Fastest Piston Fighter WWII
Ron Poole
According to Janes two are tied for fastest, the FW-190 TA 152 H and the
Sea Hornet. It gives both a top speed of 472 mph. The Sea Hornet is
credited as being the fastest twin piston engine fighter and the first to
do a cartwheel, later made famous in the Meteor 8 by Zurakowsky. The next
closest was the Sea Fury at 450 mph and the Spit XIV at "over" 450, but
listed at 448. All the restare in the 420/430 range.
Ron Poole
Russ Taylor
In article <4mdkaj$5...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>
co...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Ron Poole) writes:
If I remember correctly, the top speed of the Dornier Do335 Pfeil is
474mph which would make it the fastest piston engine fighter of WWII.
If you consider prototypes which didn't make it into production then
there was a Hawker Fury or Tempest that did close to 490mph, the
Martin-Baker MB-5 was close to 500mph, and the Supermarine
Spiteful/Seafangs topped out between 470-480mph.
Russell D. Taylor, Ph.D.
Post-Doctoral Researcher,
BLAST Support Office,
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
WE ARE...........................................PENN STATE!
Jerrold Goldblatt
In <4mdkaj$5...@freenet-news.carleton.ca> co...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Ron
Poole) writes:
>
>
>According to Janes two are tied for fastest, the FW-190 TA 152 H and
the
>Sea Hornet. It gives both a top speed of 472 mph. The Sea Hornet is
>credited as being the fastest twin piston engine fighter and the first
to
>do a cartwheel, later made famous in the Meteor 8 by Zurakowsky. The
next
>closest was the Sea Fury at 450 mph and the Spit XIV at "over" 450,
but
>listed at 448. All the restare in the 420/430 range.
>
>Ron Poole
I've got to respond to this one. I don't think the sea hornet fought
in World War II so if you count that one then you've got to count the
P-51H and its derrivative the P/F-82. The F-82 flew combat in Korea
and shot down the first three North Korean fighters of the war, all
late model Soviet Piston fighters. The P-82 had two engines as well as
two fuselages. Its top speed was 482 mph. The last time I checked the
number line 487 > 482 > 472. You can quibble over a few combat
missions with the Ta-152 but certainly the F-82 twin Mustang has got to
be the fastest twin engined fighter ever produced.
Regards Jerry Goldblatt
Jerrold Goldblatt
In <4mdkaj$5...@freenet-news.carleton.ca> co...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Ron
Poole) writes:
>
>
>According to Janes two are tied for fastest, the FW-190 TA 152 H and
the
>Sea Hornet. It gives both a top speed of 472 mph. The Sea Hornet is
>credited as being the fastest twin piston engine fighter and the first
to
>do a cartwheel, later made famous in the Meteor 8 by Zurakowsky. The
next
>closest was the Sea Fury at 450 mph and the Spit XIV at "over" 450,
but
>listed at 448. All the restare in the 420/430 range.
>
>Ron Poole
Ron:
I also noticed that Jane's missed the boat on a couple other aircraft
as well. F-4U-4 at 450 mph, F-4U-5 (post war) 470 mph, F-7F Tigercat
(twin engined and flew a little combat at the end of WWII) at 445 mph.
The obvious miss is the P-51D at 437 mph.
Regards Jerry Goldblatt
Dirk Lorek
Strange that nobody in this very long thread has mentioned the Me 209
(Mw 109 R if you wish).
Worldrecord 1939 with 755 km/h, witnessed by the FAI.
Trivia: what plane broke its world record where and when ?
Chris E. Becht
Dirk Lorek (DiL...@pobox.com) wrote:
: Strange that nobody in this very long thread has mentioned the Me 209
: (Mw 109 R if you wish).
: Worldrecord 1939 with 755 km/h, witnessed by the FAI.
: Trivia: what plane broke its world record where and when ?
A modified F8 Bearcat flown by Daryl Greenemeyer in 1969.
The 209 took the record from a modified He100 (only mildly
modified as such things go- mostly a short wing with tiny radiators) that
had set the record, a few km/h slower, about 2 weeks before. Heinkel was
ready to retake it, but was forbidden to (Messerschmidt was a good little
Nazi, Heinkel was not. Gott sie dank)
--
Life is like a cow.
You get out of it what you put in. cali...@crl.com
But, umm... different somehow.
Edward French
jerry,
who made the engine for p-51 mustang? pratt & whitney? if true, i ask
what happened to p&w?
