Laser mine detection

[bob urz]

http://www.militaryaerospace.com/articles/2012/04/almds-lrip.html?cmpid=EnlMAEApril112012

bob

[Daryl]

On 4/12/2012 8:51 PM, bob urz wrote:
> http://www.militaryaerospace.com/articles/2012/04/almds-lrip.html?cmpid=EnlMAEApril112012
>
>
> bob

Taliban Mine Detection:

Get a Gentile, tie a rope around them. Throw them forward. Go up to
where they are, throw them again. BOOMMM!!! Get another Gentile.

[a425couple]

"bob urz" <so...@inetnebr.com> wrote in message...
http://www.militaryaerospace.com/articles/2012/04/almds-lrip.html?cmpid=EnlMAEApril112012

"The AN/AES-1 ALMDS electro-optical system, which will be
among the first airborne organic mine countermeasure (OMCM)
systems fielded, is designed to detect, classify, and pinpoint floating
and near-surface moored mines using a light detection and ranging
(LIDAR) imaging sensor attached to the side of a Navy MH-60S helicopter.

The system, which will be part of the mine countermeasures (MCM)
mission package on the new Littoral Combat Ship (LCS)"

Interesting.
Seems like a real advance, if it works as intended!
Yeah, I've crossposted to a relevant ng.

[Bill]

In article <jm9da...@news3.newsguy.com>, a425c...@hotmail.com
says...

It's an expensive solution to a problem people don't have.

I seem to remember that the last time people used mines they just set
them floating down the Arabian Gulf

--
William Black

When you hear the words 'Our people are our greatest asset' then it's
time to leave.

[Dean]

On Apr 13, 10:57 am, Bill <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article <jm9dar12...@news3.newsguy.com>, a425cou...@hotmail.com

> says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "bob urz" <so...@inetnebr.com> wrote in message...

> >http://www.militaryaerospace.com/articles/2012/04/almds-lrip.html?cmp...

>
> > "The AN/AES-1 ALMDS electro-optical  system, which will be
> > among the first airborne organic mine countermeasure (OMCM)
> > systems fielded, is designed to detect, classify, and pinpoint floating
> > and near-surface moored mines using a light detection and ranging
> > (LIDAR) imaging sensor attached to the side of a Navy MH-60S helicopter.
>
> > The system, which will be part of the mine countermeasures (MCM)
> > mission package on the new Littoral Combat Ship (LCS)"
>
> > Interesting.
> > Seems like a real advance, if it works as intended!
> > Yeah, I've crossposted to a relevant ng.
>
> It's an expensive solution to a problem people don't have.
>
> I seem to remember that the last time people used mines they just set
> them floating down the Arabian Gulf
>
> --
> William Black
>
> When you hear the words 'Our people are our greatest asset' then it's
> time to leave.

You don't think mines are a problem?

[Bill]

In article <6df9a28a-3f9d-4b9e-a380-
756fa4...@h5g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>, dama...@gmail.com says...

I know they're a problem.

I just wonder if a solution aimed at large formal tethered minefields is
the correct solution.

[Keith W]

Bill wrote:
> In article <6df9a28a-3f9d-4b9e-a380-
> 756fa4...@h5g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>, dama...@gmail.com says...
>>>

>>> When you hear the words 'Our people are our greatest asset' then
>>> it's time to leave.
>>
>> You don't think mines are a problem?
>
> I know they're a problem.
>
> I just wonder if a solution aimed at large formal tethered minefields
> is the correct solution.

Good job its a bit mor generic than that then isnt it ?

They specifically mention free floating mines of the sort
you pointed out were used in the gulf war.

Keith

[Bill]

In article <A0Yhr.114437$bA2....@fx20.am4>,
keithnosp...@demon.co.uk says...

I understand that this is a new capability and currently unproven.


--
William Black

[Keith W]

Bill wrote:
> In article <A0Yhr.114437$bA2....@fx20.am4>,
> keithnosp...@demon.co.uk says...
>>
>> Bill wrote:
>>> In article <6df9a28a-3f9d-4b9e-a380-
>>> 756fa4...@h5g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>, dama...@gmail.com
>>> says...
>>>>>
>>>>> When you hear the words 'Our people are our greatest asset' then
>>>>> it's time to leave.
>>>>
>>>> You don't think mines are a problem?
>>>
>>> I know they're a problem.
>>>
>>> I just wonder if a solution aimed at large formal tethered
>>> minefields is the correct solution.
>>
>> Good job its a bit mor generic than that then isnt it ?
>>
>> They specifically mention free floating mines of the sort
>> you pointed out were used in the gulf war.
>
> I understand that this is a new capability and currently unproven.

New techniques usually are, we are fortunate that those in charge
of British air defence in the 1930's were prepared to rely on
new and unproven technologies such as RDF.

Keith

[Dean]

On Apr 13, 12:25 pm, Bill <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article <A0Yhr.114437$bA2.53...@fx20.am4>,
> keithnospoofsple...@demon.co.uk says...

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Bill wrote:
> > > In article <6df9a28a-3f9d-4b9e-a380-

> > > 756fa4ac1...@h5g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>, damark...@gmail.com says...

>
> > >>> When you hear the words 'Our people are our greatest asset' then
> > >>> it's time to leave.
>
> > >> You don't think mines are a problem?
>
> > > I know they're a problem.
>
> > > I just wonder if a solution aimed at large formal tethered minefields
> > > is the correct solution.
>
> > Good job its a bit mor generic than that then isnt it ?
>
> > They specifically mention free floating mines of the sort
> > you pointed out were used in the gulf war.
>
> I understand that this is a new capability and currently unproven.
>
> --
> William Black
>
> When you hear the words 'Our people are our greatest asset' then it's
> time to leave.

Its a capability that sounds a heck of a lot better than using the old
proverb "any ship can be a minesweeper...once".

[Vaughn]

On 4/13/2012 10:57 AM, Bill wrote:

> It's an expensive solution to a problem people don't have.
>
> I seem to remember that the last time people used mines they just set
> them floating down the Arabian Gulf

So as long as we are properly equipped to fight our last war, we should
be OK. Right?

Vaughn

[Dan]

It worked for the French in WW2.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[a425couple]

"Dan" <B24...@aol.com> wrote in message...

> On 4/13/2012 2:13 PM, Vaughn wrote:
>> So as long as we are properly equipped to fight our last war, we should
>> be OK. Right?
>>

> It worked for the French in WW2.

