > Illushian Sturmovik, Pekelatov Pe2, Tupolev Tu 4, I-16
>
> > 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.
>
> 20/20 hindsight is a wonderful thing to possess!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

OK, how about foresight, then?

21st century US Non-Essentials:

F-22 Raptor
V-22 Osprey

Rob

[[email protected]]

There are some real whoppers in your list, and critical omissions too. I'll
concentrate on the USA, which I know best:

USA

On 2-Oct-2007, Eunometic > wrote:

> P-38 Had the range and performance to protect US bombers. It
> prevented the German Airforce from fielding heavy aircraft firing
> rockets, or impunely attacking bombers under the protection of heavy
> armour.

TOTALLY WRONG. The P-38 was a FAILURE in the ETO, due to poor high altitude
performance from defective engines and unreliable turbosuperchargers. Its
unheated cockpits were another significant liability because of their effect
on pilot performance. It was a long-range wonder in the Pacific, where it
fought at lower altitudes, but was a failure in the ETO.

In parallel with this is your assertion that the P-51 was "not essential."
Only the P-51 had the necessary escort range. Without it the daylight
bombing campaign would have failed in late 1943. Moreover, the 51
outperformed virtually all-prop driven Axis fighters. This aircraft won the
air war for the Allies in the ETO.

One statistic says it all. In 1945 the only 8th AF fighter group still
flying the P-47 was the 56th FG. All others flew the 51. This wasn't an
accident. BTW, the "wet wing" P-47Ms you tout had huge engine reliability
problems, which kept them grounded most of the time.

A truly essential aircraft you overlook was the C-47 transport. "General
Dwight Eisenhower described the C-47 as one of the four machines that won
World War II, along with the bulldozer, 6x6 truck, and the landing craft."
http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avc47.html

In the Pacific the early "essentials" were the Wildcat and the Dauntless.

JAPAN

In addition to the A6M Zero, I think you also need to include the two other
carrier aircraft Japan possessed at the outset: the "Val" dive bomber and
the "Kate" torpedo/level bomber. All three were essential to Japanese naval
air power, even after defeat at Midway.

I'm not sure any Japanese twin engine bomber was "essential." They all had
fatal design flaws (lack of armor and flammability) that made them little
more than flying targets. The Japanese air war was first won, then lost, by
their single engine aircraft.

Speaking of which, I don't see the Army Ki-84 as essential. IMHO that
plaudit goes the the Nakajima Hayabusa Ki-43, which like the Zero served
throughout the entire war.

USSR

I don't think you can exclude the Yak fighters, especially the Yak-9. I
will also include a surprising choice for an "essential" Soviet A/C: the
Bell P-39. It is remarkable how many Soviet aces not only flew that
aircraft, but greatly favored it.

My comments, FWIW.

Brian

[Bill Kambic]

On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 15:49:11 -0700, Gordon >
wrote:

<massive snipping>

>> P-38 Had the range and performance to protect US bombers. It
>> prevented the German Airforce from fielding heavy aircraft firing
>> rockets, or impunely attacking bombers under the protection of heavy
>> armour.
>
>Hmmmmm... It seems in my memory that the rocket-firing German
>fighters were mostly treated roughly by P-47s and the gunners aboard
>the heavy bombers.

My next door neighbor when I lived in Corpus Christi was the CO of the
first P-38 squadron to deploy to North Africa. He'd spent the
immediate pre-war years as a test piliot Selfridge AAF near Detroit.
He had lots of stories about the number of aircraft that spent time on
the bottom of Lake St. Claire.

He also said the P-38 was a very good aircraft but that tangling with
109s was a tough job. The 38 was faster but the 109 turned better.
The 38s he took over had an artificial limitation on the turbocharger
compliments of Allison. After he lost five or six planes he said, "to
Hell with Allison" and removed the limit. That stopped aircraft
losses, but meant overhaul of the engine at about 100 hours. This
made the supply guys REAL unhappy as they were not capable (in the
beginning) of supplying sufficient engines. He described a meeting
where he got into a shouting match with a couple of Allison guys and a
couple of "feather merchant" generals. He was not relieved, but after
the North African campaign he was sent back home and spent the rest of
the time in the test and evaluation program. Went over as a major in
'42 and retired as a full bird in the late 50s.

His final opinion was that the 38 matured into a really fine aircraft
for the Pacific because of two engines and very long range. It was a
superb photo bird and decent ground attack aircraft (although, like
any any liquid cooled engined aircraft, the cooling system was an
Achilles Heel). He thought the P-47 was the AAF premier CAS aircraft.

He's been dead some years now. He was a cool guy to drink beer with.

>> B-25 Versatile and easy to fly in all theatres of war.
>> Wildcat, Hellcat, dauntless, avenger
>
>Not sure if we actually "needed" the Avenger. The IJN was primarily
>bombed out of existance, not torpedoed out of existance (not counting
>the tremendous job done by the Silent Service, of course).

The Avenger was an excellent scout, glide bomber, and gave yeoman (if
largely unhearled service) operating off CVEs. If you've ever seen
one on the deck of a CVE you'll get some idea of what big airplane on
little deck really means!!!!! :-)

It was also the first COD (Carrier Onboard Delivery) aircraft. Mail
is a REAL morale booster so that, alone, might make it "needed." ;-)


>> Vought corsair: took to long to perfect for carrier opperations;
>
>A Navy Captain told me, "That _____-___ ____ of ____ wasn't worth the
>trouble - we were forced to take it by politicians." He was a loyal
>Grumman customer and saw no need whatever for the F4U.

There are countervieling opinions. :-)

The Marines made good use of the F4U and it would serve through Korea
(long after the F6F was history). Like the P-38 it seemed to mature
well.

>> Hellcat did a good enough job.
>
>You have a talent for understatement.

Indeed.

And let's not forget the F4F that carried the battle for about the
first two years of the War, then joined the TBM on the CVEs as first
rate U-boat killers.

[Bob Tenney]

On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 05:06:23 -0700, Eunometic wrote:

> Essential and Dispensible WW2 aircraft.
> ***********************************************
>

The C-47 and the Ju-52 were pretty essential.

[Eeyore[_2_]]

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.

Graham

[The Amaurotean Capitalist]

On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 15:49:11 -0700, Gordon >
wrote:

>> P-40 USAAF effective fighter of excellent quality; it was quite
>> effective with appropriate tactics.
>
>What a lot of people don't fully realize is that this aircraft was
>just about all we had for the first two years of the war, and it
>remained in service long after it was made obsolete by others. Until
>the unready P-38s and the thirsty P-47Cs came along, P-40s were just
>about it!

Well, there was the P-39.....

>> P-47 Ready far earlier than the P-51.

But not long-range capable to the same extent nor with the same
performance; and the timing is easy to overstate the first
combat-capable P-47C's were operating in April 1943, the first
combat-capable P-51B's in November 1943.

>> 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.
>
>Cost and battlefield effectiveness - P-38s would have had a very
>difficult time against airfield defenses and in other roles where the
>51 excelled.

More importantly, the P-51 was an altitude-capable long range fighter
escort in the ETO at a time when the P-38 wasn't, despite its long
range.

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]

On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 05:06:23 -0700, Eunometic >
wrote:

>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.

The P-47N wasn't available until nearly a year and a half after the
P-51B; good luck trying to sell a long-range P-47 available in
mid-1945 to Arnold when he demanded a long-range escort fighter for
the ETO in mid-1943.

Gavin Bailey


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

[Eunometic]

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



>
> > 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.


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


>
>
>
> > By 1942 Supermarine was producing the Spitifre Mk XII which had a
> > single stage Griffon engine and could outrun the Tempest. Although
> > the mk XII also had poor altitude performance its handling was better.
> > It would be early 1944 before the Mk XIX entered service which had a
> > two stage Griffon.
>
> > Germany:
>
> > Since Germany lost the war I found it hard to determine what to put in
> > non essential so I've added the column 'might have'
>
> > Essential:
> > Me 109: Hurricane vintage aircraft but remained competitive untill
> > 1945 when Me 109K-4's were capable of 455mph and 48000ft service
> > ceiling and even then there were versions such as the Me 109K-14 with
> > a two stage supercharged DB603L engine starting production but not
> > delivered as well as the DB603DSCM engine touching on 2000hp at 1.98
> > atm boost there were test of 2.3 and 2.4 atm going on at DB which
> > suggests a power of 2400hp and speed of 470-480mph.
> > The aircraft should have been replaced far earlier with something that
> > had lighter contol forces and better speed. It would have performed
> > better with superior fuel.
>
> > Fw 190: this aircraft filled in many of the Me 109's weaknesses.
>
> > ju 88: night fighter, high speed bomber, dive or slant bomber,
> > maritime patrol etc.
>
> > Ju 87: Devastating in combined arms breakthrough warfare and deadly
> > accurate. When its days were over it lived on as a night bomber and
> > ground attack aircraft with one of the lowest per mission loss rates
> > of any Luftwaffe aircraft.
>
> > He 111: early bombing workhorse
> > Do 217 Only 1200 produced but still effective as a night bomber and
> > guided missile carrier.
> > Arado 234: the jet aircraft provided essential reconaisance: it was
> > the first and only aircraft to survey the Normandy beach-head. Two
> > prototypes flew about 36 missions with their engines being reliable
> > during this process. They were both shot down by their own German
> > FLAK.
> > Fi 103 or V1. Extremely cheap to produce consumed massive allied
> > resources.
>
> > Non essential:
> > Do 17
> > Me 110: its role as a night fighter could have been taken by the Ju
> > 88, I am aware of its success in the Early Polish and Soviet Campaigns
> > but I don't think these were decisive.
>
> > Might Have
> > Me 210/410 Quite a good aircraft that was to replace the Ju 88 and
>
> The Me-210 suffered from oscillation making it a poor gun platform and had
> nasty stall
> characteristics. The pilots HATED them and only a month after entering
> service production was halted

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.

The solution to handling problems; lengthened tail, slats and contra-
rotating propellor were well known. It was said that Willy
Messerschmitt personally intervened in the design process to shorten
the tail and remove the slats. Year were wasted in avoiding these
simple modifications. Willy Messerschmitt was stripped of the assets
or his company, barely avoided jail while I think Ernest Udet probably
committed suicide over the issue.

Heinkel had been told to stop He 111 production and tool up for Me 210
and when this failed it had to produce Ju 88's instead. There was
such a loss in productivity (since tooling wasn't right) that
production suffered thousands of aircraft and forced labour ended up
being used. The rest of the industry suffered as well.

The Me 410 was simply the fixed Me 210 with bigger 44L DD603 engine
instead of 33L DB605 engines.


>
> > Me 110. Fast, advanced armament, bomb bay, efficient etc but simply
> > too late due to programm mismanagment to survive in allied skies.
>
> Say What !

I meant to type Me 410. It was a good aircraft with better
performance than allied equivalents. Had it been on time or a year
late it would have had a significant impact.


>
> The Me-110 entered service before the war started in 1939. While inadequate
> against first line fighters in the West it played a valuable role as a NF
> and
> ground attack craft. It survived in service long after the Me-210's were
> withdrawn.

I think a few modified Me 210 opperated succesfully before being
renamed Me 410 when they got the new engines to get away from the bad
name.


>
> Keith

[Eunometic]

On Oct 3, 9:49 am, Gordon > wrote:
> On Oct 2, 7:06 am, Eunometic > wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> Series numbers need to be included in your listing, as some marks of
> each of these aircraft made far more of an impact than others. Eric
> Brown told us that "by FAR [his emphasis], the Spitfire XIV was the
> most outstanding British fighter of the war."