--
hug the day
Jerrold Goldblatt
In <318BBB...@pobox.com> Dirk Lorek <DiL...@pobox.com> writes:
>
>Strange that nobody in this very long thread has mentioned the Me 209
>(Mw 109 R if you wish).
>
>Worldrecord 1939 with 755 km/h, witnessed by the FAI.
>
>Trivia: what plane broke its world record where and when ?
I think the Meteor IV but I don't know where.
Regards Jerry Goldblatt
Mike Dale
According to the article in "Air Enthusiast" No. 59, September/October
1995 on "MARTIN-BAKER'S AEROPLANES", the Martin-Baker MB.5 had a maximum
speed of 460mph/740km/h. which would make it not quite as fast as some
other aircraft mentioned in this thread. BTW, this is a very interesting
and informative article for anyone interested in these somewhat
mysterious aircraft, including a great cutaway of the MB.5.
Mike
Bev Clark/Steve Gallacci
while the Ta152 was fast (and while I hadn't though about effective
airspeed at altitude, I can see where it would apply) its mission was
high altitude intercept of bombers, specifically the B-29, of which the
Germans were terrified of, becuase they didn't otherwise have a good high
alt. interceptor. (except the Me262, and while it would have been a
nautural for '29 intercept, I've never heard that considered).
MetaJohn
In article <postar-0505...@philly310.voicenet.com>,
pos...@voicenet.com (Edward French) writes:
>jerry,
>who made the engine for p-51 mustang? pratt & whitney? if true, i ask
>what happened to p&w?
Is this a troll?? P&W never made any, to my knowledge, high performance
in-line/or Vee/or X/or H liquid-cooled engines in WWII era or afterwards!!
Rolls-Royce designed the MERLIN V-16 as one of a series of engines they
had been developing from the era of pioneer aviation! Packard, in the USA
[the only US engine builder with enough quality control and
craftsmanship], built these under licence from 1941/42 on-wards.
P&W built the fan-jets/turbojets that power about 30% of the
commerical jets you've ever ridden in! They are a division of United
Technologies, or is it something else now?
("Our children are fodder for work and war: If we really thought they were
precious we'd have many fewer of them!" -- Anon)
meta...@aol.com aka John Barker, Alive @ NTC Great Lakes
Jerrold Goldblatt
The fastest thread has concentrated on pure speed. Admittedly speed is
life as fighter pilots say. However, a speed advantage at extremely
high altitude has very little value in air-to-air combat. To
understand why you need to know a little about the concept of indicated
airspeed (IAS).
IAS is the effective speed through the air mass and it decreases with
altitude. For example the P-3C Orion cruises at about 330 knots true
airspeed (TAS). At 20,000' this is equivalent to about 220 IAS. The
airplane is really moving at 330 knots but aerodymanicly the airfoil
and other control services really "think" that the speed is about 220.
Let's relate this to the Ta-152H with its speed of 472 mph at 41,000'
At that altitude IAS is in the mid 200's. At that speed any
significant G-maneuver will cause airspeed (either IAS or TAS) to decay
rapidly. The aircraft is going stall. That is why Air-to-Air combat
seldom occurs much about 30,000' particularly gun combat. Its very
hard to maneuver your airplane into position for a shot.
Now if you look at the maximum for most piston engined fighter aircraft
you find that the fastest speed is between 20,000' and 30,000'. This
makes a lot sense because once you get much about 30,000' IAS is going
eat into your maneuverability in a hurry. The altitude gives you
advantage because you can trade it for speed but you are never going to
use it to fight at.
Now let's look at the Ta-152 at fighting altitude. William Green gives
it credit for a speed of 463 mph at 35,000' and speed of under 400 mph
at 15,000'. If you make a linear approximation for 25,000' then the
maximum speed in the 440-450 mph range. About the same as Spitfire MK
XIV, the Tempest V, and -4 Corsair. It looks like Kurt Tank decided to
maximizing speed at any altitude rather than optimizing performance.
Compare this to North American's design team's approach when decided to
improve Mustang performance. The P-51H's maximum speed of 487 mph
occurs at essentially the same altitude as the P-51D, i.e., about
25,000' or right in the middle of fighting altitude. The Mustang
outperforms its contempories because it is the most aerodynamicly clean
piston engined figher of the war.
