On Mar 5, 8:16*pm, "Ray O'Hara" wrote:
"Paul Saccani" wrote in message

...





On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 07:59:46 -0800 (PST), Mike
wrote:

The U.S. backed into the high-low mix out of desperation. The
frontline fighter in 1943 was the Republic P-47, an excellent aircraft
with one major drawback: Its combat radius was limited to 300 miles.
That meant that it could not escort bombers to Germany and back,
leaving the 8th Air Force's B-17s and B-24s at the mercy of German
defenses. By sheer accident, a failing attack plane, the A-35, was
mated with the British Merlin engine (the same as used by the
Spitfire). The result was a magical airplane -- the P-51 Mustang, a
fighter capable of flying deep into Germany and back while at the same
time agile enough to outfly most opponents.

This is quite mistaken.

The Merlin was first fitted to five aeroplanes (with the USAAC
designation P-51) of the first batch of Mustang Mk. 1s. These aircraft
were named Mustang Mk X. *They were *definitely not the A36 Apache
(the A35 was a version of the A31 Vengenance).

This wasn't accidental, deficiencies above 15,000 feet with the
Allision powerplant at altitudes above 15,000 feet were identified in
early testing, and Air Chief Marshall Wilfrid Freeman authorised test
and development of a Merlin engined version in April 1942. *This was
before the A36 had even been ordered.

The A36 was ordered simply because USAAC funds for fighters in Fiscal
year 1942 had already been exhausted. *General Oliver Nichols and
Major Benjamin Kelsey decided to use funds allocated for Attack
Bombers and had NAA make the minimum changes needed to legally produce
a genuine attack version. *But the first 150 P-51 were already ordered
before this decision, and the first 150 P-51 for USAAC were already
flying before the follow on expedient A36 was flying.

The A36 hadn't even had first flight by the time that Merlin engined
Mustang Mk Xs were already flying. *And Packard Merlin engined Mustang
Mk 1As were ordered from NAA *before the A36 had even been thought of..

* the whole article was bull****.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ray, once agian you shown you don't know anything about technology.
Yes the artical has problem, mostly because it uses that the
nomenclature that has cripple you military planner, designers and
enginners since WWII. If we stop thinking in terms like fighter,
destroyer, and frigates, and stick with name that express purpose and
mission, then explaining these facts would be a lot easier.

What we call fighters today are actual two different types of
airplanes. They are not a high cost and low cost version of a single
type of combat aircraft as most people think of them, Instead they
have two compleatly different mission, one the air superiority
airplane destroyer designed to shooting enemy aircraft from the sky,
and the second a high speed ground attack aircraft design to destroyer
targets on the ground. The latter is a much simplier mission to
accomplish, which has resulted in this type of aircraft been cheaper
to build, and therefore thpugh by many to be the "low cost fighter."

Now we come to today problem. while UAV technology has advance enough
that unmanned aircraft can preform certain land attack missions, they
can not profrom them all. And UAV technology can not accomplish air to
air combat until they are able to match the situational awareness and
reaction time of man aircraft.

Yes, the F-22 has it share of problem, mostly because of the insane
system we created for designing, and manufacturing weapons in the USA.
A long time ago the AF should had told Lockheeds engineers to redesign
to reduce the F-22 unit cost, This in turns would have made the
higher, more economical, production runs politically possible. Etc etc
etc.

And Ray, as to the main conclusion of Dunn story, that the US need air
superiority manned fighters, it is you who is full of BS.