I believe Galland made the comment that the best thing about
the Mk XIV was that there were so few of them. I think about
860 produced for servive and perhaps jut over half that number in use
at one time. Most had clipped wings since it was feared that stresses
were to great.

The Mk XIV was an interim type: till the Mk XVIII introduced a tapered
stainless steel spar for extra strenght while the parrallel Mk 20
received a completely new wing of much stiffer structure to reduce
aeroeleasticity and thereby increase roll rate.




For "best fighter of
> the war", he left absolutely no doubt, stating that "...with the Me
> 262, it was apparent after a few flights that we were... years behind
> in fighter development." He felt it was a superb fighter with good
> range for the day, a remarkably heavy armament, and few vices.
>
> > Mosquito; night bomber, night fighter, fast day bomber and most
> > importanty reconaisance aircraft par excellance.
>
> I think the amount of damage it did as an Intruder and marking targets
> for Main Force heavies cannot be underestimated either.
>
> > Lancaster; easy to fly, devastating war load.
> > Wellington: Britains Medium bomber and an important coastal command
> > aircraft.
>
> Strange to see the Wimpy in here but we simply must include something
> from Mr. Wallis. :)
>
> > He 111: early bombing workhorse
>
> Redundant, I think, if you are including the Ju on your list, as it
> was clearly superior in all regards.
>
> > Do 217 Only 1200 produced but still effective as a night bomber and
> > guided missile carrier.
>
> very few successes in this role. As a night bomber, it was
> inefficient and could not survive most attacks. I think the Ju 88 was
> "Essential", and the Do was not.
>
> > Might Have
> > Me 210/410 Quite a good aircraft that was to replace the Ju 88 and
> > Me 110. Fast, advanced armament, bomb bay, efficient etc but simply
> > too late due to programm mismanagment to survive in allied skies.
>
> Strongly disagree. I have known Me 210 / 410 pilots and they thought
> the 210 was "ghastly" "horrible to fly", and the 410 was "too complex;
> filled with gadgets" although the Gruppe commander of the
> Schnellbombers said he really thought the glass panel between the feet
> was an excellent idea. I don't know what role the 210/410s filled
> that other aircraft could not have done better.

Complexity was the way to go; the remote control guns needed even more
complexity; computers to calculate lead I think. However I note that
LeMay insisted that his escorts fly ahead of the B-29 to prevent head
on an side attacks. The computers dealt well with tail attacks only.



>
> > He 219; succombed to political problems; an excellent night fighter
> > and unlike the Me 110 and early Ju 88 it had the speed to chase down
> > British bombers once diversionary raids and feints had been
> > ascertained.
>
> I think it was essential, just stupidly ignored.
>
> > He 177: engine problems were not tackled agressively. The B series
> > with 4 seperate engines could have made up the bulk of production and
> > provided the Luftwaffe with a reliable long range bomber of
> > exceptional performance
> > had courage preceded arse covering.
>
> By the time it matured into an effective bomber, its bases were under
> Allied-controlled skies, making good use impossible. Germany needed a
> heavy bomber in 1940-41; by 1944, they were just targets for roving
> Allied fighters.

Perhaps some use against convoys where the Fw 200 was inadquete and
against the Soviet unions ural factories.


>
> > USA:
>
> > Essential:
>
> > P-40 USAAF effective fighter of excellent quality; it was quite
> > effective with appropriate tactics.
>
> What a lot of people don't fully realize is that this aircraft was
> just about all we had for the first two years of the war, and it
> remained in service long after it was made obsolete by others. Until
> the unready P-38s and the thirsty P-47Cs came along, P-40s were just
> about it!

Clive Caldwell showed it could be deadly against the Me 109.

>
> > P-38 Had the range and performance to protect US bombers. It
> > prevented the German Airforce from fielding heavy aircraft firing
> > rockets, or impunely attacking bombers under the protection of heavy
> > armour.
>
> Hmmmmm... It seems in my memory that the rocket-firing German
> fighters were mostly treated roughly by P-47s and the gunners aboard
> the heavy bombers.
>
> > B-17 Hightly survivable high altitude bomber.
> > B-24 Longer ranged then the B-17; its only virtue.
>
> Greater warload as well. I think these were both essential.
>
> > B-25 Versatile and easy to fly in all theatres of war.
> > Wildcat, Hellcat, dauntless, avenger
>
> Not sure if we actually "needed" the Avenger. The IJN was primarily
> bombed out of existance, not torpedoed out of existance (not counting
> the tremendous job done by the Silent Service, of course).
>
> > P-47 Ready far earlier than the P-51.
>
> > Non Essential
> > B-26 not as versatile as the B-25 and for a medium bomber too
> > demanding of runway conditions.
>
> But faster, which is important if you are in amongst enemy fighters.

I think the versions with the extended span, the b-26G was no faster.
What if a PW2800 was placed aboard the B-25 instead of the CW2600.

>
> > Helldiver: too many handling problems.
>
> Blew. Only "replacement aircraft" that I know of that was taken out
> of service and "replaced" by the aircraft it was supposed to replace.
> Crews called it "the Beast", and I have to date never met anyone that
> liked it in any way.

Yet it eventually sank the Yamato using vertical 90 degree dives


>
> > 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.
>
> Cost and battlefield effectiveness - P-38s would have had a very
> difficult time against airfield defenses and in other roles where the
> 51 excelled. Primarily, the P-51 beat everyone else in its fielded
> numbers; what is better, five squadrons of P-38s or 25 squadrons of
> Mustangs, with a much higher sortie rate and far lower price tag?
>
> > Vought corsair: took to long to perfect for carrier opperations;
>
> A Navy Captain told me, "That _____-___ ____ of ____ wasn't worth the
> trouble - we were forced to take it by politicians." He was a loyal
> Grumman customer and saw no need whatever for the F4U.
>
> > Hellcat did a good enough job.
>
> You have a talent for understatement.
>
> > Had the Ki 84 been available in
> > numbers and supplied with 100/130 octane fuel the corsair would have
> > been essential
>
> naaaaa.

Ki 84 did 430 mph when run on US f100/130 fuel.


>
> > Japan:
>
> > Essential:
>
> > Mitsubishi A6M zero and Betty.
> > Dinah, Ki 84
>
> > Non essential
> > All army types apart from the dinah and Ki 84
>
> > Soviet Union
>
> > Essential
>
> > Illushian Sturmovik, Pekelatov Pe2, Tupolev Tu 4, I-16
>
> The last LaGG and the Yak 9 absolutely should be on your list.
>
> v/r
> Gordon

[Peter Skelton]

On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 04:44:52 -0700, Eunometic
> wrote:

>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.
>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.
>If given a choice of choosing between 1000 extra Mosquito vs 1000 less
>beaufighter?
>
Beaufighter in service date Oct. '40, Mosquito in-service date
almost exactly a year later. The Mosquito used merlin engines, a
crucial supply item until some time in '43


Peter Skelton

[Eunometic]

On Oct 3, 1:34 pm, wrote:
> There are some real whoppers in your list, and critical omissions too. I'll
> concentrate on the USA, which I know best:
>
> USA
>
> On 2-Oct-2007, Eunometic > wrote:
>
> > P-38 Had the range and performance to protect US bombers. It
> > prevented the German Airforce from fielding heavy aircraft firing
> > rockets, or impunely attacking bombers under the protection of heavy
> > armour.
>
> TOTALLY WRONG. The P-38 was a FAILURE in the ETO, due to poor high altitude
> performance from defective engines and unreliable turbosuperchargers. Its
> unheated cockpits were another significant liability because of their effect
> on pilot performance. It was a long-range wonder in the Pacific, where it
> fought at lower altitudes, but was a failure in the ETO.

This problem got down to california being warmer in winter than
germany at 25,000ft. The coolant oil congealed due to excess cold.
There was predetonation at altitude due to excess cooling in the
intercoolers forcing to much air into the engines. Both problems were
sovled.


One one think that improving cockpit heating should have been easier
than converting the P-51 to take a merlin or to add a bubble canopy
and a rear fueselage tank. P-47 water ethanol injection system blew
up due to ice formation for similar reasons and was unusable.

The real reason the P-38 was transfered to the Pacific theater is
because it was in high demand over there: not becuase it was a
failure.

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.

>
> In parallel with this is your assertion that the P-51 was "not essential."
> Only the P-51 had the necessary escort range. Without it the daylight
> bombing campaign would have failed in late 1943. Moreover, the 51
> outperformed virtually all-prop driven Axis fighters. This aircraft won the
> air war for the Allies in the ETO.
>
> One statistic says it all. In 1945 the only 8th AF fighter group still
> flying the P-47 was the 56th FG. All others flew the 51. This wasn't an
> accident. BTW, the "wet wing" P-47Ms you tout had huge engine reliability
> problems, which kept them grounded most of the time.

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.

The P-38 and P-47 were available earlier. 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 P-47 carried its tankage in
its fueselage. This was increased progressively in the latter P-47D
models and when the P-47N arrived it to carried fuel in wings that
must have been as thick as the P-51s and had a better range to boot.

As far as I can tell Happy Arnolds directive to Spaatz to develop long
range escorts didn't specify Mustangs.

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.


>
> A truly essential aircraft you overlook was the C-47 transport. "General
> Dwight Eisenhower described the C-47 as one of the four machines that won
> World War II, along with the bulldozer, 6x6 truck, and the landing craft."http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avc47.html

The Germans built 3000 transports while the Allies about 50,000.
Logistics wins.


>
> In the Pacific the early "essentials" were the Wildcat and the Dauntless.
>
> JAPAN
>
> In addition to the A6M Zero, I think you also need to include the two other
> carrier aircraft Japan possessed at the outset: the "Val" dive bomber and
> the "Kate" torpedo/level bomber. All three were essential to Japanese naval
> air power, even after defeat at Midway.
>
> I'm not sure any Japanese twin engine bomber was "essential." They all had
> fatal design flaws (lack of armor and flammability) that made them little
> more than flying targets. The Japanese air war was first won, then lost, by
> their single engine aircraft.
>
> Speaking of which, I don't see the Army Ki-84 as essential. IMHO that
> plaudit goes the the Nakajima Hayabusa Ki-43, which like the Zero served
> throughout the entire war.
>
> USSR
>
> I don't think you can exclude the Yak fighters, especially the Yak-9. I
> will also include a surprising choice for an "essential" Soviet A/C: the
> Bell P-39. It is remarkable how many Soviet aces not only flew that
> aircraft, but greatly favored it.

If you placed a russian or german aircraft next to a US one the build
quality of the US one would show in beautifull detail such as the
clarity of the plastic and glass.


>
> My comments, FWIW.
>
> Brian

[Eunometic]

On Oct 3, 8:09 pm, The Amaurotean Capitalist
> wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 05:06:23 -0700, Eunometic >
> wrote:
>
> >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.
>
> The P-47N wasn't available until nearly a year and a half after the
> P-51B; good luck trying to sell a long-range P-47 available in
> mid-1945 to Arnold when he demanded a long-range escort fighter for
> the ETO in mid-1943.
>
> Gavin Bailey

Yes but the P-47B or P-47C didn't have the tail tank and therefor
range yet.

If pressed to find a solution to extra tankage it would have been
possible to introduce a tanked wing earlier i feel.

