Curtiss XP-71

[Daryl]

Two massive R4360 engines and a range of over 3000 miles. This was
proposed to fly cover for bombers launched out of the North American
Continent. As late as early 1941, there was still a chance that England
would have fallen. It didn't and this really, really heavy fighter was
cancelled.

daryl

[Gordon]

Two 37mm autocannon and a freakin' 75mm, for *air to air* work?? Yow.

[Daryl]

On 5/15/2013 10:45 PM, Gordon wrote:
> Two 37mm autocannon and a freakin' 75mm, for *air to air* work?? Yow.
>

With a slight hit on the most outward of a wing and your whole fighter
does up in an explosion. I wished they had actually built one. But I
imagine that the R4360 was not ready for primetime anyway.

daryl

[David E. Powell]

On Thursday, May 16, 2013 12:45:17 AM UTC-4, Gordon wrote:
> Two 37mm autocannon and a freakin' 75mm, for *air to air* work?? Yow.

I'm thinking that Curtiss saw a P-39 and was like "Oh yeah?"

[Keith W]

The specn doesnt make much sense as stated.

Supposedly it was designed to operate over Europe as an escort
fighter if Britain was knocked out but there are problems here.

1) The range of 3000 miles while long for a fighter is
inadequate for the purpose unless they can get bases in Ireland
in which case the P-51 would do.

2) The cannon armament is slow firing and the aircraft would be
unable to turn with a 109 or 190

The design would however make sense as an interceptor of long
range German bombers where the heavy fitting power would
be welcome and the range adequate,

Keith

[Daryl]

On 5/17/2013 1:09 AM, Keith W wrote:
> David E. Powell wrote:
>> On Thursday, May 16, 2013 12:45:17 AM UTC-4, Gordon wrote:
>>> Two 37mm autocannon and a freakin' 75mm, for *air to air* work??
>>> Yow.
>>
>> I'm thinking that Curtiss saw a P-39 and was like "Oh yeah?"
>
> The specn doesnt make much sense as stated.
>
> Supposedly it was designed to operate over Europe as an escort
> fighter if Britain was knocked out but there are problems here.
>
> 1) The range of 3000 miles while long for a fighter is
> inadequate for the purpose unless they can get bases in Ireland
> in which case the P-51 would do.

One problem with that. During the time that the XP-71 was under
development, the P-51 wasn't even a paper drawing.

>
> 2) The cannon armament is slow firing and the aircraft would be
> unable to turn with a 109 or 190
>
> The design would however make sense as an interceptor of long
> range German bombers where the heavy fitting power would
> be welcome and the range adequate,

In 1940, the US was just starting to figure out what was needed. Let's
face it, the P-36 and the P-39 were considered front line fighters until
the first engagement. The XP-71 became obsolete as soon as the P-38
rolled off the line and England didn't fall. AFter that, it just kept
getting longer and longer on the tooth and was fairly cancelled.

daryl

[Richard]

That just sounds impossible!

Drive 5 hours for a 5 minute fight, then 5 hours home?

[kirk....@gmail.com]

On Friday, May 17, 2013 10:19:10 AM UTC+2, Richard wrote:
>
> That just sounds impossible!
>
>
>
> Drive 5 hours for a 5 minute fight, then 5 hours home?

Look up the P-51D and P-47N missions out of Iwo Jima, escorting B-29s over Japan, August 1945. The flights home must have been tough...

Kirk

[Keith W]

Daryl wrote:
> On 5/17/2013 1:09 AM, Keith W wrote:
>> David E. Powell wrote:
>>> On Thursday, May 16, 2013 12:45:17 AM UTC-4, Gordon wrote:
>>>> Two 37mm autocannon and a freakin' 75mm, for *air to air* work??
>>>> Yow.
>>>
>>> I'm thinking that Curtiss saw a P-39 and was like "Oh yeah?"
>>
>> The specn doesnt make much sense as stated.
>>
>> Supposedly it was designed to operate over Europe as an escort
>> fighter if Britain was knocked out but there are problems here.
>>
>> 1) The range of 3000 miles while long for a fighter is
>> inadequate for the purpose unless they can get bases in Ireland
>> in which case the P-51 would do.
>
> One problem with that. During the time that the XP-71 was under
> development, the P-51 wasn't even a paper drawing.
>

Actually it was a LOT MORE advanced than that

The order for the XP-41 prototypes was issued in Nov 1941

The first flight of the NA-73X (P-51 prototype) had occurred
over a year before in Oct 1940 and the British had already ordered
almost 1000 Mustang I's

The first production Mustang I rolled off the production lines
in April 1941 and by the time theXP-71 proptotypes had been
ordered the P-51A was already in production.


Keith

[Daryl]

Much of the XP-41's data was introduced to jumpstart the P-51 Program.
That data was released BEFORE the P-51 saw the Denny's Napkin stage.

Hate to break it to you but the P-51 was all US until the Merlin Engine
was introduced. And it borrowed from many non production aircraft from
the US. Including the L-133 from Lockheed.

daryl

[Keith W]

Which is entirely irrelevant in a discussion about the XP-71
and in any event the main disclosure was about the P-40 and XP-46
which the British Purchasing Commision had asked North American to
build under license. This data prompted Dutch Kindelberger's
claime that he could design and build a better aircraft in less
than 120 days. He succeeded in doing so.


The XP-41 was a Seversky design based on the Seversky P-35
and bears no resemblance to the Mustang,

> Hate to break it to you but the P-51 was all US until the Merlin
> Engine was introduced. And it borrowed from many non production
> aircraft from the US. Including the L-133 from Lockheed.
>
> daryl

Thats about as wrong as its possible to be.

The RAF were extremely happy with their Mustang I's.
Their only gripe is that much of their order was handed
over to the USAAF. The aircraft served in 15 squadrons
and was still in service in 1944 when it was finally replaced
by the P-51D

The USAAF made extensive use of the A-36 and P-51A
variants in Italy, North Africa and Burma

As for borrowing from the L-133 how does an aircraft
that first flew in 1940 borrow from one that never existed
and didnt enter detailed design until long after the first flight
of the Mustang I ?

Keith

[Daryl]

The reason he could was the same reason that the P-80 was done so
quickly. From the same basic sources. The P-51 wasn't a new idea, it
was an application of fairly new designing of other airframes that were
either on the drawing board or in service already. But not one of the
birds was the XP-46 See http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/p51_1.html

>
>
> The XP-41 was a Seversky design based on the Seversky P-35
> and bears no resemblance to the Mustang,
>
>> Hate to break it to you but the P-51 was all US until the Merlin
>> Engine was introduced. And it borrowed from many non production
>> aircraft from the US. Including the L-133 from Lockheed.
>>
>> daryl
>
> Thats about as wrong as its possible to be.
>
> The RAF were extremely happy with their Mustang I's.
> Their only gripe is that much of their order was handed
> over to the USAAF. The aircraft served in 15 squadrons
> and was still in service in 1944 when it was finally replaced
> by the P-51D

But USAAF wasn't particularly thrilled with the P-51A. USAAF used it to
fill in for volume of aircraft when it was extremely badly needed.

>
> The USAAF made extensive use of the A-36 and P-51A
> variants in Italy, North Africa and Burma

Yes, and the reason for that was that they had the same problem England
had. They needed more bulk in their inventory to get the P-36, P-39 and
Buffaloes out of out of service. Too many good pilots were lost to
various enemy front line fighters flying those obsolete fighters. The
F4F held it's own but it didn't have the range. There weren't enough
P-38s to go around either. If you can't get enough quality in place,
you go for just enough quality but do it in volume.

>
> As for borrowing from the L-133 how does an aircraft
> that first flew in 1940 borrow from one that never existed
> and didnt enter detailed design until long after the first flight
> of the Mustang I ?

The L-133 was on the drawing boards (it's wings) as early as 1937. That
same basic wing idea has been used in the P-80, F-104, and even the
mighty F-22 and F-35. And, yes, even the P-51. You can't change
history to suit your own likes and dislikes.

Daryl

[David E. Powell]

On Friday, May 17, 2013 7:25:36 PM UTC-4, Daryl wrote:
> On 5/17/2013 4:20 PM, Keith W wrote:

Snip

> Yes, and the reason for that was that they had the same problem England
>
> had. They needed more bulk in their inventory to get the P-36, P-39 and
>
> Buffaloes out of out of service. Too many good pilots were lost to
>
> various enemy front line fighters flying those obsolete fighters.

Well, the Buffaloes were sent to the Far East. They didn't last too long there, though many would agree a better fighter might have been a better deal for the British. They didn't have much time to switch though.

The British tried the P-39/P-400 but never issued them, some of the ones made for the UK order ended up at Guadalcanal. (Some also might have gone to the USSR but I am not sure.)

Not sure the RAF had P-36 fighters. The French did and apparently did OK with theirs, other factors hurt them in their battle with the German Army.

[Daryl]

I would rate the P-36 is not good enough. Way too out of touch. The
upgrade from the P-36 to the P-40 (pretty much changing the engine out)
made a huge difference in performance.

As for the P-39, it was almost good enough. Enough of almost good
enough can definitely turn a battle if your pilots are superior. In
Guadalcanal, they were in numbers but still got licked pretty good with
a few exceptions (exceptional pilots). But the F4F was there to bail
them out along with the newly arrived P-38s. The P-40 did a pretty good
job but there just weren't enough of them. During Guadalcanal the
USAAF was building up. That buildup involved more P-38s and P-47s later
on. USAAF may have had quality coming in but there just wasn't enough
of it so quantity was used.

daryl

[Bill Shatzer]

David E. Powell wrote:

-snip-

> Well, the Buffaloes were sent to the Far East. They didn't last too long there,
> though many would agree a better fighter might have been a better deal for the British.
> They didn't have much time to switch though.
>
> The British tried the P-39/P-400 but never issued them, some of the ones made for the UK
> order ended up at Guadalcanal. (Some also might have gone to the USSR but I am not sure.)

601 Sqdn was equipped with Airacobras in September 1941 and flew their
first combat sorties in October. The Airacobras proved unsatisfactory in
service and were quickly withdrawn and the undelivered remainder of the
order canceled. Most of the British Airacobra Is were shipped to the
Russians although a few remained in service with various trials units.

> Not sure the RAF had P-36 fighters. The French did and apparently did OK with theirs,
> other factors hurt them in their battle with the German Army.

British Mohawks (Hawk 75s) were mostly derived from French orders which
were redirected to Britain after the fall of France although some were
fleeing French Air Force a/c. Mohawks in the UK were limited to training
purposes although considerable numbers were shipped to the Far East. The
Hindustan Aircraft Factory undertook some limited production of license
built Mohawks in India.

[Keith W]

Nobody claimed it was, in fact Kindelberger had been
sketching out ideas of his own for years

>
>
>>
>>
>> The XP-41 was a Seversky design based on the Seversky P-35
>> and bears no resemblance to the Mustang,
>>
>>> Hate to break it to you but the P-51 was all US until the Merlin
>>> Engine was introduced. And it borrowed from many non production
>>> aircraft from the US. Including the L-133 from Lockheed.
>>>
>>> daryl
>>
>> Thats about as wrong as its possible to be.
>>
>> The RAF were extremely happy with their Mustang I's.
>> Their only gripe is that much of their order was handed
>> over to the USAAF. The aircraft served in 15 squadrons
>> and was still in service in 1944 when it was finally replaced
>> by the P-51D
>
> But USAAF wasn't particularly thrilled with the P-51A. USAAF used it
> to fill in for volume of aircraft when it was extremely badly needed.
>
>>
>> The USAAF made extensive use of the A-36 and P-51A
>> variants in Italy, North Africa and Burma
>
> Yes, and the reason for that was that they had the same problem
> England had. They needed more bulk in their inventory to get the
> P-36, P-39 and Buffaloes out of out of service. Too many good pilots
> were lost to various enemy front line fighters flying those obsolete
> fighters. The F4F held it's own but it didn't have the range. There
> weren't enough P-38s to go around either. If you can't get enough
> quality in place, you go for just enough quality but do it in volume.
>

In fact the A-36 was used in the attack role. In North Africa
the pursuit squadrons had to be issued with Spitfires under
reverse Lend Lease

>>
>> As for borrowing from the L-133 how does an aircraft
>> that first flew in 1940 borrow from one that never existed
>> and didnt enter detailed design until long after the first flight
>> of the Mustang I ?
>
> The L-133 was on the drawing boards (it's wings) as early as 1937. That
> same basic wing idea has been used in the P-80, F-104, and even
> the mighty F-22 and F-35. And, yes, even the P-51. You can't change
> history to suit your own likes and dislikes.
>
> Daryl

Rubbish

The L-133 was a canard design with the outer wing sections
based on the P-38, Its planform is nothing like the other
aircraft you mention and it was completely different from
the P-51 laminar flow wing which was based on the new
NACA-23 Series Airfoil and design adapted by Ed Horkey
who was the chief aerodynamacist of NAA.

Keith

[Daryl]

NAA started playing with the idea in 1939. Changes were made up until
and including after the first flight of the XP-51. If you will notice,
there was a version of the P-40 that had that same intake layout. It
was abandoned for the beard type. That intake was the weakest part of
the P-51 by far and it was never changed. This kept it from being a
really successful ground attack bird when there was ground fire.
Normally, the P-51 (all models) were flown with the door on automatic
where it would open and close (and partial) to the heat of the engine.
Forgetting to turn off the automatic for combat could mean the loss of
the engine if it took a hit in the radiator. By the time the door was
automatically full open you only had a few minutes of flight before your
engine seized. This was a problem in both the Allison and the Merlin
(PB). The real reason for this oversight was the fact that NAA just
didn't build fighters until the P-51A.

The L-133 wing had been around in design since 1937 at the latest.


The XP-71 was already on the drawing board before the P-51 was seriously
considered for a design. The only reason it was slowed so much was that
the Engines it needed weren't ready. The R3350 was a real problem child
and was still a problem child with the B-29 all the way through 1945.
This slowed the first flight of the XP-71 until 1941. The R2800 was
available but that early, didn't develop the needed power.

There is a very big difference. The A-36 was not really successful for
ground attack when there was ground fire. (see cooler intake).
Meanwhile, the Spit could go blow for blow with the ME109. But it
lacked the range. It was very good as a point defense fighter but that
was just about it. Again, both AC were there because there wasn't
anything else until the P-38 and the P-47 showed up. Both of those
could fly with the 109 on an equal basis and had enough range to carry
the fight to the enemy. If you are ineffective on your attacks on your
enemy and are doing defense then you are losing.

>
>>>
>>> As for borrowing from the L-133 how does an aircraft
>>> that first flew in 1940 borrow from one that never existed
>>> and didnt enter detailed design until long after the first flight
>>> of the Mustang I ?
>>
>> The L-133 was on the drawing boards (it's wings) as early as 1937. That
>> same basic wing idea has been used in the P-80, F-104, and even
>> the mighty F-22 and F-35. And, yes, even the P-51. You can't change
>> history to suit your own likes and dislikes.
>>
>> Daryl
>
> Rubbish
>
> The L-133 was a canard design with the outer wing sections
> based on the P-38, Its planform is nothing like the other
> aircraft you mention and it was completely different from
> the P-51 laminar flow wing which was based on the new
> NACA-23 Series Airfoil and design adapted by Ed Horkey
> who was the chief aerodynamacist of NAA.

Wrong, you go it backwards. The P-38 benefited from the L-133 wing
design that actually predates the P-38 design. The outer wing section
of the P-38 was very similar to the P-51. This is why it was adapted to
the F-104 and modern fighters today. The actual L-133 as a complete
aircraft had nothing to do with the wing design it was to use.

The difference from NAA was the straight lines in the P-51 wing for ease
of manufacture. This was the saving grace even after the Merlin was
installed. It cut down on construction costs and time. Something that
the rounded wings couldn't do. It wasn't that fact the P-51 was a
better fighter, it wasn't, it was it was cheaper and you could turn then
out faster than any other fighter.

When I rate any fighter, I list all the missions it must fly. Ground
Attack, Escort, range, cost, manufacturing, etc.. When you list all of
the attributes that is required for an excellent all around fighter, the
P-51 falls short. Meanwhile, the P-47 and the P-38 win out. Just
listing it for it's escort duties is just one part of the equation that
won the war of fighters.

