Essential and Dispensible WW2 aircraft.

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 the 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

On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 06:08:03 -0700, Eunometic
wrote:

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

It's clear from Doolittle's contemporary correspondence with Arnold
that turbo overspeeding, detonation and aerodynamic problems all
combined to make him prefer the P-51 over the P-38.

In the end the the P-38L-1-LO, could claim a combat radius of nearly
1,500 miles under ideal conditions which was far further than any P-51
could conceivably achieve.

Shame it would require a wait until June 1944 before any of them
appeared. Imagine trying that excuse with Arnold in June 1943: "Well,
we'll have the problems with the P-38 licked a year from now -
meanwhile we'll just have to accept enormous attrition in our
strategic bombing campaign or abandon it for the time being."

I actually meant the P-47N as this was the model with the wing
tankage. It could fly 2000 miles with 300 miles and 20 minutes
combate at full power and 5 minutes a WEP. Further than any P-51.

Shame it wasn't around until March 1945; between then and November
1943 the P-51 managed considerably more than the P-47N.

The P-38 and P-47 were available earlier.

June 1944 for the P-38L; March 1945 for the P-47N. First Schweinfurt
was in August 1943. Can you see the problem?

The P-51C carried its fuel
in its wings; the P-51D added a big tank in the tail that made it
unstable and uncombatworthy to fly.

The B's were fitted with the 75-gallon fuselage tank after delivery,
and before the D model appeared in combat.

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

No; but it was the type that addressed the requirement faster than any
of the others.

The Mustang was a fine plane but I think the P-38 and P-47 could have
done the job if pressed a little more than they were.

The USAAF was pressing both for more than they could deliver. The
P-51 succeeded because of their contemporary limitations.

Gavin Bailey

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

"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?

"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

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