[Eunometic]

On Oct 3, 8:00 am, "rob" > wrote:
> "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 was suprised to learn that the Whitley had actually lower attrition
since it had been designed for night opperations from the start and
also did the u-boat patrol business.


>
>
>
> > Non Essential:
> > Beaufighter;
>
> Invaluable in the anti-shipping role. Made a large if not desicive
> contribution to the campaign in N Africa by interdicting Rommels supplies.


I'm slowly getting convinced that it was essential but retain doubts.

Had the Luftwaffe been on the ball it should have failed.

>
> Tempest and Typhoon
> Wasn't the Tempest the quickest thing the RAF had for a while?

Clostermann talks of it doing something like 460mph TAS at 3000ft I
think. Not that I believe that.

The 1942 Mk XII spit could chase down V1's.



Not inc
> Meteor
> These two types were very fine aircraft in the CAS and strike roles not to
> mention all the V-1s the Tempest claimed. They probably wouldn't have been
> missed much in the Air to Air role but unless you're putting iron on the
> ground Air superiority is just for show thus I would say they were essential

[The Amaurotean Capitalist]

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

[The Amaurotean Capitalist]

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 there: 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

[Gordon[_2_]]

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

[Scott M. Kozel]

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.

[The Amaurotean Capitalist]

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

[Daryl Hunt]

"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.

[dumbstruck]

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?

[Scott M. Kozel]

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.

[Robert Sveinson]

"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?

[Eeyore[_2_]]

"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

[rob]

"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

[Eeyore[_2_]]

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

[The Amaurotean Capitalist]

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

[The Amaurotean Capitalist]

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

[[email protected][_2_]]

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.

[JasiekS]

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

[Eunometic]

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.

[Scott M. Kozel]

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.

[WaltBJ]

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

[Steve Hix]

In article om>,
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

[Orval Fairbairn]

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."

[The Amaurotean Capitalist]

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

[Keith Willshaw[_2_]]

"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

[Keith Willshaw[_2_]]

"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

[Scott M. Kozel]

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.

[[email protected][_2_]]

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.

[The Amaurotean Capitalist]

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

[Scott M. Kozel]

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.

[[email protected][_2_]]

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?

[The Amaurotean Capitalist]

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

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
"Daryl Hunt" > wrote:

>
> 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.

Actually -- no. The Merlin-engined P-40s still had far inferior
performance to the P-51.

The P-40N listed a top speed of 350 mph at 16,400, cruise 290; the P-51B
was 440 at 30,000, cruise 362.

Even the last iteration of the P-40, the XP-40Q, finally made 422 at
20,500. By then, the P-51H would make 487 at 25,000; cruise 380.

the P-60 series fared no better. Curtiss simply produced inferior
products. Just look at their version of first-generation jets. It is no
wonder that they got out of the plane-building business.

[Bill Shatzer]

Daryl Hunt wrote:

-snip-

> 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.


Dunno. The Merlin equipped P-40F was only about 10 mph faster than the
earlier Allison-fitted P-40E - although obviously better at altitute.

But it still was more than 50 mph short of the P-51B/C's top speed.

I doubt a "super-Allison" would have produced markedly superior results
or placed the P-40 in the P-51's performance class.

The P-40 was, after all, basically an up-engined Hawk 75 (P-36), a 1934
design and a full generation earlier than the P-51 airframe design.


Cheers

[Bill Shatzer]

Orval Fairbairn wrote:

> In article >,
> "Daryl Hunt" > wrote:

>>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.

> Actually -- no. The Merlin-engined P-40s still had far inferior
> performance to the P-51.

> The P-40N listed a top speed of 350 mph at 16,400, cruise 290; the P-51B
> was 440 at 30,000, cruise 362.

The P-40Ns were equipped with an Allison V-1710. The "F" and "L" models
were the Merlin equipped aircraft.

Cheers,

[Seven]

On Oct 4, 11:00 pm, WaltBJ > wrote:

> Nobody mentioned the B32. I saw a whole ramp full of them at Pyote AFB
> in 1951 on the way to USAF basic.

Walt, I hate to do this, but the NMUSAF says you didn't. According to
their records, the last of the B-32s was scrapped in 1949. Which is a
shame, really. I *love* WWII-era aircraft, and would dearly love to be
able to see one of these in person. Here's the link either way.

http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=2535


> 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.

With a face only a mother could love, and even then it'd be a
challenge. Never knew about this bird before, so thanks for mentioning
it.

> Fisher XP75. Mongrel abortion.

Now this little monstrosity I *have* seen. What a mess. They have a
version mostly restored in the R&D hangars down in Dayton. Not worth a
trip in itself, but it does share hangar space with the XB-70, so it
is worth a glance in passing. A fine example of how sometimes the
whole is less than the sum of its parts.

-Steven

[Seven]

On Oct 5, 12:30 am, Orval Fairbairn > wrote:
> 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."

It was indeed the Apache. The NMUSAF says on the first line of their
write-up that it was informally known as the "Invader" though. You say
Viper, I say Fighting Falcon, I guess.

http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=493

And on my prior post about the P-75, it is *not* in fact in the R&D
hangars right now. It's actually in the restoration hangars, which can
be viewed on their behind-the-scenes tour that Ann and I did back in
March. My mistake.

-Steven

[Robert Sveinson]

"Scott M. Kozel" > wrote in message
s.com...
> 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.

Could you list the modifications that Packard did to make it a *non-Merlin*?

[Robert Sveinson]

"Scott M. Kozel" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> 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

*turbo-charger*?


> 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.

For example..........??



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.

Well that is sufficiently vague.......!

[Robert Sveinson]

"The Amaurotean Capitalist" > wrote in
message ...

>
> 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.

And Ford of England.


>
> 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.

Also carberetors and IIRC magnetos, and US standard nuts and bolts.

[Robert Sveinson]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in
message ...
>
> "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.

Not to mention its long service life.


>
> Keith
>

[Eeyore[_2_]]

"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.

But it was still essentially a MERLIN.

If they thought they could have done better as you seem to suggest, they could
have designed a brand new engine but they didn't.

Graham

[Eeyore[_2_]]

Orval Fairbairn wrote:

> "Daryl Hunt" > wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> Actually -- no. The Merlin-engined P-40s still had far inferior
> performance to the P-51.
>
> The P-40N listed a top speed of 350 mph at 16,400, cruise 290; the P-51B
> was 440 at 30,000, cruise 362.
>
> Even the last iteration of the P-40, the XP-40Q, finally made 422 at
> 20,500. By then, the P-51H would make 487 at 25,000; cruise 380.
>
> the P-60 series fared no better. Curtiss simply produced inferior
> products. Just look at their version of first-generation jets. It is no
> wonder that they got out of the plane-building business.

So, would it be true to say that that theP-40 would have been 'eaten alive' had
they been used in Europe ?

Graham

[Steve Hix]

In article om>,
Seven > wrote:

> On Oct 4, 11:00 pm, WaltBJ > wrote:
>
> > Nobody mentioned the B32. I saw a whole ramp full of them at Pyote AFB
> > in 1951 on the way to USAF basic.
>
> Walt, I hate to do this, but the NMUSAF says you didn't. According to
> their records, the last of the B-32s was scrapped in 1949. Which is a
> shame, really. I *love* WWII-era aircraft, and would dearly love to be
> able to see one of these in person. Here's the link either way.
>
> http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=2535

Maybe PB4Y's at Pyote?

[Scott M. Kozel]

Eeyore > wrote:
>
> "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.
>
> But it was still essentially a MERLIN.
>
> If they thought they could have done better as you seem to suggest, they could
> have designed a brand new engine but they didn't.

Well, the British apparently didn't want to make the effort to fund
and build almost 15,000 Mustangs along with with over 16,000 units of
that engine designed for that aircraft. The U.S. did.

[Bob Matthews]

Daryl Hunt wrote:
> "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.

Really? Seems like the P40's wing and overall aerodynamics made it less
efficient therefore slower with the same power.

==bob
>
>
>

[[email protected]]

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

Well, perhaps the Bell P-63 Kingcobra, which didn't have the P-51's
performance, but did have the two stage supercharger that was originally
intended for the P-39, and might have performed well under combat
conditions. It was capagle of carrying two large external fuel tanks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-63_Kingcobra

Brian

[Bob Matthews]

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,

When you say "turbocharger," are you referring to an exhaust gas driven
compressor? Or mechanically driven?

==bob

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.
>

[Scott M. Kozel]

Bob Matthews > wrote:
>
> Scott M. Kozel wrote:
>
> > That is partially true. Packard modified the turbocharger to produce
> > more high-altitude power,

The main improvement that Packard incorporated into the Merlin was
adopting the Wright supercharger drive quill. This modification was
designated the V-1650-3 and became known as the "high altitude" Merlin
destined for the P-51. The ability of the supercharger to maintain a
sea level atmosphere in the induction system to the cylinders allowed
the Packard Merlin to develop 1,200 horsepower at 26,000 feet.

> When you say "turbocharger," are you referring to an exhaust gas driven
> compressor? Or mechanically driven?

Sorry, I miswrote. It was mechanically driven by the engine, a two-
speed two-stage supercharger.

[Seven]

On Oct 5, 6:31 pm, Steve Hix > wrote:
> In article om>,
>
> Seven > wrote:
> > On Oct 4, 11:00 pm, WaltBJ > wrote:
>
> > > Nobody mentioned the B32. I saw a whole ramp full of them at Pyote AFB
> > > in 1951 on the way to USAF basic.
>
> > Walt, I hate to do this, but the NMUSAF says you didn't. According to
> > their records, the last of the B-32s was scrapped in 1949. Which is a
> > shame, really. I *love* WWII-era aircraft, and would dearly love to be
> > able to see one of these in person. Here's the link either way.
>
> >http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=2535
>
> Maybe PB4Y's at Pyote?

The B-32 is a little larger, but the ratio sounds about the same. I
haven't had any luck finding records online records of PB4Ys (-1 or
-2) at Pyote, but the absence of proof is not the proof of absence, as
they say. I found a few records for PB4Y-1s being retired to
Litchfield in the early 50s, but the year wasn't specified. The same
source said that the PB4Y-2s remained in inventory until the 60s, when
they were relegated to desert storage and presumably scrapped.

It's possible, though.

-Steven

[WaltBJ]

The XP51 was a pure NAA design. British Purchasing Commission
approached NAA in 1939 about building P40s. NAA replied they could
build a better fighter. NAA had been designing opne for some time. The
design was firmed up in April 1940; the contract with the Bitish was
signed in May, 1940. Delivery was set for January 1941. The aircraft
minus engine was ready 18 days early. The engine was 20 days late
because of priorities and because Allison didn't think NAA would be
ready. First fight of the NA-73 wa in October 1940. NAA started mass
production for the British. December, 1940, NAA received a letter from
the British Purchasing Commission informing NAA that the airplane was
named "Mustang". Some Mustang 1s were armed with 4x20mm. RAF used them
for low-altitude missions.
Wright Field had 2 XP51s (named 'Apache') that were ignored for a time
until NAA finished their production run for the RAF and Arnold
realized here was a fighter production line - now idle. Thus NAA got a
contract for 500 A36s - P51As with dive brakes. They were for the
USAAC in the Med where something better than the P40 was needed for
CAS/interdiction.
Meanwhile the USAAC military attache in London had flown a Mustang 1
and he, with some high-ranking RAF types, lobbied for the Merlin
installation. First flight with a Merlin was in October 1942 - the
rest is history. Also, FWIW, the first American-made Merlin ran in May
1941
Note: one can build a Mustang from the original data - every necessary
data point can be established in space using direction cosines. I do
not know of any other airplane for which this data/capability exists.
This info from "Pursue and Destroy", by Major L.K. Carson, who after
his war service became part of the test staff at Wright-Patterson AFB.
Excellent book. ISBN 0-913194-05-0
Walt BJ

[Eeyore[_2_]]

"Scott M. Kozel" wrote:

> Eeyore > wrote
> > "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.
> >
> > But it was still essentially a MERLIN.
> >
> > If they thought they could have done better as you seem to suggest, they could
> > have designed a brand new engine but they didn't.
>
> Well, the British apparently didn't want to make the effort to fund
> and build almost 15,000 Mustangs along with with over 16,000 units of
> that engine designed for that aircraft. The U.S. did.