Just for argument sake, let's say that England fell. Or the Luftwaffe
got serious about high altitude high speed long ranged bombers and
reacted accordingly with the new fighters to go with it like the US did
and Britain didn't. Even without falling, England would not have had
the safe haven areas for bombers and fighters to disperse to. That
means that the XP-71 would have had to be be pressed into service when
the US entered the war. You are correct, it would have to be refueled
in Ireland for the trip back or been stationed in Ireland. But it would
have been the only fighter able to keep the long ranged (potential)
fighters of the Luftwaffe from intercepting the bombers. The US would
have had to get the bugs out of the R3350 much sooner and the B-29 would
have been used in Europe launching out of the Continental US or Canada
and had to pick up the XP-71 fighter escort somewhere along the way.
But England didn't fall and the Luftwaffe never had heavy long ranged
bombers with the correct fighters to accompany them and the R3350 wasn't
ready even after the flight of the XP-71.

In the end, it would have been an Interceptor and the P-38 did a much
better job at that job plus many other missions from the same time
period. I would go one step further and say, a great escort fighter
coming out of the Continental US would have been the B-25 with the nose
mounted guns. The B-25 was nearly as fast as the 109 and packed one
hell of a punch.

Had the need of the XP-71 been needed there would have been no P-51.
The war would have gone on past 1945 and it would have been jet on jet
from the US and Germany. Not England since it would have been cratered
much worse than it was. In fact, the B-36, B-45 and a host of Luftwaffe
Jet Bombers would have been used. And those would have been hard
pressed to stop with their speed and altitude. Not to mention, the range.

I overheard one WWII Fighter Pilot plainly state that the war is not won
by the fighter but the Bomber. I am guilty as anyone else in giving the
sexy fighter more press than the bomber.

Daryl

[Keith W]

The fact remains that the NA-73X was FLYING before the XP-71
was even proposed as a project and none of the data regarding it
was ever released to NA

The cooler intake was an issue only in so far as the aircraft used liquid
cooling and of course the Apache remained in service until 1944

> Meanwhile, the Spit could go blow for blow with the ME109. But it
> lacked the range. It was very good as a point defense fighter but
> that was just about it. Again, both AC were there because there
> wasn't anything else until the P-38 and the P-47 showed up. Both of
> those could fly with the 109 on an equal basis and had enough range to
> carry
> the fight to the enemy. If you are ineffective on your attacks on
> your enemy and are doing defense then you are losing.
>
>

We are of course all aware of the fact that the P-38 was taken
out of front line service in the ETO due to its high loss rate,

>>
>>>>
>>>> As for borrowing from the L-133 how does an aircraft
>>>> that first flew in 1940 borrow from one that never existed
>>>> and didnt enter detailed design until long after the first flight
>>>> of the Mustang I ?
>>>
>>> The L-133 was on the drawing boards (it's wings) as early as 1937.
>>> That same basic wing idea has been used in the P-80, F-104, and even
>>> the mighty F-22 and F-35. And, yes, even the P-51. You can't
>>> change history to suit your own likes and dislikes.
>>>
>>> Daryl
>>
>> Rubbish
>>
>> The L-133 was a canard design with the outer wing sections
>> based on the P-38, Its planform is nothing like the other
>> aircraft you mention and it was completely different from
>> the P-51 laminar flow wing which was based on the new
>> NACA-23 Series Airfoil and design adapted by Ed Horkey
>> who was the chief aerodynamacist of NAA.
>
> Wrong, you go it backwards. The P-38 benefited from the L-133 wing
> design that actually predates the P-38 design.

Well now thats quite a claim given that the P-38 first flew in 1939
and the L-133 was never built. How about proving it.

> The outer wing section
> of the P-38 was very similar to the P-51.

Apart from its having a different aspect ratio, wingspan,
wing loading and aerofoil section that is.

P-38 Wing
Wingspan: 52 ft 0 in (15.85 m) (15.85 m)
Wing area: 327.5 ft� (30.43 m�)
Airfoil: NACA 23016 / NACA 4412
Aspect ratio: 8.26


P-51 Wing
Wingspan: 37 ft 0 in (11.28 m)
Wing area: 235 sq ft (21.83 m�)
Airfoil: NACA-23
Aspect ratio: 5.83

> This is why it was adapted
> to the F-104 and modern fighters today.

Utter bollocks.

The F-104 wing was different in every way.

Compare and contrast

P-38 Wing
Wingspan: 52 ft 0 in (15.85 m) (15.85 m)
Wing area: 327.5 ft� (30.43 m�)
Airfoil: NACA 23016 / NACA 4412
Aspect ratio: 8.26


F-104 Wing
Wingspan: 21 ft 9 in (6.36 m)
Wing area: 196.1 ft� (18.22 m�)
Airfoil: Biconvex 3.36% root and tip
Aspect ratio: 2.45

> The actual L-133 as a
> complete aircraft had nothing to do with the wing design it was to
> use.

There was no actual L-133

> The difference from NAA was the straight lines in the P-51 wing for
> ease of manufacture. This was the saving grace even after the Merlin
> was installed. It cut down on construction costs and time. Something that
> the rounded wings couldn't do. It wasn't that fact
> the P-51 was a better fighter, it wasn't, it was it was cheaper and you
> could turn
> then out faster than any other fighter.
>
> When I rate any fighter, I list all the missions it must fly. Ground
> Attack, Escort, range, cost, manufacturing, etc.. When you list all
> of the attributes that is required for an excellent all around
> fighter, the P-51 falls short. Meanwhile, the P-47 and the P-38 win
> out. Just listing it for it's escort duties is just one part of the
> equation that won the war of fighters.
>

The USAAF and RAF disagreed, they rated the P-51 higher as a
fighter than the P-38 while the P-47 was rated the better ground attack
bird.

Keith

[Daryl]

Make it up like you want to. You are using "Flying" like it means
something. In this case, the XP-71 was of an older concept, a solution
to a problem we can't even do today. A solution that the Jet still
can't do A solution that your beloved P-51 couldn't do. You have long
since gone into an obsession on this one.

So you are still trying to change history. There were quite a few
losers that stayed in service until 1944. In 1944, the numbers of
Aircraft dramatically increased where they could take these birds out of
service or front line service. And it was enough of a problem that
Pilots discussed it. Just because the newsreels don't mention it
(Politics are in force on that one) doesn't mean it wasn't a real worry
in real world and more than a few P-51s of all types were lost to it.
You are pulling an ARnt on this one

>
>> Meanwhile, the Spit could go blow for blow with the ME109. But it
>> lacked the range. It was very good as a point defense fighter but
>> that was just about it. Again, both AC were there because there
>> wasn't anything else until the P-38 and the P-47 showed up. Both of
>> those could fly with the 109 on an equal basis and had enough range to
>> carry
>> the fight to the enemy. If you are ineffective on your attacks on
>> your enemy and are doing defense then you are losing.
>>
>>
>
> We are of course all aware of the fact that the P-38 was taken
> out of front line service in the ETO due to its high loss rate,

And are you aware of why the loss was so high? Could it be the 11 to
one advantage the Luftwaffe had against it during 1942 and 1943? Your
P-38 Hatred slip is slowing, ARnt.

>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> As for borrowing from the L-133 how does an aircraft
>>>>> that first flew in 1940 borrow from one that never existed
>>>>> and didnt enter detailed design until long after the first flight
>>>>> of the Mustang I ?
>>>>
>>>> The L-133 was on the drawing boards (it's wings) as early as 1937.
>>>> That same basic wing idea has been used in the P-80, F-104, and even
>>>> the mighty F-22 and F-35. And, yes, even the P-51. You can't
>>>> change history to suit your own likes and dislikes.
>>>>
>>>> Daryl
>>>
>>> Rubbish
>>>
>>> The L-133 was a canard design with the outer wing sections
>>> based on the P-38, Its planform is nothing like the other
>>> aircraft you mention and it was completely different from
>>> the P-51 laminar flow wing which was based on the new
>>> NACA-23 Series Airfoil and design adapted by Ed Horkey
>>> who was the chief aerodynamacist of NAA.
>>
>> Wrong, you go it backwards. The P-38 benefited from the L-133 wing
>> design that actually predates the P-38 design.
>
> Well now thats quite a claim given that the P-38 first flew in 1939
> and the L-133 was never built. How about proving it.

Now you are just reaching too far. The L-133 wing was a direct result
of what to do when the L-1000 engine was done. That wing was for a jet
aircraft and a dream that ended up in part of the P-38 wing as well as
the P-80 wing, the entire F-104 wing and even today's modern fighter
wings. Things like flush rivets and welds instead of bulging rivets
were for a Jet and both the P-38 and the P-51 benefited from it.
Meanwhile, the Axial Flow Engines benefited from the same program. The
Germans want to thank the US for that.

As for not being built, the L-133 wasn't the only plan for the L-1000
engine that Lockheed had in the planning stage. In fact it may have
been the least likely to go into production. History plays that down
because it it more than a bit embarrassing to the US. I can only find
short mentions of these plans but they are out there if you care to
look. And those designs go back to before either the P-38 or the P-51
was started in planning.

>
>
>> The outer wing section
>> of the P-38 was very similar to the P-51.
>
> Apart from its having a different aspect ratio, wingspan,
> wing loading and aerofoil section that is.
>
> P-38 Wing
> Wingspan: 52 ft 0 in (15.85 m) (15.85 m)
> Wing area: 327.5 ft� (30.43 m�)
> Airfoil: NACA 23016 / NACA 4412
> Aspect ratio: 8.26
>
>
> P-51 Wing
> Wingspan: 37 ft 0 in (11.28 m)
> Wing area: 235 sq ft (21.83 m�)
> Airfoil: NACA-23
> Aspect ratio: 5.83

Different mission requirements require different wings.

>
>
>
>> This is why it was adapted
>> to the F-104 and modern fighters today.
>
> Utter bollocks.
>
> The F-104 wing was different in every way.
>
> Compare and contrast
>
> P-38 Wing
> Wingspan: 52 ft 0 in (15.85 m) (15.85 m)
> Wing area: 327.5 ft� (30.43 m�)
> Airfoil: NACA 23016 / NACA 4412
> Aspect ratio: 8.26
>
>
> F-104 Wing
> Wingspan: 21 ft 9 in (6.36 m)
> Wing area: 196.1 ft� (18.22 m�)
> Airfoil: Biconvex 3.36% root and tip
> Aspect ratio: 2.45
>
>> The actual L-133 as a
>> complete aircraft had nothing to do with the wing design it was to
>> use.
>
> There was no actual L-133

Let's see, Lockheed pushed bleed air being used to increase lift from a
low aspect ratio wing (not just for the L-133 but for the other more
conventional aircraft progged to use the L-1000 engine as well as the
F-104). Newsflash: Wings predate the Aircraft every time.

With the lack of funding and the extreme dislike of the Jets in the US
Military, only the concepts and designs go forward from the L-1000
project. But the Germans saw something in it's axial flow design.

>
>> The difference from NAA was the straight lines in the P-51 wing for
>> ease of manufacture. This was the saving grace even after the Merlin
>> was installed. It cut down on construction costs and time. Something that
>> the rounded wings couldn't do. It wasn't that fact
>> the P-51 was a better fighter, it wasn't, it was it was cheaper and you
>> could turn
>> then out faster than any other fighter.
>>
>> When I rate any fighter, I list all the missions it must fly. Ground
>> Attack, Escort, range, cost, manufacturing, etc.. When you list all
>> of the attributes that is required for an excellent all around
>> fighter, the P-51 falls short. Meanwhile, the P-47 and the P-38 win
>> out. Just listing it for it's escort duties is just one part of the
>> equation that won the war of fighters.
>>
>
> The USAAF and RAF disagreed, they rated the P-51 higher as a
> fighter than the P-38 while the P-47 was rated the better ground attack
> bird.

It's been found that a pure fighter loses out to the overall fighter
every time. Even though the F-15 "Probably" should be able to maneuver
with the Mig-29, it's still matched the Mig-29 in real dogfighting and
flew the Mig into the ground. The F-15 ceased to be a straight
interdiction fighter when it was upgraded from the A to the C. The E
wasn't that far of a stretch.

And during that time period, there was a lot of face saving going on.
Like the fact that the US Military passed on the L-1000 programs, never
up engined the P-38 with the Packard Bell because it would shut down the
line for about 2 weeks. There were quite a few "Mistakes" made that the
US got away with due to it's ability to manufacture at such a volume.
You keep believing this BS. It sucks to be you.

daryl

[Gordon]

Daryl, many pilots flew both the 47 and the 51 and the general consensus is that the 51 was the plane you wanted in a dogfight. A 47 will bring you home even if you lose the fight in most cases, but the 51 wouldn't lose the fight in the first place.

Pilots that flew both the 38 and the 51 and preferring the 38 were somewhat rare. Look at people like Robin Olds and check out his preference.

Not to mention, as General Rall put it, "You don't fight one American aircraft, you fight a flight of four or sixteen. Doesn't matter how good you are when your odds are stacked at 4 or 16:1 against you."

[Gordon]

Also, I think the flush riveting on the Hughes H-1 or the pre-war Heinkel would predate Lockheed use, so we can't give them the rose for that one. We are building an H-1 in our museum's basement and trust me, its not easy to match the level of quality, fit and finish of the original.

[Daryl]

On 5/18/2013 5:24 PM, Gordon wrote:
> Also, I think the flush riveting on the Hughes H-1 or the pre-war Heinkel would predate Lockheed use, so we can't give them the rose for that one. We are building an H-1 in our museum's basement and trust me, its not easy to match the level of quality, fit and finish of the original.
>

That's exactly the point I was trying to make. Most of the ideas were
already done before the P-51 ever became a denny's napkin plan. Outside
of the straight lines in the wing that made manufacturing faster,
cheaper and easier, I don't see a thing in the P-51 that wasn't already
done before.

daryl

[Daryl]

On 5/18/2013 5:16 PM, Gordon wrote:
> Daryl, many pilots flew both the 47 and the 51 and the general consensus is that the 51
>was the plane you wanted in a dogfight. A 47 will bring you home even
if you lose the
>fight in most cases, but the 51 wouldn't lose the fight in the first
place.

AS one P-51 Ace put it, the 51 was, maybe, 2% better than the 109. Not
something you would want to stake your life on. What made it better was
the fact that the pilots all had hundreds of hours of training and
combat experience even before they sat their tails into the 51 in the
first place. Even the new pilots had more than a hundred hours of
training including in country training. Something the P-38 in ETO never
received. Even the 47 didn't have even close as much in country
training as the 51. When the P-51B/C became in great numbers, the 47
and the 38 had already thinned the expertine pilots of the Luftwaffe
down quite a bit at a great cost to themselves. In 1942, the numbers
were 11 luftwaffe fighters for every 1 of the US long range fighters.
In 1943, that number was reduced to 5 to 1. In early 1944, it was
reduced even further. By the time D-Day came, it was closer to 5 to one
in the USAAF favor. By 1945, it was probably 16 to one.

>
> Pilots that flew both the 38 and the 51 and preferring the 38 were somewhat rare.
> Look at people like Robin Olds and check out his preference.

I was in the same outfit as Robin Olds. I came a couple of years after
he left. But his policies and training were still there. Robin Olds
was a killer, pure and simple. In anything he flew. If he were to fly
the Oscar Meyer Wienie Wagon he would have figured out a way to get
kills with it against the USS Starship Enterprise. Col. Olds was not
your average fighter pilot by any stretch of the imagination. It's like
using Galland for all Luftwaffe Pilots. There are aces and then there
are targets.

>
> Not to mention, as General Rall put it, "You don't fight one American aircraft,
> you fight a flight of four or sixteen. Doesn't matter how good you
are when your
> odds are stacked at 4 or 16:1 against you."
>

Much like the P-38 faced in 1942 at 11 to one in the Luftwaffe's favor.

[Steve Hix]

In article <7b706631-f490-4eab...@googlegroups.com>,

Gordon <Gor...@oldboldpilots.org> wrote:

> Daryl, many pilots flew both the 47 and the 51 and the general consensus is
> that the 51 was the plane you wanted in a dogfight. A 47 will bring you home
> even if you lose the fight in most cases, but the 51 wouldn't lose the fight
> in the first place.

Can't speak to the P-47, but a manager of mine back in the late 70s had flown
fighters in 2TAF RAF, in 485(NZ) squadron. He did ground support, not air to air,
flying Spitfire XVI and Typhoon, starting in July 1944.

He preferred the Spitfire for just flying, but the Typhoon for ground attack.

After VE Day, he was part of a group of pilots slated to be moved to the Pacific
theater, and they were in transition to the P-51, which they'd be using there.

That was his favorite aircraft of all he flew, though he was quite satisfied
with VJ day coming along before the left England. Ergonomics, pilot comfort,
performance, range, it had it all to his way of thinking.

[Keith W]

Eric Brown put it quite well when asked if the P-51 was the
best fighter of WW2

<Quote>
The best fighter? No, no, no. It was the best escort fighter in the world,
make no mistake about that. But this was because it had incredible range,
but the laminar flow wing fitted to the Mustang could be a little tricky.
It could not by any means outturn a Spitfire. No way. It had a good rate
of roll, better than the Spitfire. So I would say the pluses to the Spitfire
and the pluses of the Mustang just about equate the pluses and the minuses.