Yes, it did.
At the end of the war they were on the winning side,
given great seats at all the treaty orgs. and had
suffered very few deaths.
(However,,, I'm not sure I'd bet on that practice working!)

[Dan]

Then again, some things work thrice. Think of Ardennes in WW1 and
WW2. Of course that isn't fighting the last war. OK, how about
stocking up on Me109? I understand from a certain little lady it's the
greatest fighter ever built.

[mike]

On Apr 13, 2:50 pm, Dan <B24...@aol.com> wrote:

>    It worked for the French in WW2.
>

They forgot the lesson on expecting the Belgian Forts & Army to hold a
Flank

**
mike
**

[Andrew Swallow]

On 13/04/2012 19:31, Dean wrote:
{snip}

>
> Its a capability that sounds a heck of a lot better than using the old
> proverb "any ship can be a minesweeper...once".

To clear a hole in the minefield we can send cheap remote controlled
hulls ahead of the fleet. No need for the suicide ships to have either
crew accommodation or weapons.

Andrew Swallow

[Dan]

Or use a helicopter towed sweep.

[Daryl]

Actually, from 1935 to early 1942, over the Continental Europe, it was.
Same goes for the Med. Just like, over Britain, the Spit and the
Hurri were the best made that same time period. Until the US started to
introduce their own brand of Fighters, that is starting in middle 1942
and on. The Germans should have completely stopped with the 109 tom
foolery and started to produce the 190 instead solely. But they hung in
there with what brought them to the dance. Lucky for Us.

[Dean]

Isn't that the essence of the LCS with a mine warfare mission module?

[Dean]

Just why did they do that?

[Keith W]

Because to do otherwise would have been suicidal.

You cannot just flip a switch and have a factory producing FW-190's
instead of Me-109's without considerable disruption. By 1943 the
Luftwaffe was already on the wrong side of the production/loss curve.

Switching to Fw-190's when there was a desperate need for new aircraft
simply was not an option when doing so would cost many months
of production. The Me-109 G and K while not quite up to the
standards of the P-51 and Tempest were still formidable adversaries
and matched anything that the Russians could produce until 1944.

In the west we tend to forget that 3/4 of all Wehrmacht casualties were
inflicted
on the eastern front and until 1943 the Luftwaffe was able to hold its own
on
that front.

Keith

[Jim Wilkins]

"Dean" <dama...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:db159e21-2995-46f0...@d4g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...

-Just why did they do that?

IIRC Hartmann preferred the 109's centrally mounted, parallel
trajectory guns since he liked to fly very close behind the enemy,
well inside the convergence zone of wing-mounted guns. I've seen
complaints that the 20mm cannon in a 190's wing roots would misfeed or
jam when turning hard to follow a fighter.

Of course officially everything German worked perfectly. The
grumblings in pilots' memoirs didn't include details of why things
malfunctioned; they likely didn't know or care themselves.

The Springfield Armory museum has a high speed camera film of
full-auto cartridge feeding in an M-14(?). After they spring out of
the mag the cartridges bounce around -much- more than you might
expect.

jsw

[a425couple]

"Keith W" <keithnosp...@demon.co.uk> wrote in message...
> Dean wrote:
>> Daryl <dh...@tvnospammoviesforfree.com> wrote:

>>> Dan wrote:
>>>> a425couple wrote:
>>>>> "Dan" <B24...@aol.com> wrote in message...
>>>>>> On 4/13/2012 2:13 PM, Vaughn wrote:
>>>>>>> So as long as we are properly equipped to fight our last war, we
>>>>>>> should be OK. Right?
>

> In the west we tend to forget that 3/4 of all Wehrmacht casualties were
> inflicted on the eastern front and until 1943 the Luftwaffe was
> able to hold its own on that front.

Do you have easy access to, what percentage of
total war Luftwaffe loses were on East vrs West front?

[Daryl]

I sense a huge contradiction in your writing. You start out refuting
what I stated and then you go into a supporting argument. Until 1942,
the Luftwaffe held it's own on ALL fronts. In 1943, they lost their air
superiority in the Med when enough of P-38s had finally arrived to make
the fight over Germany's real estate in the Med instead of always over
the Brits. In 1943, the real heavies hit that started doing the same
over Europe. By early 1944, they took the fight to the Luftwaffe
through superior Aircraft, Tactics, Training and shear numbers. The 11
to 1 in the Luftwaffe reversed in early 1944 to the Allies advantage.
In 1942, the Luftwaffe outnumbered any other front in Fighters. But
young Americans and insane Soviets started changing the tide in 1943.

In 1942, the Germans WERE winning. This is why D-Day was so important
to the Soviets. They knew they couldn't do it by themselves. A third
front had to be opened up. The Germans knew this as well and had to
keep forces on the Atlantic just in case. It wasn't until early 1943
that the attrition became so bad and it just got worse. In 1942, they
could have changed from the 109 to the 190 production and made it work.

Your idea that they would have to "Flip a Switch" is silly. Within a
few weeks, the change could have been made. How long did it take to get
the P-51B from idea to production? How many days did it take to get the
P-80 from conception to flying? In 1942 and prior, the Germans were
very capable of doing the same thing. And changing from one AC to
another for production is much easier and faster than going from
conception. Take a good look at the B-24 Factories in the US that were
converted from other AC in a matter of just a few weeks. And the
Germans were very good at that until they had heavy bombers overhead in
the daytime and nighttime starting in 1943.

So thank you for supporting my argument (well, the last part of your
conversation anyway). Sort of reminds me of the old, "Stop hitting
yourself" routine.

[I Think]

Dan wrote:
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, Coward anonymous, with big mouth

yep
;-)

[Keith W]

Then you havent read it carefully enough

> You start out refuting
> what I stated

I pointed out the reason why the Germans didnt stop producing
Me-109's.

> and then you go into a supporting argument. Until 1942,
> the Luftwaffe held it's own on ALL fronts.

This is incorrect. They lost over Britain in 1940 and in North Africa
by August 1942 the Desert Air Force had gained the upper hand and were
able to inflict heavy losses on Rommels forces.

> In 1943, they lost their
> air superiority in the Med when enough of P-38s had finally arrived
> to make the fight over Germany's real estate in the Med instead of
> always over the Brits.

The P-38's certainly played a part but the USAAF was also using
significant numbers of P-40's, Spitfires and Beaufighters. There
simply were not enough P-38's to go round. The Commonwealth
Air forces played a major part in gaining air superiority in the
MTO as well.