It wasn't a question of 'making the effort'. Britain didn't have the manufacturing
CAPACITY. That was recognised very early on and was why NA was asked to design the
Mustang in the first place.

Do you seriously think that Britain was in any position to win the war alone ?

Graham

[Eeyore[_2_]]

Bob Matthews wrote:

> Daryl Hunt wrote:
> > "The Amaurotean Capitalist" > 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.
> >>
> >> 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.
>
> Really? Seems like the P40's wing and overall aerodynamics made it less
> efficient therefore slower with the same power.

Indeed. The Mustang used a laminar flow wing design.

The P-40 seems more like the British Hurricane (both older designs) and the
Mustang more like the Spitfire.

Graham

[Steve Hix]

In article . com>,
Seven > wrote:

> On Oct 5, 6:31 pm, Steve Hix > wrote:
> > In article om>,
> >
> > Seven > wrote:
> > > On Oct 4, 11:00 pm, WaltBJ > wrote:
> >
> > > > Nobody mentioned the B32. I saw a whole ramp full of them at Pyote AFB
> > > > in 1951 on the way to USAF basic.
> >
> > > Walt, I hate to do this, but the NMUSAF says you didn't. According to
> > > their records, the last of the B-32s was scrapped in 1949. Which is a
> > > shame, really. I *love* WWII-era aircraft, and would dearly love to be
> > > able to see one of these in person. Here's the link either way.
> >
> > >http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=2535
> >
> > Maybe PB4Y's at Pyote?
>
> The B-32 is a little larger, but the ratio sounds about the same. I
> haven't had any luck finding records online records of PB4Ys (-1 or
> -2) at Pyote, but the absence of proof is not the proof of absence, as
> they say. I found a few records for PB4Y-1s being retired to
> Litchfield in the early 50s, but the year wasn't specified. The same
> source said that the PB4Y-2s remained in inventory until the 60s, when
> they were relegated to desert storage and presumably scrapped.

Some of them ended up fighting fires. Watching one come rumbling low
over my house, and diving into the canyon between there and St. Helena
above the Napa Valley to dump retardant was pretty impressive, back in
1977.

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
Eeyore > wrote:

>
> It wasn't a question of 'making the effort'. Britain didn't have the
> manufacturing CAPACITY. That was recognised very early on and was
> why NA was asked to design the Mustang in the first place.

North American initiated the P-51 design on their own.

The British got it when they came to ask NAA to make P-40's for them,
and Edgar Schmued's team said they could do better; it had been in the
works for quite a while.

[The Amaurotean Capitalist]

On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 16:33:25 -0700, "Scott M. Kozel"
> wrote:

>Well, the British apparently didn't want to make the effort to fund
>and build almost 15,000 Mustangs along with with over 16,000 units of
>that engine designed for that aircraft. The U.S. did.

Only after the British pursuaded them to. Meanwhile the British did
consider assembling Mustangs in Britain and prioritising the supply of
Rolls-Royce Merlin 60-engines for them if two-stage Packard Merlins
were unavailable. This willigness to disrupt production and
procurement plans of their premier engine and aircraft type (the
Spitfire IX) demonstrated a considerably higher interest in the Merlin
Mustang than the USAAF originally had.

Gavin Bailey

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

[Scott M. Kozel]

Eeyore > wrote:
>
> "Scott M. Kozel" wrote:
> > Eeyore wrote:
> >
> > > If they thought they could have done better as you seem to suggest, they could
> > > have designed a brand new engine but they didn't.
>
> > Well, the British apparently didn't want to make the effort to fund
> > and build almost 15,000 Mustangs along with with over 16,000 units of
> > that engine designed for that aircraft. The U.S. did.
>
> It wasn't a question of 'making the effort'. Britain didn't have the manufacturing
> CAPACITY. That was recognised very early on and was why NA was asked to design the
> Mustang in the first place.
>
> Do you seriously think that Britain was in any position to win the war alone ?

None of the Allies were in any position to win the war alone. It took
a total effort from a whole assembledge of nations for several years
to defeat the Axis.

[Daryl Hunt]

"Bob Matthews" > wrote in message
news:bEBNi.119918$Xa3.77553@attbi_s22...
> Daryl Hunt wrote:
>> "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.
>
> Really? Seems like the P40's wing and overall aerodynamics made it less
> efficient therefore slower with the same power.

And the P-40 was a winner near the ground even as it was.

An F-5 camera ship was jumped by an FW-190. The pilot did all the things
that made the 38 real hard to follow including dropping to about 20 feet on
the deck and power out. The FW followed the F-5 knowing he had a kill. He
spread his airplane all over the countryside because he had one hell of a
torque factor near the ground. Just using ONE small flight characteristic
to say that X is better than Y never has made sense. But we are in the
What-ifs and not the how it was.

[Daryl Hunt]

> wrote in message
g.com...
> And on the horizon? Yes, the mighty P-75....
>
> Well, perhaps the Bell P-63 Kingcobra, which didn't have the P-51's
> performance, but did have the two stage supercharger that was originally
> intended for the P-39, and might have performed well under combat
> conditions. It was capagle of carrying two large external fuel tanks.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-63_Kingcobra
>
> Brian

The 63 was in bad need of the Packard but it was denied it and it goes on to
be an also ran used primarily by the Soviet Union on the Lend Lease Program.

Just what the devil were those people thinking when they didn't produce more
Packard/merlins.

[Paul Elliot]

Steve Hix wrote:
> In article . com>,
> Seven > wrote:
>
>> On Oct 5, 6:31 pm, Steve Hix > wrote:
>>> In article om>,
>>>
>>> Seven > wrote:
>>>> On Oct 4, 11:00 pm, WaltBJ > wrote:
>>>>> Nobody mentioned the B32. I saw a whole ramp full of them at Pyote AFB
>>>>> in 1951 on the way to USAF basic.
>>>> Walt, I hate to do this, but the NMUSAF says you didn't. According to
>>>> their records, the last of the B-32s was scrapped in 1949. Which is a
>>>> shame, really. I *love* WWII-era aircraft, and would dearly love to be
>>>> able to see one of these in person. Here's the link either way.
>>>> http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=2535
>>> Maybe PB4Y's at Pyote?
>> The B-32 is a little larger, but the ratio sounds about the same. I
>> haven't had any luck finding records online records of PB4Ys (-1 or
>> -2) at Pyote, but the absence of proof is not the proof of absence, as
>> they say. I found a few records for PB4Y-1s being retired to
>> Litchfield in the early 50s, but the year wasn't specified. The same
>> source said that the PB4Y-2s remained in inventory until the 60s, when
>> they were relegated to desert storage and presumably scrapped.
>
> Some of them ended up fighting fires. Watching one come rumbling low
> over my house, and diving into the canyon between there and St. Helena
> above the Napa Valley to dump retardant was pretty impressive, back in
> 1977.

Yep, that is just about the time that I saw one at the airport in
Winters just off of I-505, IIRC. The crew was kind enough to let a buddy
and I climb around it. The guys that fly these old borate bombers are
true heroes.

--
Heaven is where the police are British, the chefs Italian, the mechanics
German, the lovers French and it is all organized by the Swiss.

Hell is where the police are German, the chefs British, the mechanics
French, the lovers Swiss and it is all organized by Italians.

http://new.photos.yahoo.com/paul1cart/albums/

[guy]

On 2 Oct, 13:06, Eunometic > wrote:
> 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.
> 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
> By 1942 Supermarine was producing the Spitifre Mk XII which had a
> single stage Griffon engine and could outrun the Tempest. Although
> the mk XII also had poor altitude performance its handling was better.
> It would be early 1944 before the Mk XIX entered service which had a
> two stage Griffon.
>
> Germany:
>
> Since Germany lost the war I found it hard to determine what to put in
> non essential so I've added the column 'might have'
>
> Essential:
> Me 109: Hurricane vintage aircraft but remained competitive untill
> 1945 when Me 109K-4's were capable of 455mph and 48000ft service
> ceiling and even then there were versions such as the Me 109K-14 with
> a two stage supercharged DB603L engine starting production but not
> delivered as well as the DB603DSCM engine touching on 2000hp at 1.98
> atm boost there were test of 2.3 and 2.4 atm going on at DB which
> suggests a power of 2400hp and speed of 470-480mph.
> The aircraft should have been replaced far earlier with something that
> had lighter contol forces and better speed. It would have performed
> better with superior fuel.
>
> Fw 190: this aircraft filled in many of the Me 109's weaknesses.
>
> ju 88: night fighter, high speed bomber, dive or slant bomber,
> maritime patrol etc.
>
> Ju 87: Devastating in combined arms breakthrough warfare and deadly
> accurate. When its days were over it lived on as a night bomber and
> ground attack aircraft with one of the lowest per mission loss rates
> of any Luftwaffe aircraft.
>
> He 111: early bombing workhorse
> Do 217 Only 1200 produced but still effective as a night bomber and
> guided missile carrier.
> Arado 234: the jet aircraft provided essential reconaisance: it was
> the first and only aircraft to survey the Normandy beach-head. Two
> prototypes flew about 36 missions with their engines being reliable
> during this process. They were both shot down by their own German
> FLAK.
> Fi 103 or V1. Extremely cheap to produce consumed massive allied
> resources.
>
> Non essential:
> Do 17
> Me 110: its role as a night fighter could have been taken by the Ju
> 88, I am aware of its success in the Early Polish and Soviet Campaigns
> but I don't think these were decisive.
>
> Might Have
> Me 210/410 Quite a good aircraft that was to replace the Ju 88 and
> Me 110. Fast, advanced armament, bomb bay, efficient etc but simply
> too late due to programm mismanagment to survive in allied skies.
> Me 262; probably was effective in staving of defeat by a few weeks.
> He 219; succombed to political problems; an excellent night fighter
> and unlike the Me 110 and early Ju 88 it had the speed to chase down
> British bombers once diversionary raids and feints had been
> ascertained.
> He 177: engine problems were not tackled agressively. The B series
> with 4 seperate engines could have made up the bulk of production and
> provided the Luftwaffe with a reliable long range bomber of
> exceptional performance
> had courage preceded arse covering.
>
> USA:
>
> Essential:
>
> P-40 USAAF effective fighter of excellent quality; it was quite
> effective with appropriate tactics.
> P-38 Had the range and performance to protect US bombers. It
> prevented the German Airforce from fielding heavy aircraft firing
> rockets, or impunely attacking bombers under the protection of heavy
> armour.
> B-17 Hightly survivable high altitude bomber.
> B-24 Longer ranged then the B-17; its only virtue.
> B-29 Defeat of japan almost impossible
> B-25 Versatile and easy to fly in all theatres of war.
> Wildcat, Hellcat, dauntless, avenger
> P-47 Ready far earlier than the P-51.
>
> Non Essential
> B-26 not as versatile as the B-25 and for a medium bomber too
> demanding of runway conditions.
> Helldiver: too many handling problems.
> 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.
>
> Vought corsair: took to long to perfect for carrier opperations;
> Hellcat did a good enough job. Had the Ki 84 been available in
> numbers and supplied with 100/130 octane fuel the corsair would have
> been essential
>
> Japan:
>
> Essential:
>
> Mitsubishi A6M zero and Betty.
> Dinah, Ki 84
>
> Non essential
> All army types apart from the dinah and Ki 84
>
> Soviet Union
>
> Essential
>
> Illushian Sturmovik, Pekelatov Pe2, Tupolev Tu 4, I-16
>
> 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.