If I was in a dogfight, I'd prefer to be in a Spitfire. The problem was I
wouldn't like to be in a dogfight near Berlin, because I could never get
home to Britain in a Spitfire...
</Quote>

Keith

[Keith W]

It's a matter of record.

> You are using "Flying" like it means something.

With aircraft it means everything

> In this case, the XP-71 was of an older concept, a
> solution to a problem we can't even do today. A solution that the
> Jet still can't do A solution that your beloved P-51 couldn't do. You
> have long since gone into an obsession on this one.
>

The XP-71 couldnt do it either and was cancelled.

Apart from the minor point that the L-133 was never built and the P-38
flew in 1939

> the entire F-104 wing and even today's modern
> fighter wings. Things like flush rivets and welds instead of bulging
> rivets were for a Jet and both the P-38 and the P-51 benefited from
> it.

Well no , flush riveting was adopted in the 1930's for many
aircraft including the Hughes H-1, and the Dornier Do-18

> Meanwhile, the Axial Flow Engines benefited from the same
> program. The Germans want to thank the US for that.
>

Well hardly. The German engines are known to have been
engineered independently and did in fact work, something the
L-1000 did NOT manage during WW2

> As for not being built, the L-133 wasn't the only plan for the L-1000
> engine that Lockheed had in the planning stage. In fact it may have
> been the least likely to go into production. History plays that down
> because it it more than a bit embarrassing to the US. I can only find
> short mentions of these plans but they are out there if you care to
> look. And those designs go back to before either the P-38 or the P-51
> was started in planning.
>

And were never completed. The L-1000 engine was an expensive fiasco.
The original version used a hybrid reciprocating and axial compressor
and simply couldnt be made to start. By March 1943 the continued failures
looked likely to cause the USAAF to pull the plug so Lockheed did a
radical redesign. When in June 1943 they authorized the prototype
P-80 the engine used was a British Halford H-1 as the L-1000 was
clearly not going to be available.

By the time the A-bomb had been dropped on Hiroshima and
Nagasaki the engine was still only 60% complete and Lockheed
bailed out selling the rights to the engine to the Menaso Corpn.

The first engine actually ran in 1946 and four prototypes were
ordered. By 1953 the project was closed down having produced
only 3 of the 4 engines after more than 10 years.

>
>>
>>
>>> The outer wing section
>>> of the P-38 was very similar to the P-51.
>>
>> Apart from its having a different aspect ratio, wingspan,
>> wing loading and aerofoil section that is.
>>
>> P-38 Wing
>> Wingspan: 52 ft 0 in (15.85 m) (15.85 m)
>> Wing area: 327.5 ft� (30.43 m�)
>> Airfoil: NACA 23016 / NACA 4412
>> Aspect ratio: 8.26
>>
>>
>> P-51 Wing
>> Wingspan: 37 ft 0 in (11.28 m)
>> Wing area: 235 sq ft (21.83 m�)
>> Airfoil: NACA-23
>> Aspect ratio: 5.83
>
> Different mission requirements require different wings.
>
>

Trouble is you claimed they all used wings based on the Lockheed design

Wrong. The Germans were building axial flow jets knowing
NOTHING about the Lockheed design as were the British in
the form of the Mevick Beryl.

Both those engines worked , the L-1000 did not. The USAAF
wanted jets , trouble is Lockheed couldnt deliver.


Keith

[Daryl]

That's the first objective thing you have typed in this exchange.

> but the laminar flow wing fitted to the Mustang could be a little tricky.
> It could not by any means outturn a Spitfire. No way. It had a good rate
> of roll, better than the Spitfire. So I would say the pluses to the Spitfire
> and the pluses of the Mustang just about equate the pluses and the minuses.

Bullocks (in a language you understand). The Spit was much slower than
the P-51.

P-51H 490 mph
Spit Mk XIV 448 mph

In fact, the last production versions of the FW190 was just as fast AND
it had twice the range of ANY Spit. That means the FW gets to pick the
fight against the Spit and can disengage at will. But it doesn't have
that option with the Big 3 USAAF fighters. This is why the English were
so impressed with the P-40. It could get across the channel, go all the
way to Paris, mix it up and get you home. The spit is a point defense
fighter and nothing else. It's a one trick pony.

I see you are still trying to pull an Arnt. Pick the older version of
one and the most recent of the other and present it to back up your
misconceptions.

>
> If I was in a dogfight, I'd prefer to be in a Spitfire. The problem was I
> wouldn't like to be in a dogfight near Berlin, because I could never get
> home to Britain in a Spitfire...
> </Quote>

If that is a quote by Eric Brown then that quote is just plain incorrect.

[Daryl]

Your record doesn't take into consideration of where designs come from.
Arnt does the same thing.

>
>> You are using "Flying" like it means something.
>
> With aircraft it means everything

In design, flying isn't everything.

>
>> In this case, the XP-71 was of an older concept, a
>> solution to a problem we can't even do today. A solution that the
>> Jet still can't do A solution that your beloved P-51 couldn't do. You
>> have long since gone into an obsession on this one.
>>
>
> The XP-71 couldnt do it either and was cancelled.

And why was it cancelled? I already covered why it was cancelled and
the P-51 had nothing to do with it's cancellation.

The L-1000 was built. One model and the design was scrutinized over and
over and no one could find any flaws in it. The problem was, the US
Military didn't put any credence in Jets quite yet. The Germans did and
they introduced an engine that had the same features. The L-1000 even
was designed to take an Afterburner. Lockheed just got too cute when
they presented a model of the L-133 instead of one of the more
conventional aircraft designs to utilize the L-1000.

>
>
>> the entire F-104 wing and even today's modern
>> fighter wings. Things like flush rivets and welds instead of bulging
>> rivets were for a Jet and both the P-38 and the P-51 benefited from
>> it.
>
> Well no , flush riveting was adopted in the 1930's for many
> aircraft including the Hughes H-1, and the Dornier Do-18

And that only proves that many things are adopted from it's
predecessors. Something you won't admit.

>
>> Meanwhile, the Axial Flow Engines benefited from the same
>> program. The Germans want to thank the US for that.
>>
>
> Well hardly. The German engines are known to have been
> engineered independently and did in fact work, something the
> L-1000 did NOT manage during WW2

I just don't buy it. Germany had industrial spies all throughout the US
Industries. The German Axial Flow was from the 40s while the Lockheed
design was from the 30s. And Lockheed never received Nationalized
Funding while the German Axial Flow did. I never have bought the
"Independent" design even with the compressor style that the English
actually had first. Like the claim that the German Bomb sight didn't
come from Industrial Espionage. It was pretty well proven that it came
from a spy working at Norden who turned it over to the Germans.

>
>
>> As for not being built, the L-133 wasn't the only plan for the L-1000
>> engine that Lockheed had in the planning stage. In fact it may have
>> been the least likely to go into production. History plays that down
>> because it it more than a bit embarrassing to the US. I can only find
>> short mentions of these plans but they are out there if you care to
>> look. And those designs go back to before either the P-38 or the P-51
>> was started in planning.
>>
>
> And were never completed. The L-1000 engine was an expensive fiasco.
> The original version used a hybrid reciprocating and axial compressor
> and simply couldnt be made to start. By March 1943 the continued failures
> looked likely to cause the USAAF to pull the plug so Lockheed did a
> radical redesign. When in June 1943 they authorized the prototype
> P-80 the engine used was a British Halford H-1 as the L-1000 was
> clearly not going to be available.

The Army never funded the L-1000. The work was all done on the back
burner by Lockheed Pockets. Lemay admitted he made a huge mistake and
it would take too long for the l-1000 to be brought on line. PRetty
much, Lockheed was told to sit down, shut up and build more P-38s.

>
> By the time the A-bomb had been dropped on Hiroshima and
> Nagasaki the engine was still only 60% complete and Lockheed
> bailed out selling the rights to the engine to the Menaso Corpn.
>
> The first engine actually ran in 1946 and four prototypes were
> ordered. By 1953 the project was closed down having produced
> only 3 of the 4 engines after more than 10 years.

And it never received National Backing, ever. It was always back burner
expended by Lockheed. But it's design work went on to bring us modern
Turbojets, Turboprops and Turbofans. By 1953, the axial flow was ready
for turning out or already was turned out by Pratt and GE. Even rolls
jumped on that one. It wasn't the Germans that were copied, it was the
legal acquisition from the work done on the L-1000.

>
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> The outer wing section
>>>> of the P-38 was very similar to the P-51.
>>>
>>> Apart from its having a different aspect ratio, wingspan,
>>> wing loading and aerofoil section that is.
>>>
>>> P-38 Wing
>>> Wingspan: 52 ft 0 in (15.85 m) (15.85 m)
>>> Wing area: 327.5 ft� (30.43 m�)
>>> Airfoil: NACA 23016 / NACA 4412
>>> Aspect ratio: 8.26
>>>
>>>
>>> P-51 Wing
>>> Wingspan: 37 ft 0 in (11.28 m)
>>> Wing area: 235 sq ft (21.83 m�)
>>> Airfoil: NACA-23
>>> Aspect ratio: 5.83
>>
>> Different mission requirements require different wings.
>>
>>
>
> Trouble is you claimed they all used wings based on the Lockheed design

No trouble here. Lockheed designed a Supersonic Wing and others
utilized that for their own designs. The problem I see is that you are
unaware of how things really progress.

With the superior Industrial Espionage that Germany had going in the US,
there should be doubt about where they got the design.

>
> Both those engines worked , the L-1000 did not. The USAAF
> wanted jets , trouble is Lockheed couldnt deliver.

It did work finally. But by then, it's designs went into more modern
engines that were fully funded. The L-1000 was always backburner funded.

Frank Whittle didn't receive the funding at first either. Whittle's
centrifugal compressor turbojet was presented in 1937 and was turned
down. HE finally got funding in 1939. And a piece of history was made.

I don't buy that the Germans didn't learn about Whittles early works and
it influenced their own work. Coming up with the axial flow and the
centrifical flow engine just after the US and England turned down
funding for the Whittle and Lockheed designs is more than a little
suspcious.

Like their Radials. The Radials can be traced back to the Pratt Hornet
of 1928. In the early 20s, the Germans were forbid to build aircraft
engines and purchased and licensed the Pratt Hornet. They copied it and
produced their own by BMW and expanded from there.

As for copying, the Rolls Merlins, when used in racing, has it's
connecting rods replaced by the Allison 1710 rods. It's a direct
dropin. No mods needed. Allison used that same type of rods in many
things including ship engines long before they got into Aircraft
Engines. That pretty well shows that both engines had the same roots.
The chances they didn't are right up there with getting hit by a meteor.
Since Allison was using those rods first guess what.....

Guess the English were immune to a little industrial hanky panky either.

daryl

[Peter Stickney]

We also weren't fighting Spitfires.
Quoting the Capt. Brown, from "Duels in the Sky",
the context is most effective fighter aircraft of World War 2:

1) Spitfire XIV (superb performance, splendid handling, but short
range)
2) FW 190D-9 (magnificent rate of roll, almost flawless, except for
the stall)
3) Mustang IV (P-51D) (only a whisker inferior to the FW 190D, but
superior in range)

Of course, there were ever pnly a few FW 190Ds, and even fewer running
with all the performance enhancing gimmicks working. (No Nitrous Oxide
or MW 50, for example). There were thousands of Spits and Mustangs.


--
Pete Stickney
From the foothills of the Florida Alps

[Peter Stickney]

Oooh, Daddy, I want that one!
Gordon, I've seen what SDASM turns out in its basement. I've not seen
its equal. (The Gee Bee is a work of art!)
The H-1 is Special - I've seen the original at the Smithsonian up
close. Howard was such a fanatic about surface finish that all the
slots in the screw heads line up with the airflow, so that there isnt'
a gram of excess parasite drag.

[Daryl]

But the 190D-* couldn't be any better. It didn't have a British Engine.
It's engine actually grew out of a US Engine so it has to suck really,
really bad, right?

The 190D-9 probably was the best pure prop fighter ever made. And if he
hits you you are done IF you are alive to bail out. It's a real nasty
piece of work if you are flying against it.

daryl

[Bill Shatzer]

Peter Stickney wrote:

> We also weren't fighting Spitfires.
> Quoting the Capt. Brown, from "Duels in the Sky",
> the context is most effective fighter aircraft of World War 2:

> 1) Spitfire XIV (superb performance, splendid handling, but short
> range)
> 2) FW 190D-9 (magnificent rate of roll, almost flawless, except for
> the stall)
> 3) Mustang IV (P-51D) (only a whisker inferior to the FW 190D, but
> superior in range)

> Of course, there were ever pnly a few FW 190Ds, and even fewer running
> with all the performance enhancing gimmicks working. (No Nitrous Oxide
> or MW 50, for example). There were thousands of Spits and Mustangs.

But not thousands of Mk.XIV Spitfires.

'Cording to my references, total combined production of both the
F.Mk.XIV and F.R.Mk.XIV Spits was 957.

Total production of the Fw 190D (all variants) was 674.

If the Focke Wulf is to be dismissed because of low production numbers,
it would seem the Spit Mk.XIV should suffer a similar fate. Certainly
the production numbers for either the Folke Wulf or the Mk.XIV Spit
don't begin to approach the 12,000 or so Packard-Merlin engined P-51s.

[Bill Shatzer]

Daryl wrote:

> The 190D-9 probably was the best pure prop fighter ever made.

Better than the F8F Bearcat? Sea Fury? P-51H?

The Fw 190-D never downed a MiG 15 - the Sea Fury did!

[Dean Markley]

Oddly, the Bearcat and Sea Fury both popped in my mind when I read Daryl's statement!

[Daryl]

F8F never saw combat during WWII. WWII ended too quickly for it to see
combat.

Sea Fury never saw combat during WWII. Same reason.

As good as both of these were (or are) they never had the stellar combat
record and made the war contributions that the 190-D or the P-51D had.

P-51-H was a lightened version of the D. It's only reason for being was
Bomber escort. Even in Korea, it was the D that did the bulk of the
fighting. While the Sea Fury and the Bearcat went for just raw bruit
power and were heavy and rugged, the P-51-H went for lightness and being
very nimble. The H also didn't see any combat during WWII. It was
accepted into service on VJ-Day and went out of production in November
of 1945. The first part of Korea, the H couldn't operate out of forward
operating bases. The D model could. The D model was just more robust.
Plus, the bulk of the P-51s were D models giving the short production
run of the H. When I see the write-ups for the P-51 killing a Mig-15 it
always just states P-51. After 1945, you have to assume that it was a
P-51D that was used when it isn't specified.

daryl

[Dean Markley]

I don't think a P-51 ever downed a MiG. But a Sea Fury certainly did!

[kirk....@gmail.com]

You didn't say "the best prop fighter of WW2", you said the "best prop fighter ever". I too would say Bearcat, Sea Fury, and possibly La-11 were all probably better than the D-9. Especially 190D's built late in the war by slave labor, using synthetic fuel and questionable materials.

Close runner up, though - if you could build a blueprinted replica.

Kirk

[Daryl]

Doesn't change any facts, Kirk. The 190D Longnose gave every fighter
fits. If the Germans didn't have a problem of the shortage of expertine
pilots when it was introduced and many of the high time pilots went to
the 262 program, the Longnose would have scored quite high. It did
anyway but not as well as it should. Considering the impact that the A
model had, I still rate this as the highest prop fighter ever made.
Unlike the three that were listed by others, this one had extensive
successful combat time against it's peers.

Yes, some it was done by slave labor but it didn't take away the success
of the ones that got into the air. Like the 262 not having enough in
the air to make a difference, the 190 longnose had the same problem.

When looking at the Best of anything you have to put in all factors
including time in service, impact in war, price, performance, etc.. The
190 wins almost all categories.