> In 1943, the real heavies hit that started
> doing the same over Europe. By early 1944, they took the fight to
> the Luftwaffe through superior Aircraft, Tactics, Training and shear
> numbers. The 11 to 1 in the Luftwaffe reversed in early 1944 to the
> Allies advantage. In 1942, the Luftwaffe outnumbered any other front
> in Fighters. But young Americans and insane Soviets started changing
> the tide in 1943.

The RAF started that process in 1940, the Commonwealth air crews
from India, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Britain were busily
at work from 1941 through 1942 in the desert and over northern France.

By 1942 UK air space was a no go area for the Luftwaffe and the
Desert Air Force were busily tank busting.

> In 1942, the Germans WERE winning. This is why D-Day was so important
> to the Soviets. They knew they couldn't do it by themselves.

By June 1944 they had stopped the Wehrmacht cold at Kursk
and were pushing the Germans out of the USSR. By August 1944
the Red Army was approaching the borders of East Prussia and
had effectively destroyed German Army Group Centre.

Operation Bagration killed , wounded or captured over 400,000
German troops, 2000 tanks and 57,000 other vehicles.

> A third
> front had to be opened up. The Germans knew this as well and had to
> keep forces on the Atlantic just in case. It wasn't until early 1943
> that the attrition became so bad and it just got worse. In 1942, they
> could have changed from the 109 to the 190 production and made it
> work.

Well no, for one thing the Fw-190A used the BMW 801 engine
and there were simply not enough to go round. Total production
during WW2 was around 28,000 and they were used in the
Ju-88/188 as well as the Ju-290/390 and the Do-217

In 1943 and 1944 the Germans built over 20,000 109's

> Your idea that they would have to "Flip a Switch" is silly.

Actually my point is that it does NOT just involve flipping a
switch. The production line needs extensive re-tooling and the
workforce needs retraining

> Within a
> few weeks, the change could have been made. How long did it take to
> get the P-51B from idea to production?

Lets look at that shall we

Mustang I ordered by British in 1940
First delivered to the RAF in Oct 1941 - 4 diverted to USAAF
First delivery to USAAF (as A-36 Apache) March 1943
who used it in the MTO in the ground attack role

August 1942 the British fit a Merlin to the Mustang and invite
the USAAF to witness the trials, the first order for 400 P-52B's
is placed

Early 1943 Merlin engine and air frame production is priortised
at the Inglewood Aircraft factory

First P-51B flies May 5 1943
First aircraft arrive in Britain October 1943

So we have over a year between the order being placed
and first few hundred aircraft entering service with the Americans
having much more industrial capacity than Germany without the
disadvantage of being bombed around the clock

> How many days did it take to
> get the P-80 from conception to flying?

The real question is how long did it take to get it into
service. The answer is over 2 years between the
order in spring 1943 and the first 87 production aircraft
being delivered in August 1945.

Keith

[Dan]

Give it up, quinn, you have already lost any trace of whatever
integrity you might have once had.

[Daryl]

I read it well enough. You argued with yourself a bit.

>
>> You start out refuting
>> what I stated
>
> I pointed out the reason why the Germans didnt stop producing
> Me-109's.

And I find your reasoning flawed.

>
>
>> and then you go into a supporting argument. Until 1942,
>> the Luftwaffe held it's own on ALL fronts.
>
> This is incorrect. They lost over Britain in 1940 and in North Africa
> by August 1942 the Desert Air Force had gained the upper hand and were
> able to inflict heavy losses on Rommels forces.

I already stated that the Spit and Hurri (in 1940 to 1942 over
Britain) was the best. But the couldn't stray too far into
greater Europe due to any number of reasons. The #1 reason was
that they didn't have the fuel and range. The #2 reasons is that
they would be severely outnumbered over France.

>
>> In 1943, they lost their
>> air superiority in the Med when enough of P-38s had finally arrived
>> to make the fight over Germany's real estate in the Med instead of
>> always over the Brits.
>
> The P-38's certainly played a part but the USAAF was also using
> significant numbers of P-40's, Spitfires and Beaufighters. There
> simply were not enough P-38's to go round. The Commonwealth
> Air forces played a major part in gaining air superiority in the
> MTO as well.

Until the P-38 came onto the scene, the P-40 was trying to take
it to them but it lacked the range. It just had better range
than the Spits and Hurris did. Like the 109, the Spits and the
Hurris were wonderful for a defense Fighter but not as a
penetration fighter. Plus, they were severely outnumbered at
first. 1941 to 1942 was not a real good year for the Spit and
Hurri. The Spit, later on, became a rather decent platform.

>
>
>> In 1943, the real heavies hit that started
>> doing the same over Europe. By early 1944, they took the fight to
>> the Luftwaffe through superior Aircraft, Tactics, Training and shear
>> numbers. The 11 to 1 in the Luftwaffe reversed in early 1944 to the
>> Allies advantage. In 1942, the Luftwaffe outnumbered any other front
>> in Fighters. But young Americans and insane Soviets started changing
>> the tide in 1943.
>
> The RAF started that process in 1940, the Commonwealth air crews
> from India, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Britain were busily
> at work from 1941 through 1942 in the desert and over northern France.

Over Britain. It wasn't the number of fighters, it was the
ability of the Brits to recover and relaunch pilots. Usually, in
the same day after they got shot down. The Germans had many more
fighters but only so many Pilots. They didn't have the luxury of
being able to recover pilots that well during the BoB like
Britain did. Usually, the recovered Luftwaffe Pilot was
recovered by the Brits and facing the next 5 years or more in a
POW camp.

>
> By 1942 UK air space was a no go area for the Luftwaffe and the
> Desert Air Force were busily tank busting.

Not from the lack of Luftwaffe Fighters. It was the fact that
the Brits rebuilt hard during 1940 and on right after Dunkirk.
It surprised the daylights out of the Germans who didn't think
the Brits would have much of a Defense. In a heads up, even
battle, the Luftwaffe would have kicked the Brits butt in the sky
but due to the range limits of the fighter cover (usually, a
Luftwaffe 109 only had a 10 minute window for combat). The Spit
had the same problem over France. Now, take that away from both
sides and there is no doubt in my mind that the Brits would have
been defeated soundly.

>
>> In 1942, the Germans WERE winning. This is why D-Day was so important
>> to the Soviets. They knew they couldn't do it by themselves.
>
> By June 1944 they had stopped the Wehrmacht cold at Kursk
> and were pushing the Germans out of the USSR. By August 1944
> the Red Army was approaching the borders of East Prussia and
> had effectively destroyed German Army Group Centre.
>
> Operation Bagration killed , wounded or captured over 400,000
> German troops, 2000 tanks and 57,000 other vehicles.