I think the concept of essential and non essential is absurd to be
honest - sorry,

Guy

[[email protected][_2_]]

On Oct 8, 9:33 am, guy > wrote:
> On 2 Oct, 13:06, Eunometic > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > 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.
> > 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
> > By 1942 Supermarine was producing the Spitifre Mk XII which had a
> > single stage Griffon engine and could outrun the Tempest. Although
> > the mk XII also had poor altitude performance its handling was better.
> > It would be early 1944 before the Mk XIX entered service which had a
> > two stage Griffon.
>
> > Germany:
>
> > Since Germany lost the war I found it hard to determine what to put in
> > non essential so I've added the column 'might have'
>
> > Essential:
> > Me 109: Hurricane vintage aircraft but remained competitive untill
> > 1945 when Me 109K-4's were capable of 455mph and 48000ft service
> > ceiling and even then there were versions such as the Me 109K-14 with
> > a two stage supercharged DB603L engine starting production but not
> > delivered as well as the DB603DSCM engine touching on 2000hp at 1.98
> > atm boost there were test of 2.3 and 2.4 atm going on at DB which
> > suggests a power of 2400hp and speed of 470-480mph.
> > The aircraft should have been replaced far earlier with something that
> > had lighter contol forces and better speed. It would have performed
> > better with superior fuel.
>
> > Fw 190: this aircraft filled in many of the Me 109's weaknesses.
>
> > ju 88: night fighter, high speed bomber, dive or slant bomber,
> > maritime patrol etc.
>
> > Ju 87: Devastating in combined arms breakthrough warfare and deadly
> > accurate. When its days were over it lived on as a night bomber and
> > ground attack aircraft with one of the lowest per mission loss rates
> > of any Luftwaffe aircraft.
>
> > He 111: early bombing workhorse
> > Do 217 Only 1200 produced but still effective as a night bomber and
> > guided missile carrier.
> > Arado 234: the jet aircraft provided essential reconaisance: it was
> > the first and only aircraft to survey the Normandy beach-head. Two
> > prototypes flew about 36 missions with their engines being reliable
> > during this process. They were both shot down by their own German
> > FLAK.
> > Fi 103 or V1. Extremely cheap to produce consumed massive allied
> > resources.
>
> > Non essential:
> > Do 17
> > Me 110: its role as a night fighter could have been taken by the Ju
> > 88, I am aware of its success in the Early Polish and Soviet Campaigns
> > but I don't think these were decisive.
>
> > Might Have
> > Me 210/410 Quite a good aircraft that was to replace the Ju 88 and
> > Me 110. Fast, advanced armament, bomb bay, efficient etc but simply
> > too late due to programm mismanagment to survive in allied skies.
> > Me 262; probably was effective in staving of defeat by a few weeks.
> > He 219; succombed to political problems; an excellent night fighter
> > and unlike the Me 110 and early Ju 88 it had the speed to chase down
> > British bombers once diversionary raids and feints had been
> > ascertained.
> > He 177: engine problems were not tackled agressively. The B series
> > with 4 seperate engines could have made up the bulk of production and
> > provided the Luftwaffe with a reliable long range bomber of
> > exceptional performance
> > had courage preceded arse covering.
>
> > USA:
>
> > Essential:
>
> > P-40 USAAF effective fighter of excellent quality; it was quite
> > effective with appropriate tactics.
> > P-38 Had the range and performance to protect US bombers. It
> > prevented the German Airforce from fielding heavy aircraft firing
> > rockets, or impunely attacking bombers under the protection of heavy
> > armour.
> > B-17 Hightly survivable high altitude bomber.
> > B-24 Longer ranged then the B-17; its only virtue.
> > B-29 Defeat of japan almost impossible
> > B-25 Versatile and easy to fly in all theatres of war.
> > Wildcat, Hellcat, dauntless, avenger
> > P-47 Ready far earlier than the P-51.
>
> > Non Essential
> > B-26 not as versatile as the B-25 and for a medium bomber too
> > demanding of runway conditions.
> > Helldiver: too many handling problems.
> > 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.
>
> > Vought corsair: took to long to perfect for carrier opperations;
> > Hellcat did a good enough job. Had the Ki 84 been available in
> > numbers and supplied with 100/130 octane fuel the corsair would have
> > been essential
>
> > Japan:
>
> > Essential:
>
> > Mitsubishi A6M zero and Betty.
> > Dinah, Ki 84
>
> > Non essential
> > All army types apart from the dinah and Ki 84
>
> > Soviet Union
>
> > Essential
>
> > Illushian Sturmovik, Pekelatov Pe2, Tupolev Tu 4, I-16
>
> > 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.
>
> I think the concept of essential and non essential is absurd to be
> honest - sorry,
>
> Guy

I don't disagree, but it has resulted in an interesting, on-topic
thread.

[guy]

On 8 Oct, 15:23, " > wrote:
> On Oct 8, 9:33 am, guy > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 2 Oct, 13:06, Eunometic > wrote:
>
> > > 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.
> > > 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
> > > By 1942 Supermarine was producing the Spitifre Mk XII which had a
> > > single stage Griffon engine and could outrun the Tempest. Although
> > > the mk XII also had poor altitude performance its handling was better.
> > > It would be early 1944 before the Mk XIX entered service which had a
> > > two stage Griffon.
>
> > > Germany:
>
> > > Since Germany lost the war I found it hard to determine what to put in
> > > non essential so I've added the column 'might have'
>
> > > Essential:
> > > Me 109: Hurricane vintage aircraft but remained competitive untill
> > > 1945 when Me 109K-4's were capable of 455mph and 48000ft service
> > > ceiling and even then there were versions such as the Me 109K-14 with
> > > a two stage supercharged DB603L engine starting production but not
> > > delivered as well as the DB603DSCM engine touching on 2000hp at 1.98
> > > atm boost there were test of 2.3 and 2.4 atm going on at DB which
> > > suggests a power of 2400hp and speed of 470-480mph.
> > > The aircraft should have been replaced far earlier with something that
> > > had lighter contol forces and better speed. It would have performed
> > > better with superior fuel.
>
> > > Fw 190: this aircraft filled in many of the Me 109's weaknesses.
>
> > > ju 88: night fighter, high speed bomber, dive or slant bomber,
> > > maritime patrol etc.
>
> > > Ju 87: Devastating in combined arms breakthrough warfare and deadly
> > > accurate. When its days were over it lived on as a night bomber and
> > > ground attack aircraft with one of the lowest per mission loss rates
> > > of any Luftwaffe aircraft.
>
> > > He 111: early bombing workhorse
> > > Do 217 Only 1200 produced but still effective as a night bomber and
> > > guided missile carrier.
> > > Arado 234: the jet aircraft provided essential reconaisance: it was
> > > the first and only aircraft to survey the Normandy beach-head. Two
> > > prototypes flew about 36 missions with their engines being reliable
> > > during this process. They were both shot down by their own German
> > > FLAK.
> > > Fi 103 or V1. Extremely cheap to produce consumed massive allied
> > > resources.
>
> > > Non essential:
> > > Do 17
> > > Me 110: its role as a night fighter could have been taken by the Ju
> > > 88, I am aware of its success in the Early Polish and Soviet Campaigns
> > > but I don't think these were decisive.
>
> > > Might Have
> > > Me 210/410 Quite a good aircraft that was to replace the Ju 88 and
> > > Me 110. Fast, advanced armament, bomb bay, efficient etc but simply
> > > too late due to programm mismanagment to survive in allied skies.
> > > Me 262; probably was effective in staving of defeat by a few weeks.
> > > He 219; succombed to political problems; an excellent night fighter
> > > and unlike the Me 110 and early Ju 88 it had the speed to chase down
> > > British bombers once diversionary raids and feints had been
> > > ascertained.
> > > He 177: engine problems were not tackled agressively. The B series
> > > with 4 seperate engines could have made up the bulk of production and
> > > provided the Luftwaffe with a reliable long range bomber of
> > > exceptional performance
> > > had courage preceded arse covering.
>
> > > USA:
>
> > > Essential:
>
> > > P-40 USAAF effective fighter of excellent quality; it was quite
> > > effective with appropriate tactics.
> > > P-38 Had the range and performance to protect US bombers. It
> > > prevented the German Airforce from fielding heavy aircraft firing
> > > rockets, or impunely attacking bombers under the protection of heavy
> > > armour.
> > > B-17 Hightly survivable high altitude bomber.
> > > B-24 Longer ranged then the B-17; its only virtue.
> > > B-29 Defeat of japan almost impossible
> > > B-25 Versatile and easy to fly in all theatres of war.
> > > Wildcat, Hellcat, dauntless, avenger
> > > P-47 Ready far earlier than the P-51.
>
> > > Non Essential
> > > B-26 not as versatile as the B-25 and for a medium bomber too
> > > demanding of runway conditions.
> > > Helldiver: too many handling problems.
> > > 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.
>
> > > Vought corsair: took to long to perfect for carrier opperations;
> > > Hellcat did a good enough job. Had the Ki 84 been available in
> > > numbers and supplied with 100/130 octane fuel the corsair would have
> > > been essential
>
> > > Japan:
>
> > > Essential:
>
> > > Mitsubishi A6M zero and Betty.
> > > Dinah, Ki 84
>
> > > Non essential
> > > All army types apart from the dinah and Ki 84
>
> > > Soviet Union
>
> > > Essential
>
> > > Illushian Sturmovik, Pekelatov Pe2, Tupolev Tu 4, I-16
>
> > > 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.
>
> > I think the concept of essential and non essential is absurd to be
> > honest - sorry,
>
> > Guy
>
> I don't disagree, but it has resulted in an interesting, on-topic
> thread.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

agreed

guy

[Harry Andreas]

In article om>, WaltBJ
> wrote:

snip

> 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.


Walt
would you expand on this a bit? I'm not sure I follow.
thx

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

[Peter Stickney]

Harry Andreas wrote:

> In article om>, WaltBJ
> > wrote:
>
> snip
>
>> 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.
>
>
> Walt
> would you expand on this a bit? I'm not sure I follow.

The F-5 of teh WW 2 era was the Photo Recon flavor of the late-model
P-38. Put a full set of drop tanks on it, and the frugal Allison
(With a higher compression ratio than the Merlin, the V1710 got good milage,
for a big V-12) meant long range and high endurance. 12 hour flights in a
fighter cockpit are not relaxing joyrides. 8010 hours in fighter-type
airplanes is a lot of takeoffs and landings.
GIs. in this case, I'd expect to be one of the Various and Sundry Tropical
Bugs that like residing in the Human Digestive Tract in hot, wet climates.
(Pound for pound, the most voracious predator is the Amoeba. Been There,
Done That, you don't want to see the T-Shirt). These conditions are
generaally accompanied by such effects as explosive Diarrhea that
registers on seismographs across the planet.
Paper items such as charts, notebooks, and tech manuals come in handy for
cleanup, but make poor cockpit companions afterward.