The only circumstance where high speed at altitude would convey a
signficant advange would be if the aircraft had the ability to outclimb
its opponents. As far as I know the Ta-152 wasn't any better than its
late war contempories. The only World War II aircraft design that
could possibly turn superior high altitude speed into a real advantage
was the F-2G-2 Goodyear Corsair with a maximum 7,500 fpm climb rate.
Since only 13 of these never operational aircraft were built it really
doesn't count.
As a practical matter, maximum usuable combat speed for World War II
piston engined aircraft never exceeded 450 mph. The only fighters in
this class were allied...The Spitfire XIV, the Tempest V and the -4
Corsair
Regards Jerry Goldblatt
Joe Claffey Jr.
In article <postar-0505...@philly310.voicenet.com>,
pos...@voicenet.com (Edward French) wrote:
>who made the engine for p-51 mustang? pratt & whitney? if true, i ask
>what happened to p&w?
The early P-51s had Allison engines, but the "definitive" version had the
Packard Merlin. P&W was concentrating on radial engines during WW2 (like
the Twin Wasp used in the P-47).
P&W is still around, making jet engines. They're a subsidiary of United
Technologies now.
--
Joe Claffey | "In the end, everything is a gag."
j...@nai.net | - Charlie Chaplin
Joe Hegedus
In article <4mm5b9$6...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, meta...@aol.com says...
>
>In article <postar-0505...@philly310.voicenet.com>,
>pos...@voicenet.com (Edward French) writes:
>
>>jerry,
>>who made the engine for p-51 mustang? pratt & whitney? if true, i ask
>>what happened to p&w?
>
>in-line/or Vee/or X/or H liquid-cooled engines in WWII era or afterwards!!
>Rolls-Royce designed the MERLIN V-16 as one of a series of engines they
Pardon me here, but wasn't the Merlin a V-12?
And, BTW, Pratt and Whitney are still around. They are building jet engines now.
Joe
Emmanuel.Gustin
Jerrold Goldblatt (aup...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: Let's relate this to the Ta-152H with its speed of 472 mph at 41,000'
: At that altitude IAS is in the mid 200's. At that speed any
: significant G-maneuver will cause airspeed (either IAS or TAS) to decay
: rapidly. The aircraft is going stall. That is why Air-to-Air combat
True enough, but the whole point about the Ta 152H was that its long-span,
low aspect ratio wing would give it superior handling at such high
altitudes. Its ceiling was 2800m (9190ft) higher than that of the
Fw 190D-9. At the high altitudes were the Ta 152H was intended to fight,
it had an advantage in both speed and manoeuvrability over most allied
fighters, even high-altitude Spitfire models.
: eat into your maneuverability in a hurry. The altitude gives you
: advantage because you can trade it for speed but you are never going to
: use it to fight at.
The reality of air combat in the 1940s and 1950s was that aircraft were
flying at increasingly higher altitudes. Climbing to altitudes where enemy
fighters can't get you was what many reconaissance aircraft did, and what
the B-29 was designed to do. In the actual combat conditions it may not
have been sensible to build many Ta 152Hs (The C model was probably more
suitable for the types of combat encountered) but it was a wise precaution
to develop the aircraft.
: improve Mustang performance. The P-51H's maximum speed of 487 mph
: occurs at essentially the same altitude as the P-51D, i.e., about
: 25,000' or right in the middle of fighting altitude.
The P-51D was an all-round fighter, the Ta 152H a specialized high
altitude interceptor. They were not in the same league --- service ceiling
of the P-51D was 12700m, that of the Ta 152H 14800m. There actually were
not that many specialized high-altitude interceptors during WWII. The
British had the Welkin and a series of high altitude Spitfires, the
Soviets built prototypes of the Mikoyan-Gurevich I-220 and I-230 series,
in the US Curtiss built the XP-62... But most airforces found that, if
they needed such types at all, they had a requirement for only a few to
halt reconaissance missions.
: late war contempories. The only World War II aircraft design that
: could possibly turn superior high altitude speed into a real advantage
: was the F2G-2 Goodyear Corsair with a maximum 7,500 fpm climb rate.
At low altitude presumably? For the F2G was a specialized low-altitude
interceptor, intended mainly to deal with Kamikazes. That the relatively
low max speed of the F2G-2 (694km/h, 431mph) was achieved with a 3650hp
R-4360 engine testifies about the very different problems of low altitude
interceptors. To compare the F2G with the Ta 152H is really comparing
apples with oranges.