At what cost to the Soviets to get to that point? Most countries
would have surrendered. But not Stalin. It wasn't him that was
fighting, bleeding and dying. Then again, the life of a Slav
under the Germans would have been another hell on earth. Guess
they didn't have much choice.

>
>
>> A third
>> front had to be opened up. The Germans knew this as well and had to
>> keep forces on the Atlantic just in case. It wasn't until early 1943
>> that the attrition became so bad and it just got worse. In 1942, they
>> could have changed from the 109 to the 190 production and made it
>> work.
>
> Well no, for one thing the Fw-190A used the BMW 801 engine
> and there were simply not enough to go round. Total production
> during WW2 was around 28,000 and they were used in the
> Ju-88/188 as well as the Ju-290/390 and the Do-217

And only BMW made it. By dumping the 109 (which I find as an
inferior AC to the 190) they could have expanded the
manufacturing of both the fighter and the engines. Take a page
out of the US War Manufacturing. If you can make a car or a
blender you can do War Equipment Manufacturing.

>
> In 1943 and 1944 the Germans built over 20,000 109's

And they could have built almost that many 190s.

>
>
>> Your idea that they would have to "Flip a Switch" is silly.
>
> Actually my point is that it does NOT just involve flipping a
> switch. The production line needs extensive re-tooling and the
> workforce needs retraining

The US did it every day. Ford, GM, Chrysler, GE, Packard, Allis
Chalmers, etc.. Most were Car, Truck and Farm Tractor
manufacturers yet they made tanks, fighters, bombers, and any
number of other war materials. Using the assembly line method,
you would have a string of cars coming out with a slight pause
and a War Machine would come out the same door. That slight
pause might be only 1 to 2 weeks.

>
>> Within a
>> few weeks, the change could have been made. How long did it take to
>> get the P-51B from idea to production?
>
> Lets look at that shall we
>
> Mustang I ordered by British in 1940
> First delivered to the RAF in Oct 1941 - 4 diverted to USAAF
> First delivery to USAAF (as A-36 Apache) March 1943
> who used it in the MTO in the ground attack role
>
> August 1942 the British fit a Merlin to the Mustang and invite
> the USAAF to witness the trials, the first order for 400 P-52B's
> is placed
>
> Early 1943 Merlin engine and air frame production is priortised
> at the Inglewood Aircraft factory
>
> First P-51B flies May 5 1943
> First aircraft arrive in Britain October 1943
>
> So we have over a year between the order being placed
> and first few hundred aircraft entering service with the Americans
> having much more industrial capacity than Germany without the
> disadvantage of being bombed around the clock

The P-51A and the P-51B/C were almost a completely different
aircraft. So start with when Packard Bell began manufacturing
the Merlin for the new P-51B. It's all done in very short order
and a lot of US manufacturers were involved in the retooling and
tooling to produce it.

>
>
>> How many days did it take to
>> get the P-80 from conception to flying?
>
> The real question is how long did it take to get it into
> service. The answer is over 2 years between the
> order in spring 1943 and the first 87 production aircraft
> being delivered in August 1945.

In 1944, it was already over the skies of Britain. It just
wasn't needed. Now start loading bombs on the AR-234s and find
out just how fast they start being a war asset. Like the Spit
and Hurri, the P-80 had yet to have the range to be much use in
the ETO. Then again, I haven't heard of a single 262 that was
fighting over Britain either for much the same reasons. This is
probably the only reason the P-80 and the 262 never met in battle.

The point here is, if the Germans had stopped with the production
of the inferior 109 and geared up heavily for the 190 (a much
more competent fighter) The P-51B/C and the P-38H+ would have had
a lot more problems. Like the P-47, the 190 was hell to knock
down. The 109 was easy once you got a bead on him.


--
http://tvmoviesforfree.com
for free movies and Nostalgic TV. Tons of Military shows and
programs.

[Steve Hix]

In article <dZidnT2TKPxeABTS...@supernews.com>,

No, you don't.

[Dean]

Thanks Keith!

[Keith W]

Daryl wrote:
> On 4/14/2012 10:36 AM, Keith W wrote:
>>
>> Well no, for one thing the Fw-190A used the BMW 801 engine
>> and there were simply not enough to go round. Total production
>> during WW2 was around 28,000 and they were used in the
>> Ju-88/188 as well as the Ju-290/390 and the Do-217
>
> And only BMW made it.

Well now thats not quite true, the Germans farmed out production just
as did the Americans and British

By dumping the 109 (which I find as an
> inferior AC to the 190) they could have expanded the
> manufacturing of both the fighter and the engines. Take a page
> out of the US War Manufacturing. If you can make a car or a
> blender you can do War Equipment Manufacturing.
>
>>
>> In 1943 and 1944 the Germans built over 20,000 109's
>
> And they could have built almost that many 190s.
>
>
>>
>>
>>> Your idea that they would have to "Flip a Switch" is silly.
>>
>> Actually my point is that it does NOT just involve flipping a
>> switch. The production line needs extensive re-tooling and the
>> workforce needs retraining
>
> The US did it every day. Ford, GM, Chrysler, GE, Packard, Allis
> Chalmers, etc.. Most were Car, Truck and Farm Tractor
> manufacturers yet they made tanks, fighters, bombers, and any
> number of other war materials. Using the assembly line method,
> you would have a string of cars coming out with a slight pause
> and a War Machine would come out the same door. That slight
> pause might be only 1 to 2 weeks.
>

Baloney squared

Consider the example of the FM Wildcat built by General Motors.
The contract to build 1800 aircraft was awarded in 1942 but
production difficulties took months to sort out

>
>>
>>> Within a
>>> few weeks, the change could have been made. How long did it take to
>>> get the P-51B from idea to production?
>>
>> Lets look at that shall we
>>
>> Mustang I ordered by British in 1940
>> First delivered to the RAF in Oct 1941 - 4 diverted to USAAF
>> First delivery to USAAF (as A-36 Apache) March 1943
>> who used it in the MTO in the ground attack role
>>
>> August 1942 the British fit a Merlin to the Mustang and invite
>> the USAAF to witness the trials, the first order for 400 P-52B's
>> is placed
>>
>> Early 1943 Merlin engine and air frame production is priortised
>> at the Inglewood Aircraft factory
>>
>> First P-51B flies May 5 1943
>> First aircraft arrive in Britain October 1943
>>
>> So we have over a year between the order being placed
>> and first few hundred aircraft entering service with the Americans
>> having much more industrial capacity than Germany without the
>> disadvantage of being bombed around the clock
>
> The P-51A and the P-51B/C were almost a completely different
> aircraft.