--
Pete Stickney
Without data, all you have is an opinion

[Harry Andreas]

In article >, Mike Williamson
> wrote:

> Harry Andreas wrote:
> > In article om>, WaltBJ
> > > wrote:
> >
> > snip
> >
> >
> >>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.
> >
> >
> >
> > Walt
> > would you expand on this a bit? I'm not sure I follow.
> > thx
> >
>
> I'm going to guess that GIs were Gastro-intestinal... "distress,"
> and that jettisoning of the maps was due to them no longer being
> serviceable as maps and being rather unpleasant to have in the
> cockpit, having found other uses in the mean time.

Aha. That answers my question. No need to say more.
PLEASE don't say more....
:-/

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

[Eunometic]

On Oct 6, 4:09 am, Bill Shatzer > wrote:
> Daryl Hunt wrote:
>
> -snip-
>
> > 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.
>
> Dunno. The Merlin equipped P-40F was only about 10 mph faster than the
> earlier Allison-fitted P-40E - although obviously better at altitute.
>
> But it still was more than 50 mph short of the P-51B/C's top speed.
>
> I doubt a "super-Allison" would have produced markedly superior results
> or placed the P-40 in the P-51's performance class.
>
> The P-40 was, after all, basically an up-engined Hawk 75 (P-36), a 1934
> design and a full generation earlier than the P-51 airframe design.
>
> Cheers

As far as I can tell the Merlin engined P-40's used a single stage two
speed
supercharged Merlin equivalent to that used in the Spitfire Mk.V.
Both were 375 mph (approx) aicraft.

The Two stage 66 and 70 merlins added an intercooler and it was these
engines
that transformed both the P-51A to the 440mph P-51B/C/D and the
Spitfire
Mk.IX to a 408-412 mph aircraft.

Had the P-40 gotten the two stage Merlin it might have matched the
Spitfire
Mk IX in speed?

The modification would have required a lengtened nose to and
additional
radiator area to deal with the extra head and to dump heat from the
intercooler.

[Eunometic]

On Oct 6, 12:36 pm, Bob Matthews > wrote:
> Daryl Hunt wrote:
> > "The Amaurotean Capitalist" > wrote in
> > messagenews:bkg7g3952ul9la8qpgnmaathtktjd6jp3u@4ax .com...
> >> 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.
>
> Really? Seems like the P40's wing and overall aerodynamics made it less
> efficient therefore slower with the same power.

US doctrine required a fighter with a large fuel capacity for long
range. This
produced a rather large aircraft with a lower power to weight ratio
than the
little european fighters and therefore a lower climb rate and
acceleration.

Having said that the aircaft was very pleasant to fly and a good
turning circle
and excellent pre stall buffet warning. If given a single stage
Merlin it matched
the Spitifire Mk.V in speed. It never got the Two stage Merlin 66 or
70 (packard 266)
but with it probably would have been the same speed as a Mk.IX spit
but with
longer range, less climb rate and less dive speed.

The Mustang had the laminar flow wing and only it could crack the
440mph barrier
with the Merlin. The P-51 was also a heavy aircraft but the laminar
flow wing made
up for it. The P-51's laminar flow wings were laminar becuase of
dimples, bugs and
scratches but one property of the laminar flow wings design is a very
gradual
pressure profile that prevents 'compression' of the air and other
transonic effects
that cause drag and also stiffen airlerons.

It probably just didn't make sense to waste effort upgrading the P-40
with a two
stage Merlin when the Mustang could already do so much better.

This is my whole point. If you waste resource building aircraft that
prevent
you from building ones that do work better.

A few turbo-supercharged Allisons that were made, were allocated to
P-38s, making the high-altitude performance of that plane its best
feature. All 14,000 P-40s got gear-driven superchargers, and as a
result, were never first-class fighter planes. Donaldson R. Berlin,
the P-40's designer, has said that P-40s experimentally equipped
with turbo-superchargers outperformed Spitfires and Messerschmitts
and that if it had been given the engine it was designed for, the
P-40 would have been the greatest fighter of its era. This may be to
some extent the bias of a proud parent, but there is no doubt that the
deletion of the turbo-supercharger ruined the P-39 and in one case
ruined the british turboless P-38s

Had Allison's engineers been able to put the effort into gear-driven
superchargers that Pratt and Whitney and Rolls-Royce did, it might
have been a different story. As it was, there can be little doubt that
the V-1710 had more potential than was actually exploited.

I think the refractory metals were required for the bombers which
needed them more.

[The Amaurotean Capitalist]

On Wed, 3 Oct 2007 15:34:25 -0600, "Daryl Hunt"
> wrote:

>Keeping it in the whatif department. Whatif they had installed decent
>Turbos and Supers on the Allisons.

The turbo required a large amount of plumbing that was accomodated in
the tail booms of the P-38 and the enormous fuselage of the P-47.
There wasn't room for it in the P-39 or P-40.

Improving the supercharger efficiency of the Allison would have been
the feasable alternative, as the better supercharger largely explained
the contemporary single-stage Merlin's advantage over the Allison.
Having said that, Allison didn't manage to do what Hooker did with the
Merlin 20/45 series Merlins despite the need to do so; the closest
they seem to have come was adapting the supercharger gearing on the
V-1710-E4 used in the P-39 to raise the full-throttle height by a
couple of thousand feet, which was too little too late.

> 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.

The P-40 was marginally slower than the Spitfire with a similar
engine, and relative aerodynamic efficiency (largely down to wing
thickness) and weight meant that the Spitfire outperformed it above
full-throttle height. The P-39 and P-40 were the most obsolete
airframes in the US single-engined fighter inventory by 1942, when
two-stage Merlin production was being mooted for Packard and the P-38
was in production with the P-47 to follow shortly. It made more sense
to put the engine with the best potential in the fighter with the best
potential. Out of the three options of the P-39, P-40 and P-51 the
Mustang was clearly the best airframe.

Improving the altitude performance of the Allison in 1941 - in time to
be relevant for 1942 - would have been more useful if you wanted a
better P-39 or P-40. But even then the available engines (the Packard
Merlin 20 series in the P-40F and L) still couldn't overcome the
constraints upon high altitude performance which made the P-40
inferior to the Spitfire at altitude, so unless Allison could out-do
the Merlin 20 series without turbocharging there wasn't much prospect
of them achieving anything better.

Now imagine instead if the US had agreed to begin production of the
Spitfire in 1940 when the British originally raised the issue....

Gavin Bailey

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

[Eunometic]

On Oct 12, 10:21 pm, The Amaurotean Capitalist
> wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Oct 2007 15:34:25 -0600, "Daryl Hunt"
>
> > wrote:
> >Keeping it in the whatif department. What if they had installed decent
> >Turbos and Supers on the Allisons.
>
> The turbo required a large amount of plumbing that was accomodated in
> the tail booms of the P-38 and the enormous fuselage of the P-47.
> There wasn't room for it in the P-39 or P-40.
>
> Improving the supercharger efficiency of the Allison would have been
> the feasable alternative, as the better supercharger largely explained
> the contemporary single-stage Merlin's advantage over the Allison.
It totally explained it. The basic Allison block was superior and
smaller.

The solution Allison came up with was turbo compounding; far superior
to
either supercharging on its own or turbo-supercharging.

[Daryl Hunt]

"The Amaurotean Capitalist" > wrote in
message ...
> On Wed, 3 Oct 2007 15:34:25 -0600, "Daryl Hunt"
> > wrote:
>
> >Keeping it in the whatif department. Whatif they had installed decent
> >Turbos and Supers on the Allisons.
>
> The turbo required a large amount of plumbing that was accomodated in
> the tail booms of the P-38 and the enormous fuselage of the P-47.
> There wasn't room for it in the P-39 or P-40.
>
> Improving the supercharger efficiency of the Allison would have been
> the feasable alternative, as the better supercharger largely explained
> the contemporary single-stage Merlin's advantage over the Allison.
> Having said that, Allison didn't manage to do what Hooker did with the
> Merlin 20/45 series Merlins despite the need to do so; the closest
> they seem to have come was adapting the supercharger gearing on the
> V-1710-E4 used in the P-39 to raise the full-throttle height by a
> couple of thousand feet, which was too little too late.

The Military wouldn't pay for them to do it. Like the P-38 getting
re-engined with the Packard motor. They would have had to shut down for 2
weeks to a month on production. The Military wouldn't hear of it. They
felt the need for the existing version more than the slight delay of
production for a much better AC. The US could have had a Fighter with 2000
mile range and speeds aproaching 500 mph as early as late 1941 since Packard
got the nod to begin production on the Merlin in 1940. And that may have
hurt the go ahead on building the P-51. One of the big reasons for building
the P-51 was the cost of even the bone stock P-38 and P-47 were much higher.
Smaller means cheaper, not necessarily better. Those two did most of the
heavy lifting until the P-51D was introduced as fighters. And they did most
of the heavy lifting when you needed to send in a Fighter/Bomber. The 51
was extremely fragile near the ground with ground fire but a very good
Bomber escort. Just remember, in the North African and Italian Front, it
was the P-38 that completely dominated the skies. JU-88s were not something
anything with short range ordinance wanted to tangle with as a fighter but
you dance with the one that brung ya.


>
> > 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.
>
> The P-40 was marginally slower than the Spitfire with a similar
> engine, and relative aerodynamic efficiency (largely down to wing
> thickness) and weight meant that the Spitfire outperformed it above
> full-throttle height.

Except, the P-40 manufacturing line was unimcombered the the Spit had some
real problems when it came to air attacks, shortage of material, etc. This
is why the Mesquito was even considered being made of wood. The P-40, even
with it's enimic engine and old style design still made a very good showing
against the Zero and the ME109 over and over again. From 1940 to sometime
in 1942, the P-40 was the most plentiful Fighter outside of Germany. I
believe it was being used by 19 Countries including the Soviet Union.



The P-39 and P-40 were the most obsolete
> airframes in the US single-engined fighter inventory by 1942, when
> two-stage Merlin production was being mooted for Packard and the P-38
> was in production with the P-47 to follow shortly. It made more sense
> to put the engine with the best potential in the fighter with the best
> potential. Out of the three options of the P-39, P-40 and P-51 the
> Mustang was clearly the best airframe.

Cost was the factor. And why the 51 was still in production for a short
time after WWII. It cost less to build than the P-38 or the P-47, not that
it was a better overall AC.


>
> Improving the altitude performance of the Allison in 1941 - in time to
> be relevant for 1942 - would have been more useful if you wanted a
> better P-39 or P-40. But even then the available engines (the Packard
> Merlin 20 series in the P-40F and L) still couldn't overcome the
> constraints upon high altitude performance which made the P-40
> inferior to the Spitfire at altitude, so unless Allison could out-do
> the Merlin 20 series without turbocharging there wasn't much prospect
> of them achieving anything better.

The spit didn't have and couldn't have the production numbers needed.