: Since only 13 of these never operational aircraft were built it really
: doesn't count.
Eightteen: 8 prototypes, five F2G-1s and five F2G-2s.
Emmanuel Gustin
\ Emmanuel Gustin gus...@uia.ua.ac.be /
| Physics Department, University of Antwerp, Belgium |
| ------------------------------------------------------------- |
| FROM StdTxts IMPORT Disclaimer; |
/ Have a look at http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/ \
STEVE ROGERS
EF>jerry,
>who made the engine for p-51 mustang? pratt & whitney? if true, i ask
>what happened to p&w?
The P-51B and later was powered by a Rolls-Royce Merlin manufactured
under license by Packard. Earlier versions used Allison engines.
Jerrold Goldblatt
>The reality of air combat in the 1940s and 1950s was that aircraft
were
>flying at increasingly higher altitudes. Climbing to altitudes where
enemy
True enough but pilots quickly learned that you couldn't fight at those
altitudes. The Reality of air-to-air combat is the downward spiral on
the energy hill. Once engaged aircraft inevitable trade speed for
altitude and do not have the climb rate to get it back. Its only a
matter of how fast your altitude decays. If you look at combat up
through the 1973 Arab-Israeli war you find few engagements that begin
about 25,000'. They went under that really fast. Korea may have seen
more high altitude engagements then other wars but that was a learning
experience.
There was a recent article in the Smithsonian Air and Space Magazine
which gives support to the Air Forces claims that the B-36 flying at
40,000' was virtually impossible to defeat. The bomber would fly an S
path which fighters could not follow without hitting stall speed.
Fighter's could not get off the energy hill until the general
introduction of high thrust to weight ratio aircraft in the late 70's
>: was the F2G-2 Goodyear Corsair with a maximum 7,500 fpm climb rate.
>
>At low altitude presumably? For the F2G was a specialized low-altitude
>interceptor, intended mainly to deal with Kamikazes. That the
relatively
>low max speed of the F2G-2 (694km/h, 431mph) was achieved with a
3650hp
>R-4360 engine testifies about the very different problems of low
altitude
>interceptors. To compare the F2G with the Ta 152H is really comparing
>apples with oranges.
>
Didn't intend to compare then aircraft. My purpose was to illustrate
the kind of climb performance required to beat the energy hill.
I may be mistaken but 431 mph speed for the F-2G was for -1. I think
that the -2 was about as fast as the -4 Corsair. Also the F-2G held
the World propeller climb to 30,000 altitude until the introduction of
the E-2C Group II aircraft, since superceded by a SAAB turbo-prop. The
record was on the order of 4.5 minutes to 30,000'
Regards Jerry Goldblatt
Pepper Kay
In article <4mncc7$l...@doc.zippo.com>,
HegedusJA%am6%pax...@MR.nawcad.navy.mil (Joe Hegedus) writes:
>>>who made the engine for p-51 mustang? pratt & whitney? if true, i ask
>>>what happened to p&w?
The 1st engine(s) in the very first P51 models were Merlin built V-12's.
THe RAF did the original installation and modification. When the USAAC
decided they had a winner on their hands, they contracted Packard Motor
Commpany (yes, the builder of Packard automobiles) to built the Merlins'
under license.
P & W is still around building great (big) jet engines.
Pepper Kay
Pepper Kay
"P51's, SD-45's and bluegrass music reign supreme !! "
pepp...@aol.com
pk...@sprynet.com
harold shortt
aup...@ix.netcom.com(Jerrold Goldblatt) wrote:
>Regards Jerry Goldblatt
The ME-209 was a special built a/c designed strictly to break a speed
record. It was not a fighter in any sense. I believe Lyle Shelton's
F8F "Rare Bear" broke the ME-209's record in the 70s.
MetaJohn
In article <4mqc68$i...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, pepp...@aol.com (Pepper
Kay) writes:
>The 1st engine(s) in the very first P51
Ah, make that Allison V1510 (?exact model?) or like that. But the
performance dropped rapidly at height due to lack of supercharging,
Allison had carburettor only. Mustang was called the "down-stairs maid" as
a result, then someone had the bright idea, MERLIN V-12! The rest of the
legend is history.
Joe Hegedus
>: Since only 13 of these never operational aircraft were built it really
>: doesn't count.
>
>Eightteen: 8 prototypes, five F2G-1s and five F2G-2s.