Daryl

[Dean Markley]

This article says you are wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focke-Wulf_Fw_190_operational_history

[Daryl]

I see a lot of politics involved in this writeup. Wiki has that
problem. It's not written by experts but regular people. Wiki can be
used as a reference but never as definitive proof.

daryl

[Keith W]

Bill Shatzer wrote:
> Peter Stickney wrote:
>
>> We also weren't fighting Spitfires.
>> Quoting the Capt. Brown, from "Duels in the Sky",
>> the context is most effective fighter aircraft of World War 2:
>
>> 1) Spitfire XIV (superb performance, splendid handling, but short
>> range)
>> 2) FW 190D-9 (magnificent rate of roll, almost flawless, except for
>> the stall)
>> 3) Mustang IV (P-51D) (only a whisker inferior to the FW 190D, but
>> superior in range)
>
>> Of course, there were ever pnly a few FW 190Ds, and even fewer
>> running with all the performance enhancing gimmicks working. (No
>> Nitrous Oxide or MW 50, for example). There were thousands of Spits
>> and Mustangs.
>
> But not thousands of Mk.XIV Spitfires.
>
> 'Cording to my references, total combined production of both the
> F.Mk.XIV and F.R.Mk.XIV Spits was 957.
>
> Total production of the Fw 190D (all variants) was 674.
>

That seems low, ISTR that the D-9 series ran to around 1800

Keith

[Bill Shatzer]

Daryl wrote:

> On 5/21/2013 10:46 PM, Bill Shatzer wrote:
>
>> Daryl wrote:
>>
>>> The 190D-9 probably was the best pure prop fighter ever made.

>> Better than the F8F Bearcat? Sea Fury? P-51H?

>> The Fw 190-D never downed a MiG 15 - the Sea Fury did!

> F8F never saw combat during WWII. WWII ended too quickly for it to see
> combat.

> Sea Fury never saw combat during WWII. Same reason.
>
> As good as both of these were (or are) they never had the stellar combat
> record and made the war contributions that the 190-D or the P-51D had.

Your claim was "the best pure prop fighter ever made", not "the best
pure prop fighter to see combat in WW2".

"Ever made" would encompass the three fighters I mentioned.

> P-51-H was a lightened version of the D. It's only reason for being was
> Bomber escort. Even in Korea, it was the D that did the bulk of the
> fighting. While the Sea Fury and the Bearcat went for just raw bruit
> power and were heavy and rugged, the P-51-H went for lightness and being
> very nimble. The H also didn't see any combat during WWII. It was
> accepted into service on VJ-Day and went out of production in November
> of 1945. The first part of Korea, the H couldn't operate out of forward
> operating bases. The D model could. The D model was just more robust.
> Plus, the bulk of the P-51s were D models giving the short production
> run of the H. When I see the write-ups for the P-51 killing a Mig-15 it
> always just states P-51. After 1945, you have to assume that it was a
> P-51D that was used when it isn't specified.

I'm unaware of any MiG 15 kills claimed by P-51 drivers - although there
was at least one confirmed MiG 15 kill claimed by an F4U-4 Corsair
pilot; in addition to the one by the RAF Sea Fury.

[Bill Shatzer]

"Between 650 and 700 D-series fighters had been completed when all
production finally terminated in 1945."

- William Green, "Warplanes of the Third Reich", page 216

"Total Fw 190D production: 674"

- Elke Weal, et al, "Combat Aircraft of World War Two", page 109

There were, I believe, something like 1800 Werk Nummers allocated to Fw
190D production but obviously not all of those were actually built
before production ceased.

[Richard]

On 5/22/2013 10:37 AM, kirk....@gmail.com wrote:

> You didn't say "the best prop fighter of WW2", you said the "best prop fighter ever".
>

> Kirk


"When you are out of F-8s, you are out of fighters".


Ever is a long long time.

[Daryl]

On 5/22/2013 2:30 PM, Bill Shatzer wrote:
> Daryl wrote:
>
>> On 5/21/2013 10:46 PM, Bill Shatzer wrote:
>>
>>> Daryl wrote:
>>>
>>>> The 190D-9 probably was the best pure prop fighter ever made.
>
>>> Better than the F8F Bearcat? Sea Fury? P-51H?
>
>>> The Fw 190-D never downed a MiG 15 - the Sea Fury did!
>
>> F8F never saw combat during WWII. WWII ended too quickly for it to
>> see combat.
>
>> Sea Fury never saw combat during WWII. Same reason.
>>
>> As good as both of these were (or are) they never had the stellar
>> combat record and made the war contributions that the 190-D or the
>> P-51D had.
>
> Your claim was "the best pure prop fighter ever made", not "the best
> pure prop fighter to see combat in WW2".
>
> "Ever made" would encompass the three fighters I mentioned.

My bad. I should have specified. The best EVER I would say that the
BEST would be the tried and true F-15. 107 to 0 is hard to argue with.

>
>> P-51-H was a lightened version of the D. It's only reason for being
>> was Bomber escort. Even in Korea, it was the D that did the bulk of
>> the fighting. While the Sea Fury and the Bearcat went for just raw
>> bruit power and were heavy and rugged, the P-51-H went for lightness
>> and being very nimble. The H also didn't see any combat during WWII.
>> It was accepted into service on VJ-Day and went out of production in
>> November of 1945. The first part of Korea, the H couldn't operate out
>> of forward operating bases. The D model could. The D model was just
>> more robust. Plus, the bulk of the P-51s were D models giving the
>> short production run of the H. When I see the write-ups for the P-51
>> killing a Mig-15 it always just states P-51. After 1945, you have to
>> assume that it was a P-51D that was used when it isn't specified.
>
> I'm unaware of any MiG 15 kills claimed by P-51 drivers - although there
> was at least one confirmed MiG 15 kill claimed by an F4U-4 Corsair
> pilot; in addition to the one by the RAF Sea Fury.

I did a search for a P-51 kill against a Mig and drew zero. BTW, I rate
the F4F-4 well above the P-51D all the way on best fighter. While not
as good in a turning fight, the F4F-4 was almost up there with the best
(being the P-38L and the P-47N) for vertical maneuvering. And it did
one thing the others didn't do. It brought it's Aero Field with it.

daryl

[Keith W]

Dietmar Hermann's book
FOCKE-WULF Fw 190 "LONG NOSE": An Illustrated History of the Fw 190 D Series

Mentions that around 1700 were produced but it could be that as
you say that many numbers were issued but not all were built. We
know that manufacture was widely dispersed including plants
in France and Holland. Neither of those delivered much before
being overun or having their transport infrastructure smashed.

Keith

[Jim Wilkins]

"Daryl" <dh...@nospamtvmoviesforfree.com> wrote in message
news:knjdc3$62e$1...@dont-email.me...

>
> I did a search for a P-51 kill against a Mig and drew zero. BTW, I
> rate the F4F-4 well above the P-51D all the way on best fighter.
> While not as good in a turning fight, the F4F-4 was almost up there
> with the best (being the P-38L and the P-47N) for vertical
> maneuvering. And it did one thing the others didn't do. It brought
> it's Aero Field with it.
>
> daryl

F4U

A wartime flight test comparison posted here some years ago rated the
Corsair and Mustang as effectively equal up to 25,000 feet, above that
the Mustang's advantage increased with altitude. Installing an
equivalent high-altitude turbosupercharger on the Corsair's R2800
would have expanded the bulk of the fuselage to the size of the P-47.
jsw

[Daryl]

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Informational_Intelligence_Summary_No._85
NTELLIGENCE SERVICES
U.S. ARMY AIR FORCES
WASHINGTON D.C.

Informational Intelligence Summary No. 85

Distribution: SQUADRONS
December 1942

Flight Characteristics of the Japanese Zero Fighter

[Bill Shatzer]

Daryl wrote:
> On 5/22/2013 2:30 PM, Bill Shatzer wrote:

- snip -

>> Your claim was "the best pure prop fighter ever made", not "the best
>> pure prop fighter to see combat in WW2".

>> "Ever made" would encompass the three fighters I mentioned.

> My bad. I should have specified. The best EVER I would say that the
> BEST would be the tried and true F-15. 107 to 0 is hard to argue with.

The F-15, of course, would hardly qualify as a "pure prop fighter", now
would it?

Incidently and as it's your term, what the heck would be an impure prop
fighter?

>>> P-51-H was a lightened version of the D. It's only reason for being
>>> was Bomber escort. Even in Korea, it was the D that did the bulk of
>>> the fighting. While the Sea Fury and the Bearcat went for just raw
>>> bruit power and were heavy and rugged, the P-51-H went for lightness
>>> and being very nimble. The H also didn't see any combat during WWII.
>>> It was accepted into service on VJ-Day and went out of production in
>>> November of 1945. The first part of Korea, the H couldn't operate out
>>> of forward operating bases. The D model could. The D model was just
>>> more robust. Plus, the bulk of the P-51s were D models giving the
>>> short production run of the H. When I see the write-ups for the P-51
>>> killing a Mig-15 it always just states P-51. After 1945, you have to
>>> assume that it was a P-51D that was used when it isn't specified.

>> I'm unaware of any MiG 15 kills claimed by P-51 drivers - although there
>> was at least one confirmed MiG 15 kill claimed by an F4U-4 Corsair
>> pilot; in addition to the one by the RAF Sea Fury.

> I did a search for a P-51 kill against a Mig and drew zero. BTW, I rate
> the F4F-4 well above the P-51D all the way on best fighter.

A typo? The F4F-4 was, of course, the Grumman Wildcat - a barely
adequate fighter for the first year and a half or so of the Pacific war.

Better than nothing but I'd think no one ranks it among the best piston
engined fighter. Certainly not in the same ballpark as even the P-51B,
let alone the Bearcat or the Sea Fury - or even the Fw 190D.

[Keith W]

Bill Shatzer wrote:
> Daryl wrote:
>> On 5/22/2013 2:30 PM, Bill Shatzer wrote:
>
> - snip -
>
>
>>> Your claim was "the best pure prop fighter ever made", not "the best
>>> pure prop fighter to see combat in WW2".
>
>>> "Ever made" would encompass the three fighters I mentioned.
>
>> My bad. I should have specified. The best EVER I would say that the
>> BEST would be the tried and true F-15. 107 to 0 is hard to argue
>> with.
>
> The F-15, of course, would hardly qualify as a "pure prop fighter",
> now would it?
>
> Incidently and as it's your term, what the heck would be an impure
> prop fighter?
>

Ryan FR-1 Fireball
Marquardt Mustang

Keith

[kirk....@gmail.com]

Of course, what does "best fighter" really mean? Best kill ratio? Best climb rate? Best production numbers? Best roll rate?

If air combat was a sport, and you met head on at 20,000 ft over the airport and "Fight's On!" at the merge, then you could conceivably come up with "The Best Fighter". But in real life, it's a bit more complicated. Bf-109 has a strong claim based on length of production, number built, number of kills, etc., but airframe-wise it is really only above average. Bearcat would probably win the airshow dogfight, but only saw combat as a ground attack plane in the hands of the French in Indochina.

And if you factor in all the supporting factors - aircrew training, tactics, fuel, maintenance, supporting facilities (radar, datalink, etc.) it gets even more difficult to pick "The Best".

Now I'm prejudiced enough to think that right now, the F-22 with all the supporting US assets is probably the "Best" air-to-air fighter overall, with the F-15E close behind - especially if you expand the definition to factor in other missions such as air-to-ground.

But the Rafale sure is interesting - as are the latest iterations of the SU-27/30 family. Somehow, the Typhoon doesn't impress me as much, other than as a Super Spitfire, but I'm probably totally wrong about that (and sure to hear about it!).

Kirk
66

[Daryl]

If you are going to go with a time frame, that F4F-4 over the P-51A
would be upgraded to the F6F V P-51B and up.

[kirk....@gmail.com]

On Thursday, May 23, 2013 5:34:29 PM UTC+2, Daryl wrote:
>
>
> If you are going to go with a time frame, that F4F-4 over the P-51A
>
> would be upgraded to the F6F V P-51B and up.

Are you seriously suggesting that the F4F-4 Wildcat was a better fighter than the P-51A?

By what criteria? Ability to land on carriers?

Kirk

[Daryl]

Ability to absorb damage, Real Combat ceiling, dependability, carrier
qualified, went where the fight was, Combat Range, there are more pluses
but the biggest is the number made. Only 320 P-51As were produced for
all services and countries.

The primary use of the P-51A was for the CBI for escort and limited
ground attack. It was used in limited numbers in MTO, Africa and ETO
but most of them were in the CBI.

The F-4F was the first fighter that had a tinkers damned chance against
the Zero and Zeke that was in sufficient numbers.

Daryl

[kirk....@gmail.com]

So basically nothing to do with how good it was in air-to-air combat, just that it was a tough little fighter. By that criteria, the FM-2 should be the best fighter of the war!

Tell you what, I'll meet you in your F4F in my P-51A over the field at 10k ft. Want to fight higher? I'll just wait till you come down, then gun your brains out. You try to engage me and I'll just extend out of the fight, since I can climb twice as fast and go probably 80 mph faster. And out dive you. And out roll you.

Daryl, sometimes I wonder where you get these ideas...

Kirk

[Daryl]

Just remember, if you are close enough to shoot me, I am also close
enough to shoot you. You hit my cockpit with your 50 cal (12.7mm) and
you will probably only spider the glass you hit. I hit you in your
cockpit and there are 12.7 mm holes and explosions all through your
cockpit. You hit my engine and you might dent a few cooling fins or
maybe cause on jug to stop firing (I have 17 more). I hit your engine
it it just plain stops and probably catches fire. You get maybe 4
passes, I get one. The fight won't be done at 370mph that's your top
speed, it's going to be much slower but over 300 mph. Speed doesn't
mean a thing. Now, yo0u can elect to run for it and that's a clear win
for me since the one that is left controlling the area wins. Flee or
Die, your choice.

Daryl

[kirk....@gmail.com]

Wow, you really don't know much about air combat, do you. I suggest you read Shaw, for starters. Focus on energy vs rate fights. Your guns are pointed forward, so unless I'm in front of you, you can't hit me. Since I have a speed and climb advantage, I can stay out of your lethal area and make slashing attacks, yes at high speed, negating your slow, tighter turn radius. I'll refuse to get into a turning fight, because that would be playing to your only advantage. You like the P-38 so much, don't you recognize these tactics? They are exactly what the P-38 used against tigher turning Japanese fighters.

"Speed doesn't mean a thing" Really? Guess we really don't need all those fancy supersonic fighters after all, and we should have stuck with the P-36 and Brewster Buffalo during WW2 - those things sure could turn!

Or better yet - P-26s!

Seriously, the reason the F4F did so well was the pilots and tactics it used. Against Jimmy Thatch and an aware element of Wildcats, a single P-51A would have a tough time. But the F4F could never initiate the fight, it would always be defensive. And you don't win by always being on the defensive. But one on one, it becomes an airshow - and unless the Mustang pilot was a total hamfist, there is just no comparison.

Kirk

[Peter Stickney]

You keep pressing that point, Daryl, but it just isn't true.
The H model was lighter, yes, but it was designed, built, and rated
for the same load factors as the D model. The weight savings came
from using lighter equipment, and more refined structures - the same
strength for a lighter weight.

The Hs didn't get used in Korea for 2 simple reasons - The D models
were already there, in flyable storage just after the replacement of
the F-51Ds in FEAF Fighter Groups with F-80Cs. The airframes, engines
and spares were already in place, and the rebuilding Japanese aviation
industry could already supply depot level support. The other reason
is that the Hs were reserved for Fighter-Interceptor Squadrons in the
Continental US and Alaska. Their superior climb performance meant that
they had a chance of intercepting a Tu-4 (Soviet B-29 copy) before it
reached its target. With the Soviets fielding Atomic Weapons, and
there not being enough jets available to outfit the recalled National
Guard Fighter-Interceptor Squadrons (And the new Regular units
activated as the Guard unit's terms of service expired), the H model
was the obvious choice.

>> Plus, the bulk of the P-51s were D models giving the short
>> production
>> run of the H. When I see the write-ups for the P-51 killing a
>> Mig-15 it
>> always just states P-51. After 1945, you have to assume that it
>> was a P-51D that was used when it isn't specified.
>
> I'm unaware of any MiG 15 kills claimed by P-51 drivers - although
> there was at least one confirmed MiG 15 kill claimed by an F4U-4
> Corsair pilot; in addition to the one by the RAF Sea Fury.

According to the ACIG Korean War database, and listed as confirmed,
an F-51D of the 36th FBS/8th FBW got a MiG-15 on 7 November 1950.

So - maybe.
--
Pete Stickney
From the foothills of the Florida Alps

[Keith W]

Daryl wrote:
> On 5/23/2013 12:22 PM, kirk....@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Thursday, May 23, 2013 5:34:29 PM UTC+2, Daryl wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> If you are going to go with a time frame, that F4F-4 over the P-51A
>>>
>>> would be upgraded to the F6F V P-51B and up.
>>
>> Are you seriously suggesting that the F4F-4 Wildcat was a better
>> fighter than the P-51A? By what criteria? Ability to land on carriers?
>
> Ability to absorb damage, Real Combat ceiling, dependability, carrier
> qualified, went where the fight was, Combat Range, there are more
> pluses but the biggest is the number made.

