Essential and Dispensible WW2 aircraft.

A few corrections. Yes the later P51s had an 85 gallon fuel tank
behind the cocpit. However, this tank was supposed to be used up first
to avoid CG problems/limits to manuevering. If the pilot ignored this
restriction, chances are the USAAC lost a good airplane and a weak
pilot.
P38 - I had an instructor who flew F5s in the Pacific. 8010 hours and
a couple times - 12 hours. Awkward if the GIs showed up in flight - he
had a couple tales about that involving the jettison of maps, etc.
P39/P40 - both fairly capable at low altitude meaning below say 3000
MSL. Here is where good combat training showed its value. Alone, one
has a problem; as part of a flight there is someone to team with to
fight the enemy, a la the Thach weave.
Nobody mentioned the B32. I saw a whole ramp full of them at Pyote AFB
in 1951 on the way to USAF basic.
Anything designed by Brewster.
Budd RB-1 Conestoga - twin engine ramp loading stainless steel
aircraft. A hulk exists at Pima. I saw one at Mines Field (LAX) as a
kid.
Fisher XP75. Mongrel abortion.
A lot of XP planes were doomed because the 'hyper' engines they were
designed for were not produced.
Lightweight fighters - a great 1937 idea that didn't pan out.
Walt BJ

In article . com,
WaltBJ wrote:

A few corrections. Yes the later P51s had an 85 gallon fuel tank
behind the cocpit. However, this tank was supposed to be used up first
to avoid CG problems/limits to manuevering. If the pilot ignored this
restriction, chances are the USAAC lost a good airplane and a weak
pilot.
P38 - I had an instructor who flew F5s in the Pacific. 8010 hours and
a couple times - 12 hours. Awkward if the GIs showed up in flight - he
had a couple tales about that involving the jettison of maps, etc.
P39/P40 - both fairly capable at low altitude meaning below say 3000
MSL. Here is where good combat training showed its value. Alone, one
has a problem; as part of a flight there is someone to team with to
fight the enemy, a la the Thach weave.
Nobody mentioned the B32. I saw a whole ramp full of them at Pyote AFB
in 1951 on the way to USAF basic.
Anything designed by Brewster.

If some of the stories are true, anything *made* by Brewster could be
questionable. The manufacturing side of the company had problems just
starting with management.

Budd RB-1 Conestoga - twin engine ramp loading stainless steel
aircraft. A hulk exists at Pima. I saw one at Mines Field (LAX) as a
kid.
Fisher XP75. Mongrel abortion.
A lot of XP planes were doomed because the 'hyper' engines they were
designed for were not produced.

Continental, Lycoming, Rolls-Royce, etc all seemed to come up with the
idea of X-layout engines (and coupling existing engines for bigger
outputs) around the same time.

Did *any* of them actually work out?

Lightweight fighters - a great 1937 idea that didn't pan out.
Walt BJ

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/fac...et.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

In article . com, 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

"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.

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.

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

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

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

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