>
>
>Emmanuel Gustin
17 F2G's. 7 XF2G's, BuNos. 13471, 13472, 14691-14695
5 F2G-1's, BuNos. 88454-88458
5 F2G-2's, BuNos. 88459-88463
Also, several FG-1A's were used in support of the development, including
BuNos. 14091/14092 which tested the bubble canopy, and BuNo. 13374, which tested
a mockup of the carburetor air scoop on top of the fuselage, ahead of the cockpit.
Joe
James Linn
> In article <4mncc7$l...@doc.zippo.com>,
> HegedusJA%am6%pax...@MR.nawcad.navy.mil (Joe Hegedus) writes:
>
> >>>who made the engine for p-51 mustang? pratt & whitney? if true, i ask
> >>>what happened to p&w?
>
> The 1st engine(s) in the very first P51 models were Merlin built V-12's.
> THe RAF did the original installation and modification. When the USAAC
> decided they had a winner on their hands, they contracted Packard Motor
> Commpany (yes, the builder of Packard automobiles) to built the Merlins'
> under license.
>
The first engines in P51 As were Allison. As such the British thought they
were great ground attack aircraft and they were well liked as such, as
long as they stayed under 20,000 feet. I believe the US Army Air Corp even
had a few from that era. The Merlin stroke of inspiration came later (B
model? any one help me here?), and was indeed a British experiment, but
not without North American's help. The plane's high altitude performance,
and range improved dramatically, and so the role changed into the plane
you all know and love.
Ironically along with the new engine, the radiator moved to the bottom of
the plane, which along with the later bubble canopy greatly improved
visibility. But when the plane was used in its original role as a ground
attack craft in Korea, the radiator on the bottom of the fuselage proved a
fatal flaw, it proved vulnerable to AA and small arms fire from the
ground. Perhaps they would have been better with the old As. The Corsair,
with a radial, faired much better in the role in Korea.
James Linn
My opinions are MINE,MINE,MINE!!!
Steve Hix
In article i...@newsbf02.news.aol.com, pepp...@aol.com (Pepper Kay) writes:
:In article <4mncc7$l...@doc.zippo.com>,
:HegedusJA%am6%pax...@MR.nawcad.navy.mil (Joe Hegedus) writes:
:
:>>>who made the engine for p-51 mustang? pratt & whitney? if true, i ask
:>>>what happened to p&w?
:
:The 1st engine(s) in the very first P51 models were Merlin built V-12's.
Sorry.
:THe RAF did the original installation and modification. When the USAAC
:decided they had a winner on their hands, they contracted Packard Motor
:Commpany (yes, the builder of Packard automobiles) to built the Merlins'
:under license.
North American built the Mustang I around the Allison V-12 (V1540?),
which lacked high-altitude performance compared to the RR Merlin
which was near to the same size.
The RAF wanted the high-altitude performance, and the Merlin gave
it to them.
The USAAC knew a good thing when they saw it, though.
Nigel Wright
I understand that one of the characteristics of the MkXIV Spit' that
endeared it to pilots was the outstanding climbing speed - one of the
best ever IIRC.
Nigel.
Bela P. Havasreti
On 8 May 1996 10:47:36 -0400, pepp...@aol.com (Pepper Kay) wrote:
<snip>
>The 1st engine(s) in the very first P51 models were Merlin built V-12's.
>THe RAF did the original installation and modification. When the USAAC
>decided they had a winner on their hands, they contracted Packard Motor
>Commpany (yes, the builder of Packard automobiles) to built the Merlins'
>under license.
>
<snip>
OK, I'll probably get flamed for being Mr. Nit-pickey, but of course
the 1st engine(s) in the very first P51 models (AKA NA-73) were
Allisons (:^)
The 1st Merlin powered P-51B's utilized Rolls built Merlins
while subsequent (North American built) Merlin powered P-51B's,
C's, D's and K's used the Packard license built Merlin (first, the
V-1650-3 and later the V-1650-7. (:^)
Sorry for nit-picking... (:^)
Bela P. Havasreti CP-ASEL-I
SNJ-5 basket case <-- (just completed a preliminary inventory
of all my parts, and more of them came from a dash 5
then a dash four, so I guess I'll call her a dash 5 from
now on!) (:^)
Bev Clark/Steve Gallacci
In article <James_Linn-08...@nmthmf63.math.nt.com>,
James Linn <James...@nortel.com> wrote:
>The first engines in P51 As were Allison. As such the British thought they
>were great ground attack aircraft and they were well liked as such, as
>long as they stayed under 20,000 feet. I believe the US Army Air Corp even
>had a few from that era. The Merlin stroke of inspiration came later (B
>model? any one help me here?), and was indeed a British experiment, but
>not without North American's help. The plane's high altitude performance,
>and range improved dramatically, and so the role changed into the plane
>you all know and love.