P-51A
Combat radius
400 miles on internal fuel
750 miles with drop tanks

F4F
Combat radius
105 Nautical miles on internal fuel
325 miles with two drop tanks

see
http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/hist-ac/f4f-4.pdf

> Only 320 P-51As were
> produced for all services and countries.
>

Well kinda.

The British Purchasing Commission bought 320 Mustang I and IA's
in the initial order and another 150 were ordered under lend lease

500 of the A-36 Apache variant were ordered by the US Army followed
by an order for 310 P-51A's

> The primary use of the P-51A was for the CBI for escort and limited
> ground attack. It was used in limited numbers in MTO, Africa and ETO
> but most of them were in the CBI.
>
> The F-4F was the first fighter that had a tinkers damned chance
> against the Zero and Zeke that was in sufficient numbers.
>
> Daryl

ISTR that P-38'd did rather well against Zero's when they
attacked Yamamoto's aircraft.

Keith

[Bill Shatzer]

Daryl wrote:

> Just remember, if you are close enough to shoot me, I am also close
> enough to shoot you. You hit my cockpit with your 50 cal (12.7mm) and
> you will probably only spider the glass you hit. I hit you in your
> cockpit and there are 12.7 mm holes and explosions all through your
> cockpit. You hit my engine and you might dent a few cooling fins or
> maybe cause on jug to stop firing (I have 17 more).

Thirteen more - the P&W R-1830 Twin Wasp fitted on the F4F was a
fourteen cylinder radial engine.

You're not really all that up on these sorts of things, are you?

[Daryl]

On 5/23/2013 4:05 PM, Keith W wrote:

>>
>> The F-4F was the first fighter that had a tinkers damned chance
>> against the Zero and Zeke that was in sufficient numbers.
>>
>> Daryl
>
> ISTR that P-38'd did rather well against Zero's when they
> attacked Yamamoto's aircraft.

Yes they did but in the beginning there wasn't enough in the inventory.
When the US went into war production the P-38s started rolling out.
Of course, the Hellcats and Wildcats just plain poured out for the Navy
and Marines. The Wildcat did have a limited range but it always had
it's landing pad out there somewhere.

I remember reading a few things P-39 pilots said about Guadalcanal about
trying to stay live against the Zeros and Zekes long enough for the F4Fs
to get there. While the P-38s would have done a better job you dance
with the one what brung ya. There was a huge shortage of P-38s for much
of the war in the Pacific until the J and the L models came out in
numbers. In the meantime, the F4F, F6F and F4U were out there slugging
it out.

daryl

[Daryl]

I mistyped on that one and used the F6F engine by mistake.

And I should be given the death sentence for such a mistake?

daryl

[Bill Shatzer]

Keith W wrote:

> ISTR that P-38'd did rather well against Zero's when they
> attacked Yamamoto's aircraft.

Well, they were sufficient to prevent the Zeros from seriously spoiling
Barber's aim - although between the Zeros and the Betty gunners, they
did manage to put over 100 bullet holes in his P-38.

But despite claims by Barber and Holmes, it was later determined that no
Japanese Zeros were lost that day while Hine's P-38 was almost certainly
shot down by the escorting Japanese fighters.

The P-38s accomplished their mission in that both Betty bombers were
downed. But the escorting Japanese fighters were facing 16 to six odds
and had the more difficult task of attempting to protect the bombers
rather than engage in one to one combat with the P-38s.

I'd say the P-38s did "okay" against the Zeros but "rather well" against
the Zeros seems stretching things a bit.

Now in relationship to the overall mission objectives and against the
bombers they did more than just "rather well" but separating that out
and considering just vis-a-vis the escorting Zeros, it seem a draw at best.

[Jim Wilkins]

"Daryl" <dh...@nospamtvmoviesforfree.com> wrote in message

news:knlnru$a5n$1...@dont-email.me...

>
> The F-4F was the first fighter that had a tinkers damned chance
> against the Zero and Zeke that was in sufficient numbers.
>
> Daryl

So your memory loss deleted the AVG?

jsw

[Peter Stickney]

Daryl wrote:

> On 5/21/2013 3:38 PM, Peter Stickney wrote:
>> Keith W wrote:
>>
>>> Steve Hix wrote:
>>>> In article
>>>> <7b706631-f490-4eab...@googlegroups.com>, Gordon
>>>> <Gor...@oldboldpilots.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Daryl, many pilots flew both the 47 and the 51 and the general
>>>>> consensus is that the 51 was the plane you wanted in a dogfight.
>>>>> A 47 will bring you home even if you lose the fight in most
>>>>> cases, but the 51 wouldn't lose the fight in the first place.
>>>>
>>>> Can't speak to the P-47, but a manager of mine back in the late
>>>> 70s had flown fighters in 2TAF RAF, in 485(NZ) squadron. He did
>>>> ground support, not air to air, flying Spitfire XVI and Typhoon,
>>>> starting in July 1944.
>>>>
>>>> He preferred the Spitfire for just flying, but the Typhoon for
>>>> ground attack.
>>>>
>>>> After VE Day, he was part of a group of pilots slated to be moved
>>>> to the Pacific theater, and they were in transition to the P-51,
>>>> which they'd be using there.
>>>>
>>>> That was his favorite aircraft of all he flew, though he was
>>>> quite satisfied with VJ day coming along before the left England.
>>>> Ergonomics, pilot comfort, performance, range, it had it all to
>>>> his way of thinking.
>>>
>>> Eric Brown put it quite well when asked if the P-51 was the
>>> best fighter of WW2
>>>
>>> <Quote>
>>> The best fighter? No, no, no. It was the best escort fighter in
>>> the world, make no mistake about that. But this was because it had
>>> incredible range, but the laminar flow wing fitted to the Mustang
>>> could be a little tricky. It could not by any means outturn a
>>> Spitfire. No way. It had a good rate of roll, better than the
>>> Spitfire. So I would say the pluses to the Spitfire and the pluses
>>> of the Mustang just about equate the pluses and the minuses.
>>>
>>> If I was in a dogfight, I'd prefer to be in a Spitfire. The
>>> problem was I
>>> wouldn't like to be in a dogfight near Berlin, because I could
>>> never get
>>> home to Britain in a Spitfire...
>>> </Quote>

>>
>> We also weren't fighting Spitfires.
>> Quoting the Capt. Brown, from "Duels in the Sky",
>> the context is most effective fighter aircraft of World War 2:
>>
>> 1) Spitfire XIV (superb performance, splendid handling, but short
>> range)
>> 2) FW 190D-9 (magnificent rate of roll, almost flawless, except for
>> the stall)
>> 3) Mustang IV (P-51D) (only a whisker inferior to the FW 190D, but
>> superior in range)
>>
>> Of course, there were ever pnly a few FW 190Ds, and even fewer
>> running with all the performance enhancing gimmicks working. (No
>> Nitrous Oxide
>> or MW 50, for example). There were thousands of Spits and
>> Mustangs.
>>
>>
>

> But the 190D-* couldn't be any better. It didn't have a British
> Engine.
> It's engine actually grew out of a US Engine so it has to suck
> really,
> really bad, right?

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, Over?
Daryl, you're coming in broken and stupid.
Where, on this planet, in this time-space continuum does the Jumo 213
have any provenance shared with any American engine.



>
> The 190D-9 probably was the best pure prop fighter ever made. And
> if he
> hits you you are done IF you are alive to bail out. It's a real
> nasty piece of work if you are flying against it.

It was close enough to the deployed late war Alled fighters to be
competitive. But - it wasn't s sure fire killer, and the low build
standards that were all the Germans could achieve in late '44/Early
'45 meant that production birds were down on performance.

The best pure prop fighter? No - there were the postwar ships that
were good enough to get fielded despite the jets changing the game -
the Hawker Fury / Sea Fury, the Grumman F8F, the F-82, and hte La-11.

[Peter Stickney]

Bill Shatzer wrote:

> Peter Stickney wrote:
>

>> We also weren't fighting Spitfires.
>> Quoting the Capt. Brown, from "Duels in the Sky",
>> the context is most effective fighter aircraft of World War 2:
>
>> 1) Spitfire XIV (superb performance, splendid handling, but short
>> range)
>> 2) FW 190D-9 (magnificent rate of roll, almost flawless, except for
>> the stall)
>> 3) Mustang IV (P-51D) (only a whisker inferior to the FW 190D, but
>> superior in range)
>
>> Of course, there were ever pnly a few FW 190Ds, and even fewer
>> running with all the performance enhancing gimmicks working. (No
>> Nitrous Oxide
>> or MW 50, for example). There were thousands of Spits and
>> Mustangs.
>

> But not thousands of Mk.XIV Spitfires.
>
> 'Cording to my references, total combined production of both the
> F.Mk.XIV and F.R.Mk.XIV Spits was 957.
>
> Total production of the Fw 190D (all variants) was 674.
>

> If the Focke Wulf is to be dismissed because of low production
> numbers, it would seem the Spit Mk.XIV should suffer a similar fate.
> Certainly the production numbers for either the Folke Wulf or the
> Mk.XIV Spit don't begin to approach the 12,000 or so Packard-Merlin
> engined P-51s.

All valid points, Bill. There is another issue, especially true for
the late-war Luftwaffe. The German aircraft industry was churning out
more-or-less complete airframes in fairly large numbers, but very few
of those aircraft were making it to operational units.
Fw 190Ds equipped JG 2, JG 26, and III/JG 54, with a few scattered
"Airfield Protection Units" that tried to cover Me 262 and Ar 234
airfields to allow the jets to have a chance to get off the ground and
land again. At the end of December '44, there were about 180 Fw 190Ds
in actual service. That number stayed fairly constant until things
fell completely apart in late April '45.

The upshot of the production numbers was that the Luftwaffe stopped
fixing airplanes. They didn't have the pilots, the fuel, or the real
estate to operate large numnbers of airplanes. So the Depots filled up
with complete or almost complete aircraft that could not be used. If
an airplane received more than superficial damage in an operational
unit, they no ;longer repaired it, but got a new one from a Depot and
pressed on.

Superiority in numbers counts in the air, not on the ground.

[Daryl]

It gets it pedigree from the Hornet Engine from PW in the 20s. The
Treaty of Versailles would not allow the Germans to manufacture engines.
In 1928, the Germans imported the Hornet Engine.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26_Whitney_R-1690_Hornet
for their own aircraft. In the early 30s, German rescinded (ignored,
whatever) the treaty and began manufacturing the Hornet Engine. They
called the copy their own. The JU52 used a copy of the Hornet. The BMW
132 was a direct copy of the Hornet Engine. From this egnine all German
Radicals grew out of.

>
>
>
>>
>> The 190D-9 probably was the best pure prop fighter ever made. And
>> if he
>> hits you you are done IF you are alive to bail out. It's a real
>> nasty piece of work if you are flying against it.
>
> It was close enough to the deployed late war Alled fighters to be
> competitive. But - it wasn't s sure fire killer, and the low build
> standards that were all the Germans could achieve in late '44/Early
> '45 meant that production birds were down on performance.
>
> The best pure prop fighter? No - there were the postwar ships that
> were good enough to get fielded despite the jets changing the game -
> the Hawker Fury / Sea Fury, the Grumman F8F, the F-82, and hte La-11.

If you keep it within WWII, the 190D was the best of the best. It
lacked the pilots. saying the 190D was a bad fighter when it faced 16:1
odds is like saying the P-38 was a bad plane facing 11:1 odds.

The last great push by the Luftwaffe against the Allied Fighters in
France used all available Fighters including the ME109, FW190A and the
FW190D. The ME109s were mixed on unskilled to expertines while the
FW190 had split it up where the inexperienced or low time flyers were
flying the A models and the Expertines were flying the D models. They
face the P-51Ds and P-47s above or near the USAAF fields. IT was chop
and slash at just above tree top levels. The 109s were chopped to
pieces while the 190As faired a bit better but the Ds held their own.
The JU88s were involved. Many of the airfieds were either damaged or
destroyed. The allies had the advantage though since they could turn
their aircraft. Land, rearm and take off again. It was called
Bodenplatte. There were more USAAF losses than German Losses that day.
Of course, that also counts the numbers of AC destroyed on the ground.
The Luftwaffe had over 800 AC involved
http://books.google.com/books/about/Bodenplatte_The_Luftwaffe_s_Last_Hope.html?id=K931g607t1QC
The Luftwaffe lost about 1/3rd of it's entire AF that day. This was the
last great Air Battle in ETO. While the intent was to destroy the USAAF
flying out of France, it actually destroyed the Luftwaffe. It wasn't
the loss of Aircraft that bankrupted the Luftwaffe that day, it was the
loss of pilots.

Jan, 1945.

Daryl

[Daryl]

The AVG had inferior fighters but superior tactics. Those same tactics
were adopted by all other successful US Fighters in the Pacific.

[Bill Shatzer]

It seems unlikely that the AVG ever encountered any Zeros.

China/Burma/Thailand was almost exclusively a Japanese Army Air Force
area of operations and the Zero was used only by the JNAF.

Ki.27s and Ki.43s certainly but no A6Ms.

[Ramsman]

The 190D had a Jumo V12, not a radial. No connection whatsoever to
anything American. Especially not anything made by Lockheed.

Bodenplatte was directed at more RAF/RCAF etc. airfields than USAAF.
There was only one in France (Metz), all the others being in The
Netherlands and Belgium. Do the research, if you know how. Just because
you don't like anything British doesn't mean you can ignore the RAF.

What are Expertines? Some sort of cracker? The correct term is Experten.
That's just about par for the course for you: can't spell, can't
punctuate (it's means it is, the possessive is its), sprinkle random
capital letters and wouldn't know a fact if it bit you.

I love the way you accuse Keith W of being like Arndt (note the
spelling), as you're the one who persists in ridiculous obsessions when
faced with facts and never admits to being wrong.

Keep up the good work, I look forward to your posts to see what nonsense
you come up with every time.

MfG
--
Peter

[Keith W]

Daryl wrote:
> On 5/23/2013 8:59 PM, Peter Stickney wrote:
>> Daryl wrote:
>>
>> Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, Over?
>> Daryl, you're coming in broken and stupid.
>> Where, on this planet, in this time-space continuum does the Jumo 213
>> have any provenance shared with any American engine.
>
> It gets it pedigree from the Hornet Engine from PW in the 20s. The
> Treaty of Versailles would not allow the Germans to manufacture
> engines. In 1928, the Germans imported the Hornet Engine.....
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26_Whitney_R-1690_Hornet
> for their own aircraft. In the early 30s, German rescinded (ignored,
> whatever) the treaty and began manufacturing the Hornet Engine. They
> called the copy their own. The JU52 used a copy of the Hornet. The
> BMW 132 was a direct copy of the Hornet Engine. From this egnine all
> German Radicals grew out of.
>

The Jumo 213 was NOT of course a radial. It was a V-12 liquid cooled
engine of advanced design and had better performance all round than
the American Allison. The nearest equivalent engine in allied use was
the RR Griffon.

Keith

[kirk....@gmail.com]

On Friday, May 24, 2013 6:29:30 AM UTC+2, Daryl wrote:

> The AVG had inferior fighters but superior tactics. Those same tactics
>
> were adopted by all other successful US Fighters in the Pacific.

Well, the AVG had special P-40s with hand-built Allisons, and were fighting Ki-27s and Ki-43s, not exactly the ultimate fighters of the day and certainly not A6M quality. I would way prefer a P-40 over a K.27/43! Unless I was at an airshow, of course.

The Japanese fighters would definitely be able to out turn the P-40 and outclimb them, but the AVG pilots had the advantage of speed, roll rate, zoom climb, dive, armament, and armor - and knew perfectly well how to use those advantages.

Kinda like the earlier F4F vs P-51A discussion...

Kirk

[Keith W]

The Ki-27 was definitely outclassed by the P-40 but the Ki-43
when flown by a skilled pilot was a handful for a P-40 or Hurricane.
In addition to being highly manoeveurable it had an excellent rate
of climb. It is reported to be the Japanese type that shot down most
allied aircraft and was able to establish air superiority over
New Guinea, Burma, Malaya etc until the newer allied types
such as the P-38, P-51, F6F and Spitfire appeared.

Keith

[Jim Wilkins]

"Daryl" <dh...@nospamtvmoviesforfree.com> wrote in message

news:knmq3f$akv$2...@dont-email.me...

The superior tactic was to stay at high speed where the P-40
was -better- than the Zero or Ki-43 Oscar.
http://yarchive.net/mil/ki-43.html

Also interesting is this low-altitude flyoff between a P-39C and an
Me-109E:
"It was noted that when the 109 was
planted on the tail of the P-39, the Bell was able to out-turn it to
such an
extent that it would be on the 109's tail in less than two 360s and
there was
nothing the 109 driver could do to shake it--he couldn't outrun it,
outdive it
or outturn it."

jsw

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

"Daryl" <dh...@nospamtvmoviesforfree.com> wrote in message

news:knmq04$akv$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 5/23/2013 8:59 PM, Peter Stickney wrote:
>> Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, Over?
>> Daryl, you're coming in broken and stupid.
>> Where, on this planet, in this time-space continuum does the Jumo 213
>> have any provenance shared with any American engine.
>
> It gets it pedigree from the Hornet Engine from PW in the 20s.