>
> Now imagine instead if the US had agreed to begin production of the
> Spitfire in 1940 when the British originally raised the issue....
>
> Gavin Bailey

In 1940, the Spit was "Equal" to the ME109 while the P-38 was superior.
Then the P-47 entered as well as the P-51D later. Remember, the P-51A was
largely used as a camera ship and flew unarmed. The P-51A was largely equal
to the spit and the ME109. Something better had to be developed. And the
P-38E and the P-47 were both superior for the time to both the Spit and the
ME109. The Spit had a severe problem with range as did the 109. The reason
the Spit is considered the winner in the Battle Britain had nothing to do
with the Aircraft. It was the fact it was fought over Britain and if an
English Pilot were to suvive being shot down, he might be flying another
mission in a different Spit or Hurricane later that afternoon. Meanwhile,
the German Pilot is captured and his war is over. Funny thing, there were
more German AC shot down during the Battle of Britain by the Hurricanes than
the Spits.

The Spit grew into a class Fighter but still had such a short range, they
had problems operating much further than just the Coastal Regions much like
the German 109 and 190. After D-Day, the Spits had Air Fields in France to
operate from. The P-47, P-40, P-38 and P-51 gained total fighter
superiority outside the coastal regions in France, Germany, North Africa and
Italy.

[The Amaurotean Capitalist]

On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 00:17:41 -0700, Eunometic >
wrote:

>> Improving the supercharger efficiency of the Allison would have been
>> the feasable alternative, as the better supercharger largely explained
>> the contemporary single-stage Merlin's advantage over the Allison.

>It totally explained it. The basic Allison block was superior and
>smaller.

And yet this was never translated into overcoming the Allison's
performance inferiority on operational service.

>The solution Allison came up with was turbo compounding; far superior
>to
>either supercharging on its own or turbo-supercharging.

AFAIK the only serviceable variant of the V-1710-F featuring anything
other than mechanical supercharging used mechanical supercharging plus
turbocharging, and even then wasn't available until mid-1942 and even
then was not as reliable as mechanical supercharging alone. This
wasn't a lot of use in 1940-42, and was of limited utility in 1943.

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]

On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 15:41:46 -0600, "Daryl Hunt"
> wrote:

>> Improving the supercharger efficiency of the Allison would have been
>> the feasable alternative, as the better supercharger largely explained
>> the contemporary single-stage Merlin's advantage over the Allison.
>> Having said that, Allison didn't manage to do what Hooker did with the
>> Merlin 20/45 series Merlins despite the need to do so; the closest
>> they seem to have come was adapting the supercharger gearing on the
>> V-1710-E4 used in the P-39 to raise the full-throttle height by a
>> couple of thousand feet, which was too little too late.
>
>The Military wouldn't pay for them to do it.

AFAIK they never presented the military (the USAAC/F) with anything in
that area which the military then refused to fund. The failure was
Allison's failure to progressively develop the efficiency of their
mechanical superchargers along the lines which Rolls-Royce managed
historically in the same time period and when confronted with even
greater pressure for volume production.

> Like the P-38 getting
>re-engined with the Packard motor. They would have had to shut down for 2
>weeks to a month on production. The Military wouldn't hear of it. They
>felt the need for the existing version more than the slight delay of
>production for a much better AC.

AFAIK there is no record of the USAAF specifically rejecting a Merlin
variant of the P-38 on any grounds. The surviving documentation is
much more speculative.

> The US could have had a Fighter with 2000
>mile range and speeds aproaching 500 mph as early as late 1941

Yes, but unfortunately the Alien Space Bat development team concerned
got lost en route to this solar system.

> since Packard
>got the nod to begin production on the Merlin in 1940.

There were no two-stage Packard-Merlin's equivalent to the
turbo-charged V-1710-F5 and successors used in the Lightning until
spring 1943.

>And that may have
>hurt the go ahead on building the P-51. One of the big reasons for building
>the P-51 was the cost of even the bone stock P-38 and P-47 were much higher.
>Smaller means cheaper, not necessarily better.

Financial cost was not a determining consideration in WW2 fighter
procurement during the main war years. Production availability was.

> Those two did most of the
>heavy lifting until the P-51D was introduced as fighters. And they did most
>of the heavy lifting when you needed to send in a Fighter/Bomber. The 51
>was extremely fragile near the ground with ground fire but a very good
>Bomber escort. Just remember, in the North African and Italian Front, it
>was the P-38 that completely dominated the skies.

No, there were as many USAAF Spitfires operating in North Africa as
there were P-38's (even more when the P-38 attrition replacement
problem is taken into account). The P-40, Spitfire and P-38 (and to a
much lesser extent the P-39) were the main US fighter types in Africa
and Italy before the P-51 showed up. You also seem to miss the large
number of Spitfires and smaller number of P-40's being operationally
deployed by other nationalities in those theatres of operations, but
never mind.

>> The P-40 was marginally slower than the Spitfire with a similar
>> engine, and relative aerodynamic efficiency (largely down to wing
>> thickness) and weight meant that the Spitfire outperformed it above
>> full-throttle height.
>
>Except, the P-40 manufacturing line was unimcombered the the Spit had some
>real problems when it came to air attacks, shortage of material, etc.

No, it didn't. The only air attack that had any direct relevance to
Spitfire production was the raid on the Woolston plant in 1940. The
dispersed Supermarine Eastleigh production group was never bombed
effectively after that, nor was the main production facility at Castle
Bromwich.

The P-40 production line, however, was temporarily but seriously
affected by shortages of GF equipment such as propellers, radios and
even Allison engines at different times.

> This
>is why the Mesquito was even considered being made of wood.

Shortage of material did not govern the choice of building material
for the Mosquito. I'd be interested in seeing any evidence you have
that raw material shortage (as opposed to speculative planning for raw
material shortages which never materialised) influencing British
aircraft production. Having performed research on the original RAF,
MAP and Cabinet sources myself, I've never seen any.

> The P-40, even
>with it's enimic engine and old style design still made a very good showing
>against the Zero and the ME109 over and over again.

I think you should acquaint yourself with the opinions of senior USAAF
and USMC officers actually in contact with the enemy on this point.
The P-40 was not a bad fighter, but it was outclassed in an important
area of operational performance by enemy fighters and the pilots and
commanders involved in experiencing that performance differential at
the sharp end weren't slow to let the USAAF hierarchy know about it.

>From 1940 to sometime
>in 1942, the P-40 was the most plentiful Fighter outside of Germany.

No, it wasn't.

> I
>believe it was being used by 19 Countries including the Soviet Union.

Users of the P-40 in 1941: US, UK plus 3 UK-controlled South African
squadrons and 1 UK-controlled Australian squadron, the USSR, and China
(the AVG, only just squeaking into combat use at the end of 1941).

Users of the P-40 in 1942: US, UK, South Africa, Australia, New
Zealand, Canada, USSR and I suppose you might be able to squeeze the
Dutch in there.

Now for comparison -

Users of the Spitfire in 1942: US, UK, South Africa, Australia, New
Zealand, Canada, USSR, Holland. And France, Belgium, Norway, Holland,
Poland, Czechoslovakia and Greece.

>The P-39 and P-40 were the most obsolete
>> airframes in the US single-engined fighter inventory by 1942, when
>> two-stage Merlin production was being mooted for Packard and the P-38
>> was in production with the P-47 to follow shortly. It made more sense
>> to put the engine with the best potential in the fighter with the best
>> potential. Out of the three options of the P-39, P-40 and P-51 the
>> Mustang was clearly the best airframe.
>
>Cost was the factor.

No, it was not.

> And why the 51 was still in production for a short
>time after WWII. It cost less to build than the P-38 or the P-47, not that
>it was a better overall AC.

After the war; yes, but then the P-40 was cheaper than the P-51 in
1944 and yet it wasn't continued in production over the P-51 on that
basis.

>> Improving the altitude performance of the Allison in 1941 - in time to
>> be relevant for 1942 - would have been more useful if you wanted a
>> better P-39 or P-40. But even then the available engines (the Packard
>> Merlin 20 series in the P-40F and L) still couldn't overcome the
>> constraints upon high altitude performance which made the P-40
>> inferior to the Spitfire at altitude, so unless Allison could out-do
>> the Merlin 20 series without turbocharging there wasn't much prospect
>> of them achieving anything better.
>
>The spit didn't have and couldn't have the production numbers needed.

Spitfire production in the first quarter of 1942: 941.

P-40 production in the first quarter of 1942: 960.

>> Now imagine instead if the US had agreed to begin production of the
>> Spitfire in 1940 when the British originally raised the issue....
>
>In 1940, the Spit was "Equal" to the ME109 while the P-38 was superior.

The P-38 was not only inferior, it wasn't even around in 1940.

>Then the P-47 entered as well as the P-51D later.

The P-47 appeared in spring 1943, the P-51D in spring 1944.

>Remember, the P-51A was
>largely used as a camera ship and flew unarmed.

No, it was always armed, either with .5in MG's or even 20mm cannon.

>The P-51A was largely equal
>to the spit and the ME109.

No, it was actually better than both at low altitude. However it was
inferior at high altitude, which is where high performance was at a
premium for allied fighters.

> Something better had to be developed.

And it was; the Merlin-engined Mustang.

>And the
>P-38E and the P-47 were both superior for the time to both the Spit and the
>ME109.

No, the P-38E was inferior to the point that the USAAF tried to avoid
using it in favour of the P-38F as it appeared.

>The Spit had a severe problem with range as did the 109.

As did the P-39 and, to a slightly lesser extent, the P-40.

>The reason
>the Spit is considered the winner in the Battle Britain had nothing to do
>with the Aircraft.

Of course the British benefitted from fighting over their own
territory, but this still does not engage with the performance
differential between the Hurricane and the Spitfire which was
understood and recorded by pilots at the time.

> It was the fact it was fought over Britain and if an
>English Pilot were to suvive being shot down, he might be flying another
>mission in a different Spit or Hurricane later that afternoon.

Unless he was killed, wounded or missing. Meanwhile you are ignoring
the actual performance differential between the different British
fighter types as it was understood by the contemporary fighter pilots
who flew them at the time, and by later researchers.

>Meanwhile,
>the German Pilot is captured and his war is over. Funny thing, there were
>more German AC shot down during the Battle of Britain by the Hurricanes than
>the Spits.

Which is unsuprising when you consider that there were almost twice as
many Hurricanes involved than Spitfires.

>The Spit grew into a class Fighter but still had such a short range, they
>had problems operating much further than just the Coastal Regions much like
>the German 109 and 190. After D-Day, the Spits had Air Fields in France to
>operate from. The P-47, P-40, P-38 and P-51 gained total fighter
>superiority outside the coastal regions in France, Germany, North Africa and
>Italy.

No, the P-40 was usually escorted by Spitfires when it was employed by
the USAAF in North Africa and Italy. The P-38 certainly had the range
to engage in combat beyond the classical sphere of tactical
operations, which the Spitfire couldn't do. But then the P-39, P-40
and intially the P-47 couldn't do that either.

Here's an example of the kind of evidence you would need to advance
your theory of P-47/P-40/P-38 criticality, although it actually
supports the criticality of different aircraft than you would prefer -
one of the reasons for the selection of Salerno as a landing site for
the invasion of Italy was that it was within Spitfire range from
allied air bases in Sicily. P-38, P-39 and P-40 range was not the
determinant factor in allied strategic planning at that point, which
it ought to have been if they were critical to 'gaining total fighter
superiority outside the coastal regions' of Italy.

Gavin Bailey



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

[guy]

On 15 Oct, 10:37, The Amaurotean Capitalist
> wrote:

Big Snip

> > This
> >is why the Mesquito was even considered being made of wood.
>
> Shortage of material did not govern the choice of building material
> for the Mosquito. I'd be interested in seeing any evidence you have
> that raw material shortage (as opposed to speculative planning for raw
> material shortages which never materialised) influencing British
> aircraft production. Having performed research on the original RAF,
> MAP and Cabinet sources myself, I've never seen any.