No they were fundamentally the same

> So start with when Packard Bell began manufacturing
> the Merlin for the new P-51B.

If you insist here is the timeline

Packard were awarded the contract to build Merlins - Sept 1940
First Packard built engine runs in Augusr 1942
Full production starts in 1942

> It's all done in very short order

Best part of two years

Keith

[Daryl]

On 4/14/2012 4:34 PM, Keith W wrote:
> Daryl wrote:
>> On 4/14/2012 10:36 AM, Keith W wrote:
>>>
>>> Well no, for one thing the Fw-190A used the BMW 801 engine
>>> and there were simply not enough to go round. Total production
>>> during WW2 was around 28,000 and they were used in the
>>> Ju-88/188 as well as the Ju-290/390 and the Do-217
>>
>> And only BMW made it.
>
> Well now thats not quite true, the Germans farmed out production just
> as did the Americans and British

Then it could have expanded if needed. Funny how that works.
Your story only fits if only BMW were the manufacturer.

>
> By dumping the 109 (which I find as an
>> inferior AC to the 190) they could have expanded the
>> manufacturing of both the fighter and the engines. Take a page
>> out of the US War Manufacturing. If you can make a car or a
>> blender you can do War Equipment Manufacturing.
>>
>>>
>>> In 1943 and 1944 the Germans built over 20,000 109's
>>
>> And they could have built almost that many 190s.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Your idea that they would have to "Flip a Switch" is silly.
>>>
>>> Actually my point is that it does NOT just involve flipping a
>>> switch. The production line needs extensive re-tooling and the
>>> workforce needs retraining
>>
>> The US did it every day. Ford, GM, Chrysler, GE, Packard, Allis
>> Chalmers, etc.. Most were Car, Truck and Farm Tractor
>> manufacturers yet they made tanks, fighters, bombers, and any
>> number of other war materials. Using the assembly line method,
>> you would have a string of cars coming out with a slight pause
>> and a War Machine would come out the same door. That slight
>> pause might be only 1 to 2 weeks.
>>
>
> Baloney squared

Reality doesn't seem to fit with your argument. Imagine that.

>
> Consider the example of the FM Wildcat built by General Motors.
> The contract to build 1800 aircraft was awarded in 1942 but
> production difficulties took months to sort out

Yet the P-51B/C both went without a hitch. The Contract for the
F6F was awarded in 30 June 1941 . Your info is pure BS. The
Prototype flew in June, 1942. The First Production model flew in
October 1942. It was in service as VF-9 on USS Essex in
February 1943
but didn't see action against the Japanese until Sep 1943. You
just don't throw the F4F away because you can get the F6F. From
Prototype to Service, it's only 8 months. From contract award to
Service is 1 year, 6 months.

You need to reread your info. Your figures are off.

>
>>
>>>
>>>> Within a
>>>> few weeks, the change could have been made. How long did it take to
>>>> get the P-51B from idea to production?
>>>
>>> Lets look at that shall we
>>>
>>> Mustang I ordered by British in 1940
>>> First delivered to the RAF in Oct 1941 - 4 diverted to USAAF
>>> First delivery to USAAF (as A-36 Apache) March 1943
>>> who used it in the MTO in the ground attack role
>>>
>>> August 1942 the British fit a Merlin to the Mustang and invite
>>> the USAAF to witness the trials, the first order for 400 P-52B's
>>> is placed
>>>
>>> Early 1943 Merlin engine and air frame production is priortised
>>> at the Inglewood Aircraft factory
>>>
>>> First P-51B flies May 5 1943
>>> First aircraft arrive in Britain October 1943
>>>
>>> So we have over a year between the order being placed
>>> and first few hundred aircraft entering service with the Americans
>>> having much more industrial capacity than Germany without the
>>> disadvantage of being bombed around the clock
>>
>> The P-51A and the P-51B/C were almost a completely different
>> aircraft.
>
> No they were fundamentally the same

They were different enough that one was called the Mustang and
the other was renamed Mustang II.

>
>> So start with when Packard Bell began manufacturing
>> the Merlin for the new P-51B.
>
> If you insist here is the timeline
>
> Packard were awarded the contract to build Merlins - Sept 1940
> First Packard built engine runs in Augusr 1942
> Full production starts in 1942
>
>
>> It's all done in very short order
>
> Best part of two years

No Aircraft to put them in except British Birds. There were no
Mustang II aircraft in 1942. Wonder where they wen to in 1942?
Like many other things, the US made quite a few war materials
used by the Brits.

Production on the P-51B didn't start until the middle of 1943 and
the P-51C started 1 month after that. BTW, it wasn't the Brits
who came up with the idea of mounting the Merlin to the P-51.
Even before they requested it, North American was already working
on it. This is why the Prototype came out so quickly. The B/C
went from tooling up to In Service in a matter of 3 months.

It wasn't the allison engine that was the weak point in the
P-51A, it was the lack of a turbosupercharger like the P-38 used.
There just wasn't enough of the exotic materials available for
it to get it's own design. They did test a P-40 allison with a
special built TS and it outperformed the Spit. No, there was
nothing wrong with the allison engine at all. In fact, at high
altitude with a TS, it outperformed the Merlin hands down.

The engine already existed. They modified the P-51 to use it.
Enough Mods were done, they changed it's name. It was no longer
the same Aircraft. Had they taken a bone stock P-51A and put it
into production with the merlin (or even a TS Allison) it would
have been ripped apart.

[Keith W]

TYour aversion to reality is well known

>>
>> Consider the example of the FM Wildcat built by General Motors.
>> The contract to build 1800 aircraft was awarded in 1942 but
>> production difficulties took months to sort out
>
> Yet the P-51B/C both went without a hitch.

And took 18 months from award to the first aircraft in servuce

> The Contract for the
> F6F was awarded in 30 June 1941 . Your info is pure BS. The
> Prototype flew in June, 1942. The First Production model flew in
> October 1942. It was in service as VF-9 on USS Essex in
> February 1943
> but didn't see action against the Japanese until Sep 1943.

This is rather more than 2 years

> You
> just don't throw the F4F away because you can get the F6F.