You mean the in line liquid cooled Jumo 213 is related to the radial
air cooled Hornet, which in turn is related to the Bristol Jupiter?

Nothing to do with the Junkers L2 from 1925? Yes the Germans
were in the aero engine business well before 1928. Add the L5,
the engine that propelled the first east west crossing of the Atlantic,
which was around in the mid 1920's, doing some quite long distance
flying Add various other engines, with the L10 becoming the Jumo
210, appearing in the mid 1930's.

The Jumo 213 origin was a redesign of the Jumo 211.

> The Treaty of Versailles would not allow the Germans to manufacture
> engines.

For a time, then they resumed, well before 1928.

> In 1928, the Germans imported the Hornet Engine.....
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26_Whitney_R-1690_Hornet
> for their own aircraft. In the early 30s, German rescinded (ignored,
> whatever) the treaty and began manufacturing the Hornet Engine. They
> called the copy their own. The JU52 used a copy of the Hornet. The BMW
> 132 was a direct copy of the Hornet Engine. From this egnine all German
> Radicals grew out of.

To put it mildly that is overstating it, rather like saying all aircraft
designs are American because of the Wright flyer. The Germans,
like everyone else, looked at different designs as well as coming
up with their own innovations.

>> The best pure prop fighter? No - there were the postwar ships that
>> were good enough to get fielded despite the jets changing the game -
>> the Hawker Fury / Sea Fury, the Grumman F8F, the F-82, and hte La-11.
>
> If you keep it within WWII,

Presumably keep within aircraft that flew combat missions in WWII.

Do not forget the Nakajima Ki-84.

> the 190D was the best of the best. It lacked the pilots.

You need to pick the mission etc, to determine best.

> saying the 190D was a bad fighter when it faced 16:1 odds is like saying
> the P-38 was a bad plane facing 11:1 odds.

Except those odds are dramatically overstated and ignore the
reality of air combat, you can have the overall numbers and still
be well outnumbered in a given fight.

> The last great push by the Luftwaffe against the Allied Fighters in France
> used all available Fighters including the ME109, FW190A and the FW190D.

Try using the Luftwaffe day fighter force to mount a series of low
level strafing raids on allied airfields on 1 January 1945.

There are a number of books on the subject.

Also it looks like III/SG4 with its Fw190F were involved.

> The ME109s were mixed on unskilled to expertines while the FW190 had split
> it up where the inexperienced or low time flyers were flying the A models
> and the Expertines were flying the D models.

Actually the mixing of D and A models in the same formation is
something of a problem, think mixing P-51A and D and
coming up with appropriate cruising/climb etc. speeds.

Also the list of Gruppen involved shows only 4 with D-9 and
all of them were "pure", no A models.

> They face the P-51Ds and P-47s above or near the USAAF fields.

Actually it was mostly the RAF over its airfields. And few P-51D
were present in the 9th Air Force.

> IT was chop and slash at just above tree top levels. The 109s were
> chopped to pieces while the 190As faired a bit better but the Ds held
> their own.

Werner Gerbig in his 1973 book Six Months to Oblivion, one of the
earliest studies from the German side of the air fighting over Germany
from November 1944 onwards, has a table by gruppe of pilot
casualties.

Note around 37 day fighter Gruppen launched around 900 sorties,
to give an idea of the average formation size. Note there were other
formations involved, including some Me262s and III/SG4

The 4 D-9 Gruppen were

III/JG2, 3 killed/missing, 1 PoW, 1 wounded pilots
I/JG26, 5 killed/missing, 3 PoW, 2 wounded pilots
II/JG26, 4 killed/missing, 4 PoW, 1 wounded pilots
III/JG54, 5 killed/missing, 4 PoW, 1 wounded pilots
So all up 17 killed/missing, 12 PoW, 5 wounded pilots

Gerbig's totals are 151 killed/missing, 63 PoW, 18 wounded
single engined fighter pilots

So with about 11% of the aircraft, maybe a little more or less,
the D-9 units had 11% of KIA/missing, 19% of PoW and 28%
of wounded. Essentially the D-9 overall loss rate was about the
average.

The USAAF records the loss of 5 fighters in air combat. So is
the idea "held their own" means the D-9 units shot down 5 USAAF
fighters while losing around 5 in air combat?

The were 10 gruppen flying the Fw190A
I and II/JG1, I/JG2, IV/JG3, II/JG4, I and II.JG6, I and III/JG11,
IV/JG54, with 65 killed/missing, 18 PoW, 3 wounded pilots.

With around about 27% of the aircraft the Fw190A units lost
around 43% of the KIA/missing, 28% of the PoW and 17%
of the wounded.

It means the Bf109 units, 62% of the day fighters, suffered
46% of the KIA/missing, 53% of the PoW and 56% of
the wounded.

Makes it rather clear which fighter had the overall higher
loss rates. And of course if all the D-9 were being flow
by experienced pilots then its loss rate flatters the aircraft,
compared with the A and Bf109.

> The JU88s were involved.

As navigation aircraft, which did not help in some cases. Also
NJG1 and NJG5 report 12 killed/missing and 3 PoW from the
navigation aircraft they supplied.

All up the attack is thought to have cost the Luftwaffe 170
KIA/missing, , 67 PoW and 18 missing, including 18 staffel or
higher formation leaders.

> Many of the airfieds were either damaged or destroyed.

I really like this, machine guns and mainly 20 mm cannon can
destroy airfields? Please list all the airfields destroyed on 1
January 1945. Damaged of course does include bullet holes
in buildings.

> The allies had the advantage though since they could turn their aircraft.
> Land, rearm and take off again.

Many of the allied pilots killed in the air that day were trying
to take off. You do not rotate your fighters with plenty of
enemy fighters just over your airfield, the result is usually one
sided. Besides the Germans did not stay over each airfield
for more than a few minutes. Or are allied ground crews
that good? Able to rotate aircraft in minutes?

> It was called Bodenplatte. There were more USAAF losses than German
> Losses that day.

Wow, the minimum German day fighter loss that day is put at 214
aircraft, with 151 pilots killed and 63 taken prisoner, given the losses
over German territory, many to German AA guns, the Luftwaffe day
fighter aircraft loss is thought to be around 300 out of 875 sorties.

Allied losses are put at about half to two thirds of the German 120 to
140 or so RAF, 50 to 60 or so USAAF, (mostly 8th AF aircraft),
mostly on the ground

Exact numbers being hard to pin down thanks to various aircraft
from all sorts of minor units being present (Prince Bernhard of the
Netherlands lost his personal aircraft) plus the various hacks (like
182 squadron's Hurricane, used to transport beer from England in its
drop tanks, it was the only undamaged aircraft the squadron had at
the end of the attack) and things like damaged aircraft from the Britain
based units being repaired (or waiting to be formally written off) also
being present. Plus later decisions to write damaged aircraft off as
the war was clearly ending.

> Of course, that also counts the numbers of AC destroyed on the ground.

I am impressed, if the Germans really destroyed 300 US aircraft, and
that was with a minor part of the force engaging the 9th Air Force
airfields, then presumably either the RAF lost thousands or the RAF
was so wonderful the Germans basically missed.

> The Luftwaffe had over 800 AC involved
> http://books.google.com/books/about/Bodenplatte_The_Luftwaffe_s_Last_Hope.html?id=K931g607t1QC
> The Luftwaffe lost about 1/3rd of it's entire AF that day.

The Luftwaffe front line strength as of 10 January 1945 is put at 6,103
of which 4,566 were operational, including 1,937/1,427 single engined
fighters. So 1/3 of the air force is around 2,000 aircraft, one third of
the single engined fighter force is around 650, real losses were around
the 300 mark.

> This was the last great Air Battle in ETO.

Given the AA gunners shot down most of the aircraft lost in the
air that day the description "air battle" has been given a new
meaning. Most allied losses were on the ground.

> While the intent was to destroy the USAAF flying out of France, it
> actually destroyed the Luftwaffe.

Given mostly RAF airfields were hit the idea it was after the USAAF
is rather wrong.

> It wasn't the loss of Aircraft that bankrupted the Luftwaffe that day, it
> was the loss of pilots.

It is agreed the fighter force was heavily hurt, and yes it was the
pilot loss that mattered the most, bankrupted is simply wrong.

> Jan, 1945.

1 January to be precise.

Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.

[Daryl]

You are picking nits. The 190A that was a headache for many fighters
from 1940 to 1944 had a BMW engine that was based on the PW Hornet.

And there is a good argument that the Jumo Inlines had English roots as
well. What the Germans did was to improve on others designs. They were
masters at it.

Daryl

[Dean Markley]

Are you sure you are really Daryl? You seem an awful lot like one Robert Dale Arndt.....

[Daryl]

If I weren't Arnt, I would claim the English and US Engines were
invented by Germany.

[Keith W]

Daryl wrote:
> On 5/24/2013 2:15 AM, Keith W wrote:
>> Daryl wrote:
>>> On 5/23/2013 8:59 PM, Peter Stickney wrote:
>>>> Daryl wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, Over?
>>>> Daryl, you're coming in broken and stupid.
>>>> Where, on this planet, in this time-space continuum does the Jumo
>>>> 213 have any provenance shared with any American engine.
>>>
>>> It gets it pedigree from the Hornet Engine from PW in the 20s. The
>>> Treaty of Versailles would not allow the Germans to manufacture
>>> engines. In 1928, the Germans imported the Hornet Engine.....
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26_Whitney_R-1690_Hornet
>>> for their own aircraft. In the early 30s, German rescinded
>>> (ignored, whatever) the treaty and began manufacturing the Hornet
>>> Engine. They called the copy their own. The JU52 used a copy of
>>> the Hornet. The BMW 132 was a direct copy of the Hornet Engine. From
>>> this egnine all German Radicals grew out of.
>>>
>>
>> The Jumo 213 was NOT of course a radial. It was a V-12 liquid cooled
>> engine of advanced design and had better performance all round than
>> the American Allison. The nearest equivalent engine in allied use was
>> the RR Griffon.
>
> You are picking nits. The 190A that was a headache for many fighters
> from 1940 to 1944 had a BMW engine that was based on the PW Hornet.
>

Trouble is we are ddiscussing the Fw-190D and its V-12 engine


In the case of the BMW engines the 132 was of course a PW Hornet
derivative but in 1935 they bought out Bramo and the Bramo
engineers made a major contribution to the new generation of
radials starting with the BMW-139.

The BMW 801 was in fact a new design with advanced
features such as sodium cooled valves and an efficient fuel
injection system. As with all German engines its main limitation
was the poor quality of fuel available which limited its compression
rate to 6.5 to 1 compared to the 7.2 to 1 ratio of the Bristol Centaurus

> And there is a good argument that the Jumo Inlines had English roots
> as well. What the Germans did was to improve on others designs. They were
> masters at it.
>

Not in this case, quite the opposite in fact. Junkers Moteren (Jumo)
leased some of its designs in the 1930's to Napier who went on
to build the Napier Sabre.

The reality is Jumo had a long history of designing excellent gasoline
and diesel inline engines and had perfected fuel injection at a
time when the British manufacturers were still using carburettors.

Keith

[Daryl]

The use of Carbs is something I don't understand. It always gave the
other bird an window of advantage that it could use at any time. But
the actual engine has nothing to do with fuel induction. The Germans
didn't have anything like the V-16 fighter engines until it their
designers were given a walk through Rolls Royce. Germany was about the
best at Fuel Induction. Even today, Germany is the leading Fuel
Injection manufacturer of the world. I will give the Germans credit for
the Fuel Injection Induction System but not the engine itself.

Daryl

[Keith W]

BMW started building first rate inline engines during WW1 with
the BMW III. The first BMW V-12 ran in 1923 and was based on
the BMW III with two banks.

As for Rolls Royce they built V-12's and X-24's not V-16's

> Germany was about
> the best at Fuel Induction. Even today, Germany is the leading Fuel
> Injection manufacturer of the world. I will give the Germans credit
> for the Fuel Injection Induction System but not the engine itself.
>

Then you are simply a bigot. The Germans built good engines
in WW1 and WW2

Keith

[Ramsman]

On 24/05/2013 18:58, Daryl wrote:
> On 5/24/2013 2:15 AM, Keith W wrote:
>> Daryl wrote:
>>> On 5/23/2013 8:59 PM, Peter Stickney wrote:
>>>> Daryl wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, Over?
>>>> Daryl, you're coming in broken and stupid.
>>>> Where, on this planet, in this time-space continuum does the Jumo 213
>>>> have any provenance shared with any American engine.
>>>
>>> It gets it pedigree from the Hornet Engine from PW in the 20s. The
>>> Treaty of Versailles would not allow the Germans to manufacture
>>> engines. In 1928, the Germans imported the Hornet Engine.....
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26_Whitney_R-1690_Hornet
>>> for their own aircraft. In the early 30s, German rescinded (ignored,
>>> whatever) the treaty and began manufacturing the Hornet Engine. They
>>> called the copy their own. The JU52 used a copy of the Hornet. The
>>> BMW 132 was a direct copy of the Hornet Engine. From this egnine all
>>> German Radicals grew out of.
>>>
>>
>> The Jumo 213 was NOT of course a radial. It was a V-12 liquid cooled
>> engine of advanced design and had better performance all round than
>> the American Allison. The nearest equivalent engine in allied use was
>> the RR Griffon.
>
> You are picking nits. The 190A that was a headache for many fighters
> from 1940 to 1944 had a BMW engine that was based on the PW Hornet.
>

There's no nit-picking going on. You repeatedly referred to the 190D
series, so yo ought to have known you were talking about inline engines.
If not, you're even more of an idiot than we thought you were.

> And there is a good argument that the Jumo Inlines had English roots as
> well. What the Germans did was to improve on others designs. They were
> masters at it.
>

Total bollocks (not bullocks).

> Daryl
>
>
>


--
Peter

[Daryl]

So I did a typo. And you don't have a point here.

>
>> Germany was about
>> the best at Fuel Induction. Even today, Germany is the leading Fuel
>> Injection manufacturer of the world. I will give the Germans credit
>> for the Fuel Injection Induction System but not the engine itself.
>>
>
> Then you are simply a bigot. The Germans built good engines
> in WW1 and WW2

Bigot? My, that's the first time I have ever accused of that. Guess
there is a first in everything.

What I have stated, on engines (not induction systems) is that England
had the Inline in production and the Germans lifted much of that
technology for their own. The US had the radial in production and the
Germans took that. Whittle was working on his engine (in development)
and the Germans helped themselves. The US had the Axial Flow on the
design boards and the Germans helped themselves. What the germans did
was improve on those ideas. But they had the absolute best industrial
espionage in the world and were very prolific with the gathering of that
information and technology.

I might buy one, maybe two technologies where it was parallel creation
but not in as many as what actually did happen. At some point, the law
of average is lost quickly and espionage comes into play.

V-1 leap in technology.

V-2 Hunge leap in technology (Goddard guidance predates it by at least
10 years

Very powerful Inline Engines (again, I give the Germans the leap for
their Induction Systems even today) But they lept the chasm too fast

VEry powerful radial engines. On this one, the only thing they did was
add more cylinders and rows to the Pratt Hornet that they stole for
their own manufacturing in 1933. They didn't even come up with much of
an improvement to the induction system. The Hornet had a single stage
supercharger. They added a 2 stage supercharger. Again, they improved
on the outside technology.

Centrifugal flow Jet Engine not long after whittle was turned down for
funding.

Axial Flow Jet Engine not long after Lockheed was turned down for
funding for theirs.


Coincidence only goes so far in such a short time. Germany just had too
many "Coincidental" break through s in only 4 to 6 years.

If that is being a bigot, so be it. But it's a realistic view when
factoring all of the data.

Or you can give them credit for everything and I find that more than a
little unrealistic. The Germans are smart, hard workers, etc. but even
they aren't that good.

daryl

[Keith W]

Except for the minor fact that the Germans were producing inline
engines before ANYBODY else. Hell the the first person to
build a 4 stroke ic engine was the German engineer Nickolaus Otto

Karl Benz built the first practical spark ignite gasoline engine.
Maybach began building inline aeroengines in 1909 and along with
BMW made them throughout WW1. Rolls Royce didnt manufacture
their first aero engine until 1915.