Yes, initial design studies for the Mossie were based around the
rather lovely pre war Albatross arliner which was constructed
similarly.
One example though of a design propted by material shortage was that
appalling waste of sesign and production effort, the AW Albemarle.


SNIP

> Funny thing, there were
> >more German AC shot down during the Battle of Britain by the Hurricanes than
> >the Spits.
>
> Which is unsuprising when you consider that there were almost twice as
> many Hurricanes involved than Spitfires.

More oddly Hurris got more kills in the whole of WW2 than Spits ( as I
have posted about previously) This was probably due to the widespread
use of Hurris abroad at critical times (Malta, North Africa etc) when
Spits were retained for home defence, arriving in theatre much later.

Snip
>
> Gavin Bailey
>

Guy

[The Amaurotean Capitalist]

On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 03:55:52 -0700, guy >
wrote:

>More oddly Hurris got more kills in the whole of WW2 than Spits ( as I
>have posted about previously) This was probably due to the widespread
>use of Hurris abroad at critical times (Malta, North Africa etc) when
>Spits were retained for home defence, arriving in theatre much later.

Yep, I'd agree that the higher Hurricane claims came from their more
extensive involvement in sustained high-intensity fighting against
major components of Axis air power. By the time the Spitfire became
predominant over the Hurricane, other fighter types and other forces
were diffusing the load.

Gavin Bailey

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

[Dan Nafe]

In article om>,
Eunometic > wrote:

> The modification would have required a lengtened nose to and
> additional
> radiator area to deal with the extra head and to dump heat from the
> intercooler.

Liquid cooling an aircraft engine is like air cooling a submarine
engine...


;->

[guy]

On 18 Oct, 00:51, Dan Nafe > wrote:
> In article om>,
>
> Eunometic > wrote:
> > The modification would have required a lengtened nose to and
> > additional
> > radiator area to deal with the extra head and to dump heat from the
> > intercooler.
>
> Liquid cooling an aircraft engine is like air cooling a submarine
> engine...
>
> ;->

What has liquid cooled engines to do with intercoolers?
And if liquid cooled engines are so bad why did every airforce want
liquid cooled engines for their fighters in WW2 (except the USN)?
some may have not had them in enough numbers (Italy, Japan) but they
wanted them.

Guy

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article m>,
guy > wrote:

> On 18 Oct, 00:51, Dan Nafe > wrote:
> > In article om>,
> >
> > Eunometic > wrote:
> > > The modification would have required a lengtened nose to and
> > > additional
> > > radiator area to deal with the extra head and to dump heat from the
> > > intercooler.
> >
> > Liquid cooling an aircraft engine is like air cooling a submarine
> > engine...
> >
> > ;->
>
> What has liquid cooled engines to do with intercoolers?
> And if liquid cooled engines are so bad why did every airforce want
> liquid cooled engines for their fighters in WW2 (except the USN)?
> some may have not had them in enough numbers (Italy, Japan) but they
> wanted them.
>
> Guy

Liquid cooling lends itself to improved streamlining and improved
cooling distribution among the cylinders. Its main drawback is
vulnerability of the cooling system to debris and small arms fire.

[Bill Shatzer]

guy wrote:

> On 18 Oct, 00:51, Dan Nafe > wrote:
>
>>In article om>,
>>
>> Eunometic > wrote:
>>
>>>The modification would have required a lengtened nose to and
>>>additional
>>>radiator area to deal with the extra head and to dump heat from the
>>>intercooler.
>>
>>Liquid cooling an aircraft engine is like air cooling a submarine
>>engine...

> What has liquid cooled engines to do with intercoolers?
> And if liquid cooled engines are so bad why did every airforce want
> liquid cooled engines for their fighters in WW2 (except the USN)?
> some may have not had them in enough numbers (Italy, Japan) but they
> wanted them.

Well, "every airforce" would seem something of an exaggeration.

The Soviet La-5FNs and La-7s, the US P-47s, the radial-engined German Fw
190s, and the Japanese Ki-84s, Ki-100s, and N1K2-Js were certainly more
than satisfactory fighters for their respective air forces.

The British seemed to go mostly with inline liquid cooled engines for
their fighters but even there, the post-war Sea Fury (arguably the best
piston-engined fighter ever) provides an obvious exception.

Cheers,

[Dan Nafe]

In article
>,
Orval Fairbairn > wrote:

> In article m>,
> guy > wrote:
>
> > On 18 Oct, 00:51, Dan Nafe > wrote:
> > > In article om>,
> > >
> > > Eunometic > wrote:
> > > > The modification would have required a lengtened nose to and
> > > > additional
> > > > radiator area to deal with the extra head and to dump heat from the
> > > > intercooler.
> > >
> > > Liquid cooling an aircraft engine is like air cooling a submarine
> > > engine...
> > >
> > > ;->
> >
> > What has liquid cooled engines to do with intercoolers?
> > And if liquid cooled engines are so bad why did every airforce want
> > liquid cooled engines for their fighters in WW2 (except the USN)?
> > some may have not had them in enough numbers (Italy, Japan) but they
> > wanted them.
> >
> > Guy
>
> Liquid cooling lends itself to improved streamlining and improved
> cooling distribution among the cylinders. Its main drawback is
> vulnerability of the cooling system to debris and small arms fire.

Oil coolers are every bit as delicate as radiators (but smaller and
therefore harder to hit with a golden bb). A hit in an oil cooler would
bring down an aircraft just as quickly as a hit in a glycol radiator.

Air cooled engines (in aircraft, not submarines) are lighter and less
complex to operate than liquid cooled engines.

[Harry Andreas]

In article >, Dan Nafe
> wrote:

> Air cooled engines (in aircraft, not submarines) are lighter and less
> complex to operate than liquid cooled engines.

WRT the weight...is that really true?
IME building liquid-cooled and air-cooled systems, the Liquid systems
are often lighter. Of course while glycol weighs more than air, usually
more aluminum is needed in an air-cooled system than in a liquid-cooled one.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

[Peter Skelton]

On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 09:50:00 -0700, (Harry
Andreas) wrote:

>In article >, Dan Nafe
> wrote:
>
>> Air cooled engines (in aircraft, not submarines) are lighter and less
>> complex to operate than liquid cooled engines.
>
>WRT the weight...is that really true?
>IME building liquid-cooled and air-cooled systems, the Liquid systems
>are often lighter. Of course while glycol weighs more than air, usually
>more aluminum is needed in an air-cooled system than in a liquid-cooled one.

I'd thoiught that weight was about the same. Frontal area (less
air resistance) favoured water-cooling but reliability favoured
radials.


Peter Skelton

[Bill Kambic]

On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 09:50:00 -0700, (Harry
Andreas) wrote:

>In article >, Dan Nafe
> wrote:
>
>> Air cooled engines (in aircraft, not submarines) are lighter and less
>> complex to operate than liquid cooled engines.
>
>WRT the weight...is that really true?
>IME building liquid-cooled and air-cooled systems, the Liquid systems
>are often lighter. Of course while glycol weighs more than air, usually
>more aluminum is needed in an air-cooled system than in a liquid-cooled one.

From my reading it looks like you've got two issues:

Weight. It looks like early on the liquid cooled engines (like the
Merlin) could deliver more performance than single-banked radials
(like the R-1820). As time went on, however, the radials improved HP
output without much growth in weight. The version I'm most famliar
with, the R-1820-56 series, could put out 1525 hp (only slightly less
than an early Merlin). The double-banked radials (like the R-2800)
could significanly better the Merlin, but at a significant weight
penalty.

I've not looked at later liquid cooled models like the Griffin, nor
any of the Axis production engines.

Reliability. While you can probably get a better power to weight
ratio from a liquid cooled engine, the cooling system is an "achilles
heel" for the type. There are numerous stories (ranging from the
beginning of WWII to all the way to the end of the Viet Nam War's
A-1s) of radial engined aircraft coming back home with massive engine
damage (no oil, cylanders shot away, etc.).

Performance was certainly an issue and the larger frontal area of the
air-cooled engine puts it at a disadvantage vis-a-vis the liquid
engine. But, then, naval aircraft are generally at a slight
disadvatage when comparted to comparable land-based types due to the
additional weight penalty that navalization extracts (heavier overall
structure, heavier undercarriage, wing fold systems, etc.).

A liquid cooling system adds a significant level of complexity, and
thus maintenance cost (dollars and man hours). Ships cannot carry
unlimited numbers of mechs or spares so this complexity is a major
consideration.

A "quick and dirty" overview of the naval aviation establishments of
the WWII era demonstrates a dramatic favoring of air-cooled engines
over liquid cooled engines. The U.S. didn't have any liquid cooled
carrier aircraft; the British were mixed about 50-50 in type but I
can't get a firm grasp on numbers (large numbers of U.S. manufactured
aircraft like the Avenger and Corsair were used); the Japanese had a
very few liquid cooled types, but air-cooled predominated; I don't
have any good information on the French.

Overall, for naval use from carriers, the air cooled engine is the
clear winner.

[Peter Stickney]

guy wrote:

Responding late, but a few points:

> On 18 Oct, 00:51, Dan Nafe > wrote:
>> In article om>,
>>
>> Eunometic > wrote:
>> > The modification would have required a lengtened nose to and
>> > additional
>> > radiator area to deal with the extra head and to dump heat from the
>> > intercooler.
>>
>> Liquid cooling an aircraft engine is like air cooling a submarine
>> engine...
>>
>> ;->
>
> What has liquid cooled engines to do with intercoolers?
Nothing. Highly supercharged engines (Pressure Ratio of more than 3.0)
really benefit from removing as much of the heat that's generated by
compressing that air as possible, though. Some airplanes used cold air
(P-38, P-47, B-17, B-24, B-29) to do that, some (2 Stage Merlin) used
liquid.

> And if liquid cooled engines are so bad why did every airforce want
> liquid cooled engines for their fighters in WW2 (except the USN)?

Well, a couple or 3 reasons. With a smaller frontal area, it was felt that
an inline engine would be more streamlined, reducing drag.
It was also thought that a liquid cooled engine would have better heat
rejection - you just wouldn't be able to run an air-cooled engine at high
power due to insufficient cooling.
and last, but not least, fashion happens as much in Aviation as it does
anywhere else. Pointy airplanes look cool, so people like to design pointy
airplanes.

As it turns out, you lose most, if not all of the frontal area advantages of
a liquid cooled engine because you need to have radiators sticking out in
the breeze to keep the coolant temperature within tolerable limits.
As an example, consider a comparison between the aircooled P-47, and it's
liquid cooled British equivalents, the Typhoon and Tempest. They have
almost the same frontal area. In the case of the Typhoon and Tempest, half
of it is radiators.
It's possible to build low drag cooling systems, like that of the P-51
(Especially the B models and up), but it requires long ducting to act as a
diffuser, a large radiator that, because of the ducting, will have to be
buried in the structure, and a converging outlet to accelerate the heated
air.
The idea that an air-cooled engine couldn't get rid of heat fast enough was
based on the idea that you couldn't put enough fin area on a cylinder to
get rid of the heat. In the U.S., both Wright and Pratt & Whitney
developed methods of making fins thinner and closer together, and with
special shapes,to give more cooling area.

--
Pete Stickney
Without data, all you have is an opinion