Yet you want the Germans to stop producing the Me-109

> From
> Prototype to Service, it's only 8 months. From contract award to
> Service is 1 year, 6 months.
>

Germany didnt have 18 months

Oh please, Mustang amd Mustang II were BRITISH designations like
Spitfire I and Spitfore II

>
>>
>>> So start with when Packard Bell began manufacturing
>>> the Merlin for the new P-51B.
>>
>> If you insist here is the timeline
>>
>> Packard were awarded the contract to build Merlins - Sept 1940
>> First Packard built engine runs in Augusr 1942
>> Full production starts in 1942
>>
>>
>>> It's all done in very short order
>>
>> Best part of two years
>
> No Aircraft to put them in except British Birds. There were no
> Mustang II aircraft in 1942. Wonder where they wen to in 1942?
> Like many other things, the US made quite a few war materials
> used by the Brits.
>

And the USAAF which was using Spitfires in 1942. They were
supplied under reverse lend lease because the P-40 and P-39
couldnt cit the mustard and the P-38 wasnt available in the
numbers needed

> Production on the P-51B didn't start until the middle of 1943 and
> the P-51C started 1 month after that.

The order was placed in 1942 - thanks for agreeing with me.

> BTW, it wasn't the Brits
> who came up with the idea of mounting the Merlin to the P-51.
> Even before they requested it, North American was already working
> on it.

See
http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/p51_8.html

> This is why the Prototype came out so quickly. The B/C
> went from tooling up to In Service in a matter of 3 months.
>

The upgrade from B to C was minor

> It wasn't the allison engine that was the weak point in the
> P-51A, it was the lack of a turbosupercharger like the P-38 used.
> There just wasn't enough of the exotic materials available for
> it to get it's own design. They did test a P-40 allison with a
> special built TS and it outperformed the Spit. No, there was
> nothing wrong with the allison engine at all. In fact, at high
> altitude with a TS, it outperformed the Merlin hands down.
>

Yet the USAAF didnt produce it for the P-51

> The engine already existed. They modified the P-51 to use it.

No shit Sherlock

> Enough Mods were done, they changed it's name. It was no longer
> the same Aircraft. Had they taken a bone stock P-51A and put it
> into production with the merlin (or even a TS Allison) it would
> have been ripped apart.

Bullshit , the aircraft fitted with Merlins by RR were stock Mustang I's

<Quote>
This conversion was authorized on August 12, 1942. Initially, three Mustang
Is were allocated to the program, but two more were added later. Their RAF
serials were AM121, AM208, AL975, AM203, and AL963. They were assigned the
designation Mustang X. No two of these Mustang Xs were exactly alike, but
they all featured small chin-type radiators mounted underneath the engine,
all had four-bladed propellers to absorb the extra engine power, and they
were all powered by the Merlin 65, which in comparison with the Merlin 66
had a lower full-throttle height but gave higher power at lower altitudes.
In comparison to the Allison V-1710, it was 205 hp more powerful at 20,000
feet and 490 hp more powerful at 25,000 feet. The first Mustang X (AL975)
took to the air on October 12, 1942, piloted by Captain R. T. Shepherd. It
initially had a regular Spitfire IX Rotol propeller but was later fitted
with a lerger specially-designed propeller. AL963 flew for the first time on
November 13, 1942, and AM121 followed on December 13. AM121 went to the AFDU
at Duxford for service evaluation. The fourth and fifth were evaluated by
the USAAF in full USAAF markings. These Mustang Xs were to be kept busy
throughout the rest of the war, testing various later marks of the Merlin
engine.

The performance of these re-engined aircraft was excellent, with maximum
speed obtained at Boscombe Down being 433 mph at 22,000 feet. However, the
yaw stability was degraded by the increased side area of the nose. The
success of these tests led Rolls Royce to propose the production of 500
Merlin 65 engines to re-engine most of the RAF's Mustang fleet to Mark X
standards. However, there was no place where these conversions could be
done, and such plans were never carried out.

</Quote>



Keith

[Daryl]

You can stop story telling any time.

>
>>>
>>> Consider the example of the FM Wildcat built by General Motors.
>>> The contract to build 1800 aircraft was awarded in 1942 but
>>> production difficulties took months to sort out
>>
>> Yet the P-51B/C both went without a hitch.
>
> And took 18 months from award to the first aircraft in servuce

The idea from Britain for the Merlin Powered version was done in
April 1942. Since it had a huge increase in power at altitude,
it had to be redesigned from the ground up. Yes, the first
versions were based on the A-36 with PB engines but there are
enough changes in the airframe to make it a completely different
AC, hence the name change. Until the XP-51B, it was a
lightweight fighter. It was no longer considered a lightweight
fighter when the B rolled off the line. Look at a picture of an
A-36/P-51A and you will see quite a few external differences.
Underneath, it's a completely different AC. It didn't take 18
months to go from the A-36/P-51B. It did take a 17 months. But
considering it was essentially a brand new AC, 17 months is very
short from concept (Denny's Napkin) to full Production. At 18
months, it was already seeing service.

>
>
>> The Contract for the
>> F6F was awarded in 30 June 1941 . Your info is pure BS. The
>> Prototype flew in June, 1942. The First Production model flew in
>> October 1942. It was in service as VF-9 on USS Essex in
>> February 1943
>> but didn't see action against the Japanese until Sep 1943.
>
> This is rather more than 2 years

And this is too long for you? It turned the Zero and others into
sinking scrap heaps without any real mods after it was introduced.

>
>> You
>> just don't throw the F4F away because you can get the F6F.
>
> Yet you want the Germans to stop producing the Me-109

Give it a break. You are just trolling on this one. Stopping
production isn't the same as getting rid of them. The way the
F4F was gotten rid of so the F6F could replace them was through
attrition. The Brits and the US would have taken care of the
attrition of the 109 quite nicely.

>
>> From
>> Prototype to Service, it's only 8 months. From contract award to
>> Service is 1 year, 6 months.
>>
>
> Germany didnt have 18 months

1939, Prototype 190 flew. Unlike the 109, it could operate from
primitive air fields, didn't ground loop nearly as easy, was
stable laterally, had a time to climb that exceed the 109, etc..
The list of improvements are a mile long.

1940, Preproduction was flown. 28 were built using the new BMW
801 engine.

1941, the first Luftwaffe Unit was formed. There was a lot of
mods made on the early 801 engines but by Oct, 1941, it was
pretty well made stable.