<snip arndtian puffery>

Keith

[Daryl]

And the rest of the world helped themselves and improved on that. And a
4 stroke engine isn't a high performance Fighter or Bomber engine from
frontline WWII.

>
> Karl Benz built the first practical spark ignite gasoline engine.
> Maybach began building inline aeroengines in 1909 and along with
> BMW made them throughout WW1. Rolls Royce didnt manufacture
> their first aero engine until 1915.

Again, the engines used in WWII Fighters and Bombers had very little in
common with the ones you are talking about.



>
> <snip arndtian puffery>

(put back in so you can answer this)

> Bigot? My, that's the first time I have ever accused of that. Guess there is a first in everything.
>

[Steve Hix]

In article <Z2%nt.179237$i%3.15...@fx10.fr7>,
"Keith W" <keithnosp...@demon.co.uk> wrote:

> > What [Daryl] have stated, on engines (not induction systems) is that England

> > had the Inline in production and the Germans lifted much of that
> > technology for their own.
>
> Except for the minor fact that the Germans were producing inline
> engines before ANYBODY else. Hell the the first person to
> build a 4 stroke ic engine was the German engineer Nickolaus Otto
>
> Karl Benz built the first practical spark ignite gasoline engine.
> Maybach began building inline aeroengines in 1909 and along with
> BMW made them throughout WW1. Rolls Royce didnt manufacture
> their first aero engine until 1915.

IIRC, the Wright brothers used an inline 4 cylinder gasoline engine they
designed themselves. It was just barely good enough, granted.

Around 1903 one of Langley's engineers, Charles Manley, had produced a 52hp
radial engine that weighed only 120 lbs, that held the top power-to-weight ratio
for several years.

Sadly, Langley's understanding of flight control was lacking, or the engine
would be much better known. Glen Curtiss modified Langley's Aerodrome years
later as part of his effort fighting the Wright's patents, and the engine worked
just fine when it finally flew.

[David E. Powell]

On Saturday, May 25, 2013 5:45:00 AM UTC-4, Daryl wrote:
> On 5/25/2013 2:58 AM, Keith W wrote:
>
> > Daryl wrote:
>
> >> On 5/24/2013 3:47 PM, Keith W wrote:

Snip

> > Except for the minor fact that the Germans were producing inline
>
> > engines before ANYBODY else. Hell the the first person to
>
> > build a 4 stroke ic engine was the German engineer Nickolaus Otto
>
>
>
> And the rest of the world helped themselves and improved on that. And a
>
> 4 stroke engine isn't a high performance Fighter or Bomber engine from
>
> frontline WWII.

Well that is true, things developed. The U.S. wasn't using Liberty engines in 1941 either.

> > Karl Benz built the first practical spark ignite gasoline engine.
>
> > Maybach began building inline aeroengines in 1909 and along with
>
> > BMW made them throughout WW1. Rolls Royce didnt manufacture
>
> > their first aero engine until 1915.
>
>
> Again, the engines used in WWII Fighters and Bombers had very little in
>
> common with the ones you are talking about.

Well, not 100 percent the same, it is an issue of lineage and developing and industrial and engineering base.

While military aviation was Verboten under the Versailles Treaty, the Germans did quite a bit of work in civil aviation in the 1920s and early 1930s. Not only airframes, but in engines to power them. While U.S. Aviators were barnstorming and developing stuff like the Ford Trimotor and Boeing Monomail, folks like Junkers and Dornier in Germany were busy too building airliners, and guys like Ernst Udet were flying exhibitions too. It was a fun time, the peace thing was looking good, at least in the west, and like the Space Race, civilian flight stuff and flying records were the focus of everybody in the air.

I think if Peace had worked and Ernst Udet could have just kept flying stick and rudder demonstrations as a show pilot he would have lived a very happy life.

David

[Keith W]

Daryl wrote:
> On 5/25/2013 2:58 AM, Keith W wrote:
>>
>> Except for the minor fact that the Germans were producing inline
>> engines before ANYBODY else. Hell the the first person to
>> build a 4 stroke ic engine was the German engineer Nickolaus Otto
>
> And the rest of the world helped themselves and improved on that. And a 4
> stroke engine isn't a high performance Fighter or Bomber
> engine from frontline WWII.
>

As it happens all were 4 stroke engines

Of the following aero engines pick out the one that was NOT a 4 stroke

Allison V-1710
BMW 801
DB 601
Jumo 213
Pratt & Whitney R-2000
Rolls Royce Crecy
Rolls Royce Merlin

I thought you knew something about engines ?

>
>>
>> Karl Benz built the first practical spark ignite gasoline engine.
>> Maybach began building inline aeroengines in 1909 and along with
>> BMW made them throughout WW1. Rolls Royce didnt manufacture
>> their first aero engine until 1915.
>
> Again, the engines used in WWII Fighters and Bombers had very little
> in common with the ones you are talking about.
>
>

There was in fact a clear lineage.

In the case of the Jumo 213 it went as follows

Junkers L1 - 6 cylinder in line air cooled 1921
Junkers L5 - 6 cylinder in line water cooled 1922
Jumo 210 - V12 which was basically two L5's in an inverted vee
Jumo 211 - a scaled up 210
Jumo 213 - Developed from the 211 with pressurised cooling
and better balanced moving parts to increase max rpm

No copying from Rolls Royce designs was involved just good engineering

Keith

[Daryl]

Guess Briggs and Strattonn makes one hell of a great Fighter AC Engine.

Your clear linage isn't so clear when all the other "Coincidences" are
compiled with it. The timing doesn't pan out. Too many leaps in
technology happening at the same time. I see all the "Reasons" for
using an inverted V engine was being tried by RR before 1929. Funny, in
1929, DB began developing an inverted V engine AFTER they saw a test
engine from Rolls. Rolls determined that there was no appreciative
advantage from inverting the engine.

Going one step further, inverting the engine complicates an otherwise
simple oil distribution. After the face, it's been said that it was
done to lower the center of gravity, allowed the prop to be higher,
enable the cannon to be easier to service, etc.. Not one single
"Reason" turns out to be valid when compared with the other fighters of
that era. Mainly, the Hurricane and Spit which were much easier to fly
by novices. AS for the better visibility, the 109 had much worse pilot
visibility than either of the other two fighters.

AS I stated, there were just too many "Leaps" in technology from 1933 to
1937.

Daryl

[Keith W]

Nope, they do however make very good small portable engines
which is THEIR lineage

> Your clear linage isn't so clear when all the other "Coincidences" are
> compiled with it. The timing doesn't pan out. Too many leaps in
> technology happening at the same time. I see all the "Reasons" for
> using an inverted V engine was being tried by RR before 1929. Funny,
> in 1929, DB began developing an inverted V engine AFTER they saw a
> test engine from Rolls.

Now which engine would that be old boy. I am aware of the RR
aero engine range and as far as I know no inverted V-12's were
ever produced even as a prototype. There was some discussion
between RR, Hawker and Supermarine about making the Merlin
inverted but the decision was made very early noto to do so.


> The attractions of the inverted V-12 were clear enough that Rolls

> determined that there was no
> appreciative advantage from inverting the engine.
>

RR doesnt seem to have cared much one way or the other.

> Going one step further, inverting the engine complicates an otherwise
> simple oil distribution. After the face, it's been said that it was
> done to lower the center of gravity, allowed the prop to be higher,
> enable the cannon to be easier to service, etc.. Not one single
> "Reason" turns out to be valid when compared with the other fighters
> of that era. Mainly, the Hurricane and Spit which were much easier
> to fly by novices. AS for the better visibility, the 109 had much
> worse pilot visibility than either of the other two fighters.
>

There were two significant advantages

1) It improved visibility
2) It allowed the fitting of a 20 mm cannon firing through the spinner.

The visibility problems of the 109 were a function of the
canopy design rather than the engine layout. The RAF were
rather ahead of the game here retro fitting US manufactured
aircraft such as the P-51 and P-47 with high visbility canopies.

The P-51B and C aircraft were routinely fitted with plexiglas
bubble type canopies long before the USAAF adopted them.
Indeed many USAAF P-51B and C's had Malcolm Hoods fitted in
Britain before the P-51D arrived.

> AS I stated, there were just too many "Leaps" in technology from 1933
> to 1937.
>

Thats what happens during an arms race.

Between 1933 and 1937 the RAF went from the biplane
Hawker Demon to the Hurricane and Spitfire.

Keith

[Daryl]

Actually, they make great portable engines. I have a 5000 watt on my
RV. It powers anything you can throw at it. 2 cyclinders, starts every
time and is a bit noisy but size does matter no matter what women tell men.

I have others say they have the same thing. But when I look at theirs,
it's a single engine made by usually honda or tecumcha (sp) and doesn't
have the long lasting of th2 2 cylinder briggs. The outside looks
similiar but theirs is half the size.

I used the same criteria you used in determining what company would make
a good aircraft manufacturer. Your criteria about being able to
transcend from a small engine 4 cycle to a high performance fighter or
bomber engine is just foolish. Briggs and Strattons make lousy engines
for even ultrulights.

>
>> Your clear linage isn't so clear when all the other "Coincidences"
>> are compiled with it. The timing doesn't pan out. Too many leaps
>> in technology happening at the same time. I see all the "Reasons"
>> for using an inverted V engine was being tried by RR before 1929.
>> Funny, in 1929, DB began developing an inverted V engine AFTER they
>> saw a test engine from Rolls.
>
> Now which engine would that be old boy. I am aware of the RR aero
> engine range and as far as I know no inverted V-12's were ever
> produced even as a prototype. There was some discussion between RR,
> Hawker and Supermarine about making the Merlin inverted but the
> decision was made very early noto to do so.

One mockup was made but it was determined that there was no appreciative
advantage. And I as I stated, it's harder to maintain the proper oiling
required. It abviously can be done but it's more complicated leaving
one more thing to go wrong.

>
>
>> The attractions of the inverted V-12 were clear enough that Rolls
>> determined that there was no appreciative advantage from inverting
>> the engine.
>>
>
> RR doesnt seem to have cared much one way or the other.

They cared enough to research it and build one mockup.

>
>> Going one step further, inverting the engine complicates an
>> otherwise simple oil distribution. After the face, it's been said
>> that it was done to lower the center of gravity, allowed the prop
>> to be higher, enable the cannon to be easier to service, etc.. Not
>> one single "Reason" turns out to be valid when compared with the
>> other fighters of that era. Mainly, the Hurricane and Spit which
>> were much easier to fly by novices. AS for the better visibility,
>> the 109 had much worse pilot visibility than either of the other
>> two fighters.
>>
>
> There were two significant advantages
>
> 1) It improved visibility

The P-51D had plenty of visibility and it didn't use an inverted V.

> 2) It allowed the fitting of a 20 mm cannon firing through the
> spinner.

That's done through the output Gearbox shaft and has absolutely nothing
to do with the Crank Output.

>
> The visibility problems of the 109 were a function of the canopy
> design rather than the engine layout. The RAF were rather ahead of
> the game here retro fitting US manufactured aircraft such as the P-51
> and P-47 with high visbility canopies.
>
> The P-51B and C aircraft were routinely fitted with plexiglas bubble
> type canopies long before the USAAF adopted them. Indeed many USAAF
> P-51B and C's had Malcolm Hoods fitted in Britain before the P-51D
> arrived.
>

Again, has nothing to do with the position of the engine.

>
>> AS I stated, there were just too many "Leaps" in technology from
>> 1933 to 1937.
>>
>
> Thats what happens during an arms race.
>
> Between 1933 and 1937 the RAF went from the biplane Hawker Demon to
> the Hurricane and Spitfire.

Wasn't much of a leap from the Demon to the Hurricane. They shared much
of the same fuselage parts and construction. You left out the Hawker
Hart that is basically a direct predecessor to the Hurricane and that
was from the 20s. Damn, you make this just too easy.

AS for the Spit, it goes back to a requirement made in the middle of
1930. The 224 was a direct result of that but it was pretty much a
failure. They took the 224 and improved on it to come up with what you
know now as the Spitfire. The original 224 ended it's life as a target
on a gunnery range.


1928 was a very special year for Germany. That is the year that the
Treaty was first to be ignored. The Argus As 10 was built in 1928. The
BF108 was designed in 1928, among other "Leaps". Actually, that wasn't
much a leap. In 1928, the German Industry was already deep in getting
"Shown" the superior English technology. Afterall, it was against the
treaty for the Germans to build any of these things. The English didn't
pay attention to the sucking sound because of arrogance. I can see
nothing has changed.

Daryl

[David E. Powell]

On Monday, May 27, 2013 7:27:45 PM UTC-4, Daryl wrote:

Snip

> 1928 was a very special year for Germany. That is the year that the
>
> Treaty was first to be ignored. The Argus As 10 was built in 1928. The
>
> BF108 was designed in 1928, among other "Leaps". Actually, that wasn't
>
> much a leap. In 1928, the German Industry was already deep in getting
>
> "Shown" the superior English technology. Afterall, it was against the
>
> treaty for the Germans to build any of these things. The English didn't
>
> pay attention to the sucking sound because of arrogance. I can see
>
> nothing has changed.

Well, by the 1920s the Germans also had made quite a few Junkers airliners, setting the path towards the Ju-52 in motion, as well as Dornier planes, which was a line that by 1929 led to the Do. X.

Germany may have started to ignore the Versailles Treaty at a certain point, or may have quite early on, but there were places they could work that it didn't cover or that they used to get around it.

Airliners, civil aircraft, and work in other countries like the USSR for instance.

> Daryl

[Daryl]

On 5/27/2013 8:46 PM, David E. Powell wrote:
> On Monday, May 27, 2013 7:27:45 PM UTC-4, Daryl wrote:
>
> Snip
>
>> 1928 was a very special year for Germany. That is the year that the
>>
>> Treaty was first to be ignored. The Argus As 10 was built in 1928. The
>>
>> BF108 was designed in 1928, among other "Leaps". Actually, that wasn't
>>
>> much a leap. In 1928, the German Industry was already deep in getting
>>
>> "Shown" the superior English technology. Afterall, it was against the
>>
>> treaty for the Germans to build any of these things. The English didn't
>>
>> pay attention to the sucking sound because of arrogance. I can see
>>
>> nothing has changed.
>
> Well, by the 1920s the Germans also had made quite a few Junkers airliners, setting the path towards the Ju-52 in motion, as well as Dornier planes, which was a line that by 1929 led to the Do. X.
>

Yes, but the engine for the JU-52 was a copy of the PW Hornet. Not a
reengineered copy, it was an exact copy.

> Germany may have started to ignore the Versailles Treaty at a certain point, or may have quite early on, but there were places they could work that it didn't cover or that they used to get around it.
>
> Airliners, civil aircraft, and work in other countries like the USSR for instance.

And one sport plane, the BF108. I think that 1928 was the pivotal year
for Germany pretty well scrapping the treaty either by doing those
workarounds or just plain ignoring it. Many of their "Breakthroughs"
came between 1928 and 1937.

daryl

[Keith W]

All aero engines are descended from that first engine just as all
steam turbines are descended from the small engine Charles Parsons
built for his yacht.

>>
>>> Your clear linage isn't so clear when all the other "Coincidences"
>>> are compiled with it. The timing doesn't pan out. Too many leaps
>>> in technology happening at the same time. I see all the "Reasons"
>>> for using an inverted V engine was being tried by RR before 1929.
>>> Funny, in 1929, DB began developing an inverted V engine AFTER they
>>> saw a test engine from Rolls.
>>
>> Now which engine would that be old boy. I am aware of the RR aero
>> engine range and as far as I know no inverted V-12's were ever
>> produced even as a prototype. There was some discussion between RR,
>> Hawker and Supermarine about making the Merlin inverted but the
>> decision was made very early noto to do so.
>
> One mockup was made but it was determined that there was no
> appreciative advantage. And I as I stated, it's harder to maintain
> the proper oiling required. It abviously can be done but it's more
> complicated leaving one more thing to go wrong.
>

The Germans made it work rather efficiently and reliably.

>
>
>>
>>
>>> The attractions of the inverted V-12 were clear enough that Rolls
>>> determined that there was no appreciative advantage from inverting
>>> the engine.
>>>
>>
>> RR doesnt seem to have cared much one way or the other.
>
> They cared enough to research it and build one mockup.
>

Small beer in the context of engine development.

>
>
>>
>>> Going one step further, inverting the engine complicates an
>>> otherwise simple oil distribution. After the face, it's been said
>>> that it was done to lower the center of gravity, allowed the prop
>>> to be higher, enable the cannon to be easier to service, etc.. Not
>>> one single "Reason" turns out to be valid when compared with the
>>> other fighters of that era. Mainly, the Hurricane and Spit which
>>> were much easier to fly by novices. AS for the better visibility,
>>> the 109 had much worse pilot visibility than either of the other
>>> two fighters.
>>>
>>
>> There were two significant advantages
>>
>> 1) It improved visibility
>
> The P-51D had plenty of visibility and it didn't use an inverted V.
>
>
>
>> 2) It allowed the fitting of a 20 mm cannon firing through the
>> spinner.
>
> That's done through the output Gearbox shaft and has absolutely
> nothing to do with the Crank Output.
>

I suggest you look at the arrangment in the 109

>
>
>
>>
>> The visibility problems of the 109 were a function of the canopy
>> design rather than the engine layout. The RAF were rather ahead of
>> the game here retro fitting US manufactured aircraft such as the P-51
>> and P-47 with high visbility canopies.
>>
>> The P-51B and C aircraft were routinely fitted with plexiglas bubble
>> type canopies long before the USAAF adopted them. Indeed many USAAF
>> P-51B and C's had Malcolm Hoods fitted in Britain before the P-51D
>> arrived.
>>
>
> Again, has nothing to do with the position of the engine.
>

But a lot to do with the visibility

>
>
>>
>>> AS I stated, there were just too many "Leaps" in technology from
>>> 1933 to 1937.
>>>
>>
>> Thats what happens during an arms race.
>>
>> Between 1933 and 1937 the RAF went from the biplane Hawker Demon to
>> the Hurricane and Spitfire.
>
>
> Wasn't much of a leap from the Demon to the Hurricane. They shared
> much of the same fuselage parts and construction. You left out the
> Hawker Hart that is basically a direct predecessor to the Hurricane and
> that
> was from the 20s. Damn, you make this just too easy.
>

Not that easy apparently given that the Hart was the bomber variant
while the Demon was the fighter.

> AS for the Spit, it goes back to a requirement made in the middle of
> 1930. The 224 was a direct result of that but it was pretty much a
> failure. They took the 224 and improved on it to come up with what
> you know now as the Spitfire. The original 224 ended it's life as a
> target on a gunnery range.
>
>
> 1928 was a very special year for Germany. That is the year that the
> Treaty was first to be ignored. The Argus As 10 was built in 1928. The
> BF108 was designed in 1928, among other "Leaps".

The Bf-108 of course being a rather nice four seat tourer
built to compete in the 1934 FAI International Tourist Plane Contest

> Actually, that
> wasn't much a leap. In 1928, the German Industry was already deep in
> getting "Shown" the superior English technology.

Please provide evidence to back this claim. The main technological
assistance the Luftwaffe got was the sale of American Curtis Hawk
dive bombers in 1933 arranged by Ernst Udet.

> Afterall, it was
> against the treaty for the Germans to build any of these things.

Until the ban was lifted as part of the 1926 Paris Air Agreement
which canceled all restrictions on the quality of German commercial
aircraft and lifted all of the technological restrictions.

> The
> English didn't pay attention to the sucking sound because of
> arrogance. I can see nothing has changed.
>
> Daryl

Just as it seems sadly true that there are those who prefer
bombast and ignorance to reality.

Keith

[Daryl]

Robert Fulton improved on the Watt engine that was improved from the
Newcomen Steam Engine that was used to pump out mines. Parson invented
the Steam Turbine later on. It was a natural progression. But Parson
was a full 100 years in the future. How about AFTER 1894 did he get
something that was just 1.6% efficient. The Fulton setup based on the
Newcomen design was still the one to beat. In 1901, he finally got his
system to surpass the old piston design. Each one of these people built
on the other's works starting in 1712.

>
>>>
>>>> Your clear linage isn't so clear when all the other
>>>> "Coincidences" are compiled with it. The timing doesn't pan
>>>> out. Too many leaps in technology happening at the same time.
>>>> I see all the "Reasons" for using an inverted V engine was
>>>> being tried by RR before 1929. Funny, in 1929, DB began
>>>> developing an inverted V engine AFTER they saw a test engine
>>>> from Rolls.
>>>
>>> Now which engine would that be old boy. I am aware of the RR
>>> aero engine range and as far as I know no inverted V-12's were
>>> ever produced even as a prototype. There was some discussion
>>> between RR, Hawker and Supermarine about making the Merlin
>>> inverted but the decision was made very early noto to do so.
>>
>> One mockup was made but it was determined that there was no
>> appreciative advantage. And I as I stated, it's harder to maintain
>> the proper oiling required. It abviously can be done but it's more
>> complicated leaving one more thing to go wrong.
>>
>
> The Germans made it work rather efficiently and reliably.

I didn't say it didn't work but it in High Performance Aircraft, Murphy
is an optimist.

>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> The attractions of the inverted V-12 were clear enough that
>>>> Rolls determined that there was no appreciative advantage from
>>>> inverting the engine.
>>>>
>>>
>>> RR doesnt seem to have cared much one way or the other.
>>
>> They cared enough to research it and build one mockup.
>>
>
> Small beer in the context of engine development.

Yet that was an influence on the German High Performance Engine design.
Again, no appreciative gain on his design.

>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> Going one step further, inverting the engine complicates an
>>>> otherwise simple oil distribution. After the face, it's been
>>>> said that it was done to lower the center of gravity, allowed
>>>> the prop to be higher, enable the cannon to be easier to
>>>> service, etc.. Not one single "Reason" turns out to be valid
>>>> when compared with the other fighters of that era. Mainly,
>>>> the Hurricane and Spit which were much easier to fly by
>>>> novices. AS for the better visibility, the 109 had much worse
>>>> pilot visibility than either of the other two fighters.
>>>>
>>>
>>> There were two significant advantages
>>>
>>> 1) It improved visibility
>>
>> The P-51D had plenty of visibility and it didn't use an inverted
>> V.
>>
>>
>>
>>> 2) It allowed the fitting of a 20 mm cannon firing through the
>>> spinner.
>>
>> That's done through the output Gearbox shaft and has absolutely
>> nothing to do with the Crank Output.
>>
>
> I suggest you look at the arrangment in the 109

Worked around all types of Recips for many years. I understand the
Engine is not the Gearbox. The cannon doesn't come through the engine,
it comes through the gearbox. It really doesn't matter is the engine is
inverted or not. You want that cannon to fire through the prop, you
have to get the prop below the engine where you can install the cannon.
To give you and idea, a P-3 uses the same T-56 engine that a C-130
uses. But because the P-3 is a low wing, they have to put the intake
above the prop. The C-130 is a high wing and the intake is below the
prop. The big difference? The gearbox and sheet metal.

>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> The visibility problems of the 109 were a function of the canopy
>>> design rather than the engine layout. The RAF were rather ahead
>>> of the game here retro fitting US manufactured aircraft such as
>>> the P-51 and P-47 with high visbility canopies.
>>>
>>> The P-51B and C aircraft were routinely fitted with plexiglas
>>> bubble type canopies long before the USAAF adopted them. Indeed
>>> many USAAF P-51B and C's had Malcolm Hoods fitted in Britain
>>> before the P-51D arrived.
>>>
>>
>> Again, has nothing to do with the position of the engine.
>>
>
> But a lot to do with the visibility

The 109 had one of the worst visibilities out there. If that were a
factor, the 109 would have done a better job on the cockpit and
fuselage. This was held over from the BF108 using the Argus engine.
The Argus was built in 1928. That's a magic year for Germany. Right
after they did the tour in Rolls and saw the inverted one of a kind mockup.

>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> AS I stated, there were just too many "Leaps" in technology
>>>> from 1933 to 1937.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Thats what happens during an arms race.
>>>
>>> Between 1933 and 1937 the RAF went from the biplane Hawker
>>> Demon to the Hurricane and Spitfire.
>>
>>
>> Wasn't much of a leap from the Demon to the Hurricane. They shared
>> much of the same fuselage parts and construction. You left out the
>> Hawker Hart that is basically a direct predecessor to the Hurricane
>> and that was from the 20s. Damn, you make this just too easy.
>>
>
> Not that easy apparently given that the Hart was the bomber variant
> while the Demon was the fighter.

Which both shared many parts with the Hurricane. Including Fuselage
Spars and Gigs. That's like saying the P-36 was it's own Aircraft.

>
>> AS for the Spit, it goes back to a requirement made in the middle
>> of 1930. The 224 was a direct result of that but it was pretty
>> much a failure. They took the 224 and improved on it to come up
>> with what you know now as the Spitfire. The original 224 ended
>> it's life as a target on a gunnery range.
>>
>>
>> 1928 was a very special year for Germany. That is the year that
>> the Treaty was first to be ignored. The Argus As 10 was built in
>> 1928. The BF108 was designed in 1928, among other "Leaps".
>
> The Bf-108 of course being a rather nice four seat tourer built to
> compete in the 1934 FAI International Tourist Plane Contest

With every intention of converting it to a fighter.

>
>> Actually, that wasn't much a leap. In 1928, the German Industry
>> was already deep in getting "Shown" the superior English
>> technology.
>
> Please provide evidence to back this claim. The main technological
> assistance the Luftwaffe got was the sale of American Curtis Hawk
> dive bombers in 1933 arranged by Ernst Udet.

He was gifted 2 Curtiss F11C Goshawks by Goring that was used for
testing and directly influenced the JU-87. Another German "Leap".

>
>
>> Afterall, it was against the treaty for the Germans to build any
>> of these things.
>
> Until the ban was lifted as part of the 1926 Paris Air Agreement
> which canceled all restrictions on the quality of German commercial
> aircraft and lifted all of the technological restrictions.

But it did not lift the ban on Military Aircraft. And the last time I
checked, this is the rec.aviation.MILITARY area.

>
>> The English didn't pay attention to the sucking sound because of
>> arrogance. I can see nothing has changed.
>>
>> Daryl
>
> Just as it seems sadly true that there are those who prefer bombast
> and ignorance to reality.

Yes, and I do wish you would stop doing that.

daryl

[tutall]

On May 24, 3:37 pm, Ramsman <nos...@nowhere.com> wrote:

> There's no nit-picking going on. You repeatedly referred to the 190D
> series, so yo ought to have known you were talking about inline engines.
> If not, you're even more of an idiot than we thought you were.

Correction: "know him to be" .

Yes, like a leaking submarine, he's sinking every lower. the only
question is where the bottom is.

[Daryl]

Quiet nutcase. You would lie with the devil if you thought there was a
chance to take the other side from me. And that makes you te biggest
losr of all.

daryl

[Keith W]

Well no

Fulton had the steamboat built but the first engine was designed
and built in France while the second was assemble with parts ordered
from Bouton and Watt.

In any event the steam turbine differs from the steam piston engine
every bit as much as a jet engine differs from a V-12

> But Parson was a full 100 years in the future. How about AFTER 1894 did
> he get
> something that was just 1.6% efficient. The Fulton setup based on the
> Newcomen design was still the one to beat.

George Westinghouse didnt agree. He made a fortune by licensing
Parsons design and putting it into mass production.

By the way the Newcomen engine was quite incapable of
driving ANYTHING. It was simply a pump and a dammed
inefficient one at that. It was Wasborough and Pickard who
came up with the idea of attaching the beam end to a crank
instead of a pump and produced the first rotary engine.

> In 1901, he finally got
> his system to surpass the old piston design. Each one of these
> people built on the other's works starting in 1712.
>

Arguable at best. The steam engines in use at the end of the 19th
century were high pressure engines powered by the expansion
of pressurised steam in the cylinders and were based on the designs
of Trevithick and George Stephenson. The Newcomen and Watt
engines were classed as atmospheric engines and their mode of
working was to admit steam into a cylinder at the END of its stroke
and then condense it so that the cylinder now contained a partial
vacuum and the atmospheric pressure moved the piston in the
cylinder. Watt was resolutely opposed to the high pressure design
in fact.

There was no time for that to happen even had RR been in the
habit of disclosing their secret new developments to foreign
competitors

The simple fact is the Jumo 210 project started BEFORE the PV-12
project and the Jumo 210 ran BEFORE the Merlin

Jumo 210 - started as project L.10 in 1931 and first ran in 1933

Merlin mooted as project PV-12 in 1932, Supermarine and Hawker
were consulted about the layout in 1934 , first ran in 1935

The Bf-109 cannon was positioned between the cylinder banks
which would have been rather trick with an upright v-12.
As I recall the only allied fighter to have a cannon firing
through the spinner was the mid engined P-39

> uses. But because the P-3 is a low wing, they have to put the intake
> above the prop. The C-130 is a high wing and the intake is below the
> prop. The big difference? The gearbox and sheet metal.
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The visibility problems of the 109 were a function of the canopy
>>>> design rather than the engine layout. The RAF were rather ahead
>>>> of the game here retro fitting US manufactured aircraft such as
>>>> the P-51 and P-47 with high visbility canopies.
>>>>
>>>> The P-51B and C aircraft were routinely fitted with plexiglas
>>>> bubble type canopies long before the USAAF adopted them. Indeed
>>>> many USAAF P-51B and C's had Malcolm Hoods fitted in Britain
>>>> before the P-51D arrived.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Again, has nothing to do with the position of the engine.
>>>
>>
>> But a lot to do with the visibility
>
> The 109 had one of the worst visibilities out there. If that were a
> factor, the 109 would have done a better job on the cockpit and
> fuselage.

No worse than contemporary US fighters and in fact better
than the original razorback P-47 which had essentially no rear
visiblity at all. In fact of course the Bf-109 E4 incorporated
an improved canopy design as a result of the lessons learned
in the BOB

Keith

[Bill Shatzer]

Keith W wrote:

- snip -

> The Bf-109 cannon was positioned between the cylinder banks
> which would have been rather trick with an upright v-12.
> As I recall the only allied fighter to have a cannon firing
> through the spinner was the mid engined P-39

I believe most of the Soviet Yak fighters utilized a cannon firing
through the propeller hub. The LaGG-3 as well.

[Daryl]

NO? You are still trying to rewrite history.

>
> Fulton had the steamboat built but the first engine was designed
> and built in France while the second was assemble with parts ordered
> from Bouton and Watt.

And Fulton improved on it. It's part of a natural progression. Of
course, that progression lasted centuries and is still going on today.

>
> In any event the steam turbine differs from the steam piston engine
> every bit as much as a jet engine differs from a V-12

You analogy is poor.

>
>> But Parson was a full 100 years in the future. How about AFTER 1894 did
>> he get
>> something that was just 1.6% efficient. The Fulton setup based on the
>> Newcomen design was still the one to beat.
>
> George Westinghouse didnt agree. He made a fortune by licensing
> Parsons design and putting it into mass production.

AFTER the turn of the 20th century. STeam got on just fine without
Goergie for a hundred years.

>
> By the way the Newcomen engine was quite incapable of
> driving ANYTHING. It was simply a pump and a dammed
> inefficient one at that. It was Wasborough and Pickard who
> came up with the idea of attaching the beam end to a crank
> instead of a pump and produced the first rotary engine.

Are you saying that the Newcomen was NOT a steam engine? It doesn't
matter what you drive. It could be wheel, a pump piston, etc.. It's
still a steam engine.

Yet, prior to 1928, RR showed the German Engineers a mockup of an
inverted V which they didn't continue past that stage. The Germans
developed it. Again, the inverted V has no appreciative advantage over
the no inverted. It just looks cool.

Short Barrel, slow fire. They had to get close to use those. Didn't go
down in history as the best 20 or 15 mm. And they were a bear to work
on. Subject to high turn jamming, etc.. At least use a success for an
example next time.

>
>
>
>> uses. But because the P-3 is a low wing, they have to put the intake
>> above the prop. The C-130 is a high wing and the intake is below the
>> prop. The big difference? The gearbox and sheet metal.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The visibility problems of the 109 were a function of the canopy
>>>>> design rather than the engine layout. The RAF were rather ahead
>>>>> of the game here retro fitting US manufactured aircraft such as
>>>>> the P-51 and P-47 with high visbility canopies.
>>>>>
>>>>> The P-51B and C aircraft were routinely fitted with plexiglas
>>>>> bubble type canopies long before the USAAF adopted them. Indeed
>>>>> many USAAF P-51B and C's had Malcolm Hoods fitted in Britain
>>>>> before the P-51D arrived.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Again, has nothing to do with the position of the engine.
>>>>
>>>
>>> But a lot to do with the visibility
>>
>> The 109 had one of the worst visibilities out there. If that were a
>> factor, the 109 would have done a better job on the cockpit and
>> fuselage.
>
> No worse than contemporary US fighters and in fact better
> than the original razorback P-47 which had essentially no rear
> visiblity at all. In fact of course the Bf-109 E4 incorporated
> an improved canopy design as a result of the lessons learned
> in the BOB

What improvement? The G still has no reward visibility at all. Just
keep making it up as you go. History still won't change.

daryl