In 1942, they were starting to struggle with the 109. The 190
had already come into it's own. If the change were to be made,
it should have been made in 1941 and Germany had more than 18
months. Like the F4F and the F6F, stop manufacturing the 109 and
wasting those resources in trying to fix an old design. As the
109 is lost, replace it with the 190.

Actually, I got it wrong. The Brit PB powered was called the
Mustang III. So you can go "Please" yourself on this one.

>
>>
>>>
>>>> So start with when Packard Bell began manufacturing
>>>> the Merlin for the new P-51B.
>>>
>>> If you insist here is the timeline
>>>
>>> Packard were awarded the contract to build Merlins - Sept 1940
>>> First Packard built engine runs in Augusr 1942
>>> Full production starts in 1942
>>>
>>>
>>>> It's all done in very short order
>>>
>>> Best part of two years
>>
>> No Aircraft to put them in except British Birds. There were no
>> Mustang II aircraft in 1942. Wonder where they wen to in 1942?
>> Like many other things, the US made quite a few war materials
>> used by the Brits.
>>
>
> And the USAAF which was using Spitfires in 1942. They were
> supplied under reverse lend lease because the P-40 and P-39
> couldnt cit the mustard and the P-38 wasnt available in the
> numbers needed

On that we can agree. That's one in a row. Let's see if we can
keep this trend going.

>
>> Production on the P-51B didn't start until the middle of 1943 and
>> the P-51C started 1 month after that.
>
> The order was placed in 1942 - thanks for agreeing with me.

From a Denny's Napkin in 1942 to full production in September of
1943? That's flying for a time sequence considering the work
involved in completely redesigning MOST of the Aircraft.

>
>> BTW, it wasn't the Brits
>> who came up with the idea of mounting the Merlin to the P-51.
>> Even before they requested it, North American was already working
>> on it.
>
> See
> http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/p51_8.html

True, but at the same time, NA was playing with the idea as well.
This is the Denny's Napkin Stage.

>
>
>> This is why the Prototype came out so quickly. The B/C
>> went from tooling up to In Service in a matter of 3 months.
>>
>
> The upgrade from B to C was minor

The only difference was where they were manufactured. There was
NO difference. The C was made in Inglewood, Ca and the B was
made in Dallas, Tx. The Dallas plant was setup first in
September of 1943 and the Inglewood Plant was set up a month
later. They were identical.

>
>
>> It wasn't the allison engine that was the weak point in the
>> P-51A, it was the lack of a turbosupercharger like the P-38 used.
>> There just wasn't enough of the exotic materials available for
>> it to get it's own design. They did test a P-40 allison with a
>> special built TS and it outperformed the Spit. No, there was
>> nothing wrong with the allison engine at all. In fact, at high
>> altitude with a TS, it outperformed the Merlin hands down.
>>
>
> Yet the USAAF didnt produce it for the P-51

Nope, the materials went to the P-38. Tungsten was in short supply.

>
>> The engine already existed. They modified the P-51 to use it.
>
> No shit Sherlock

And you'll clean it up if you do, Shitlock.

>
>> Enough Mods were done, they changed it's name. It was no longer
>> the same Aircraft. Had they taken a bone stock P-51A and put it
>> into production with the merlin (or even a TS Allison) it would
>> have been ripped apart.
>
> Bullshit , the aircraft fitted with Merlins by RR were stock Mustang I's

The 3 original Test units were. They showed that if you tried to
use the stock P-51A it would destroy the Aircraft. More than one
set of wings were lost in that development.

Had they done this then the P-51 would not have proceeded as well
as it did when it started killing pilots. Unlike the F6F, the
wings on the P-51 were not supposed to fold up. And that is
exactly what was learned. The Airframe couldn't handle the extra
power. It gained weight through strengthening the airframe,
added fuel to the fuselage, etc.. It went from a light fighter
(The P-51A) to a heavy fighter.

They did take it back to the Lightweight Fighter when they
produced the H. But the H could only operate from improved
runways where the BCD could operate from forward bases. When
they moved the P-51s into France, the H stayed in Britain. When
they moved the P-51s into the Pacific, the H stayed home. All
that wonderful performance and no place to use it.

The A model was still a lightweight fighter designed to replace
the P-40, not as a front line heavy fighter like the BCD, P-38
or the P-47. It was fast, very fast but so were they. What can
you say, the B was an entirely different AC that resembled the
A model. Nothing more.




>
>
>
> Keith

[Steve Hix]

In article <5Ymir.159704$nF6....@fx10.am4>,
"Keith W" <keithnosp...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
Daryl escribido:

> > So start with when Packard Bell began manufacturing
> > the Merlin for the new P-51B.

Packard are not Packard Bell. (The latter started in the mid-20s making radios,
not engines. Or cars.)

[Daryl]

My bad. It's my old Computer Geekiness coming through.

[Keith W]

Daryl wrote:
> On 4/14/2012 6:05 PM, Keith W wrote:
>>
>> And took 18 months from award to the first aircraft in servuce
>
> The idea from Britain for the Merlin Powered version was done in
> April 1942. Since it had a huge increase in power at altitude,
> it had to be redesigned from the ground up. Yes, the first
> versions were based on the A-36 with PB engines but there are
> enough changes in the airframe to make it a completely different
> AC, hence the name change.

Wrong. The XP-51B was based on the Mustang IA, the A-36
was a very different aircraft having been reworked as a dive
bomber complete with dive brakes and bomb racks.

> Until the XP-51B, it was a
> lightweight fighter. It was no longer considered a lightweight
> fighter when the B rolled off the line.

The first two XP-51B's were actually modified Mustang IA's
with the serial numbers. 41-37350 and 41-37421.

The modifications involved the following work

Move carburetor air intake from above to below the nose

Add the intercooler radiator was to the radiator group
inside the scoop underneath the rear fuselage,

Modify the matrix and door arrangement of the ventral radiator system
and relocate the oil cooler to the front of the duct

Strengthen the airframes in order to make full use of the increased power
available and fit new ailerons.

Fit a four-bladed Hamilton Standard hydromatic paddle-bladed propeller

> Look at a picture of an
> A-36/P-51A and you will see quite a few external differences.
> Underneath, it's a completely different AC. It didn't take 18
> months to go from the A-36/P-51B. It did take a 17 months. But
> considering it was essentially a brand new AC, 17 months is very
> short from concept (Denny's Napkin) to full Production. At 18
> months, it was already seeing service.
>

Yet you think the Germans could switch factories from producing
Me-109's to FW-190's much quicker !

>
>>
>>
>>> The Contract for the
>>> F6F was awarded in 30 June 1941 . Your info is pure BS. The
>>> Prototype flew in June, 1942. The First Production model flew in
>>> October 1942. It was in service as VF-9 on USS Essex in
>>> February 1943
>>> but didn't see action against the Japanese until Sep 1943.
>>
>> This is rather more than 2 years
>
> And this is too long for you? It turned the Zero and others into
> sinking scrap heaps without any real mods after it was introduced.
>

No its is however too realistic for your fantasy about switching
production overnight from Me-109 to Fw-190

>
>>
>>> You
>>> just don't throw the F4F away because you can get the F6F.
>>
>> Yet you want the Germans to stop producing the Me-109
>
> Give it a break. You are just trolling on this one. Stopping
> production isn't the same as getting rid of them. The way the
> F4F was gotten rid of so the F6F could replace them was through
> attrition. The Brits and the US would have taken care of the
> attrition of the 109 quite nicely.
>

Yet the US continued producing the F-4 Wildcat along with the P-40
and P-39 just as the British continued Hurricane production into
1944.

>
>>
>>> From
>>> Prototype to Service, it's only 8 months. From contract award to
>>> Service is 1 year, 6 months.
>>>
>>
>> Germany didnt have 18 months
>
> 1939, Prototype 190 flew. Unlike the 109, it could operate from
> primitive air fields, didn't ground loop nearly as easy, was
> stable laterally, had a time to climb that exceed the 109, etc..
> The list of improvements are a mile long.
>
> 1940, Preproduction was flown. 28 were built using the new BMW
> 801 engine.
>
> 1941, the first Luftwaffe Unit was formed. There was a lot of
> mods made on the early 801 engines but by Oct, 1941, it was
> pretty well made stable.
>
> In 1942, they were starting to struggle with the 109. The 190
> had already come into it's own. If the change were to be made,
> it should have been made in 1941 and Germany had more than 18
> months. Like the F4F and the F6F, stop manufacturing the 109 and
> wasting those resources in trying to fix an old design. As the
> 109 is lost, replace it with the 190.
>

So now you require the RLM to be prescient as well as able
to switch production overnight

<snip>

>>
>> The upgrade from B to C was minor
>
> The only difference was where they were manufactured. There was
> NO difference.

Actually there were some minor differences, more of the P-51C's got
the extra 85 gallon tank behind the pilot seat for example

> The C was made in Inglewood, Ca and the B was
> made in Dallas, Tx. The Dallas plant was setup first in
> September of 1943 and the Inglewood Plant was set up a month
> later. They were identical.
>
>

Wrong again , it was the B that was produced in Inglewood and the
C in Dallas and Inglewood was already building the P-51A/Mustang IA

>>
>>
>>> It wasn't the allison engine that was the weak point in the
>>> P-51A, it was the lack of a turbosupercharger like the P-38 used.
>>> There just wasn't enough of the exotic materials available for
>>> it to get it's own design. They did test a P-40 allison with a
>>> special built TS and it outperformed the Spit. No, there was
>>> nothing wrong with the allison engine at all. In fact, at high
>>> altitude with a TS, it outperformed the Merlin hands down.
>>>
>>
>> Yet the USAAF didnt produce it for the P-51
>
> Nope, the materials went to the P-38. Tungsten was in short supply.
>

There was also the minor fact that the installation was physically
too large to fit in the airframe without significant modifications
which is one reason why the P-40J was abandoned

>
>>
>>> The engine already existed. They modified the P-51 to use it.
>>
>> No shit Sherlock
>
> And you'll clean it up if you do, Shitlock.
>
>
>>
>>> Enough Mods were done, they changed it's name. It was no longer
>>> the same Aircraft. Had they taken a bone stock P-51A and put it
>>> into production with the merlin (or even a TS Allison) it would
>>> have been ripped apart.
>>
>> Bullshit , the aircraft fitted with Merlins by RR were stock Mustang
>> I's
>
> The 3 original Test units were. They showed that if you tried to
> use the stock P-51A it would destroy the Aircraft. More than one
> set of wings were lost in that development.
>

Cite please

Model - P-51A
Production - 310
Length - 32.25
Height - 12.2
Wingspan - 37.04
Weight - empty - 6433
Weight - normal T.O. - 8600


Model P-51B / P-51C
Production 1988 / 1750
Length 32.25
Height 13.67
Wingspan 37.04
Weight - empty 6985
Weight - normal T.O. 9,800
Weight - max G.W. 11,800

The wing was unchanged, the major difference was increased
tail area and strengthened fuselage to handle the extra power.
The dry weight increase was only 500 lbs. The design and
production modns from the P-51A to P-51B/C were complete
by the end of January 1943, less than three months after the
first flight of the XP-51B.

> They did take it back to the Lightweight Fighter when they
> produced the H. But the H could only operate from improved
> runways where the BCD could operate from forward bases. When
> they moved the P-51s into France, the H stayed in Britain. When
> they moved the P-51s into the Pacific, the H stayed home. All
> that wonderful performance and no place to use it.
>

Model P-51H
Production 555
Length 33.33
Height 13.67
Wingspan 37.04
Weight - empty 7040
Weight - normal T.O. 9,500
Weight - max G.W. 11,500

The H was very different from earlier Mustangs BUT it was HEAVIER
than the P-51B/C and not a lightweight fighter. The reduction in weight
made by using thinner skins and lighter undercarriage was used
to lengthen the fuselage and add the bigger tail to increase directional
stability.

The real lightweight Mustangs were the P-51F/G which never made it into
production.

The reason the P-51H was not used in Europe is very simple, the
war was over before it was in production. The first squadron delivery
didnt happen until late summer 1945.

Keith.

[Daryl]

On 4/15/2012 5:59 AM, Keith W wrote:
> Daryl wrote:
>> On 4/14/2012 6:05 PM, Keith W wrote:
>>>
>>> And took 18 months from award to the first aircraft in servuce
>>
>> The idea from Britain for the Merlin Powered version was done in
>> April 1942. Since it had a huge increase in power at altitude,
>> it had to be redesigned from the ground up. Yes, the first
>> versions were based on the A-36 with PB engines but there are
>> enough changes in the airframe to make it a completely different
>> AC, hence the name change.
>
> Wrong. The XP-51B was based on the Mustang IA, the A-36
> was a very different aircraft having been reworked as a dive
> bomber complete with dive brakes and bomb racks.

Now you are just getting stupid. End of discussion.