>
>Ironically along with the new engine, the radiator moved to the bottom of
>the plane, which along with the later bubble canopy greatly improved
>visibility. But when the plane was used in its original role as a ground
>attack craft in Korea, the radiator on the bottom of the fuselage proved a
>fatal flaw, it proved vulnerable to AA and small arms fire from the
>ground. Perhaps they would have been better with the old As. The Corsair,
>with a radial, faired much better in the role in Korea.
Ah, the radiator was always underneith, though the British did experiment
with a chin radiator. The Early P-51s had the carberator scoop on top of
the cowel, and that was moved to underneith.
The P-51/A-36 always had a bit of a vunribility to small arms fire due to
the undernieth radiator.
Ironically, the P-51D bubble canopy actually lost some visiblity as
compared to the Malcome hood 'B models (over the side view) though the
rear view was somewhat improved. Also, in cutting back the rear fuselage,
and adding the bubble actually added wieght and increased drag over the
earlier style.
Pepper Kay
In article <4mqmgn$m...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, meta...@aol.com (MetaJohn)
writes:
>Ah, make that Allison V1510 (?exact model?) or like that. But the
>performance dropped rapidly at height due to lack of supercharging,
>Allison had carburettor only. Mustang was called the "down-stairs maid"
as
>a result, then someone had the bright idea, MERLIN V-12! The rest of the
>legend is history.
>
Oops, sorry 'bout that...forgot the first was Allison, then Rolls Royce
Merlin, then Packard-built Merlin. Really ain't no never mind, cuz once
you've heard a Mustang go by, you never forget the sound (same with a
B-36).
MetaJohn
In article <1996May8.2...@cobra.uni.edu>, dar...@cobra.uni.edu
(Mike Dargan) writes:
>The first engines--in the P51A--were V1710
> Allisons.
Righto -- did you see my POST in the thread?
[snip]
""Ah, make that Allison V1510 (?exact model?) or like that. But the
performance dropped rapidly at height due to lack of supercharging,
Allison had carburettor only.""
[snip]
I just couln't think of the model # right off and typed 1510 instead
of 1710. Furthermore, my Ref "US Fighters", Lloyd Jones, AeroPublishers,
p.127 sez: "Allison V1710-39" as it was the identical engine in the p-40,
which NAA had told the Brits they could better when approached to build
"copies" under licence by the Purchasing Commission.
Kendleberger "knew" that his aerodynamicists and designers were
getting/giving data from/to NACA on laminar flow, frontal area,
radiator/(later) intercooler scoop forced air flows (the scoop is a bit
under the belly on -51s so it doesn't "detach" the smooth airflow), etc.
and he just knew that they could wrap a tighter fuselage around that
engine, use laminar flow (thin) wings and out-run, out-turn, and fly
circles round the P-40 (which was our premier Fighter at that time, the
P-38 was in teething troubles yet, the P-39 was begining to look rather
paler than it's publicity, and types like the P-47/F4U/F6F were way off
ahead yet).
Barry Haynie
The North American company approached the British who where over here
shopping P-40's. As Curtiss could not deliver on the sked desired by the
Brits, Dutch K. promised them a new plane in 180 days! And he did deliver.
What subsequently became known in the AAC as the P-51 was in fact the
MkI Mustang, a British nickname. The A36, Apache was an offshoot of the
original British project. That is to say that the AAC did not want the
new aircraft as it was satisfied it had made the correct decision on the
P-47 and P-38. The rest as they say is history as the British did
experiment with the Merlin engine in an attempt to improve the high
altitude performance of the Mustang. It took appaling losses during the
summer and fall of 1943 to galvanize the AAC into accepting the fact that
it needed a long range escort and this Mustang the no one wanted seemed
to fit the bill (only after the Merlin conversion). Barry
Joe Hegedus
In article <James_Linn-08...@nmthmf63.math.nt.com>, James...@nortel.com says...
>> HegedusJA%am6%pax...@MR.nawcad.navy.mil (Joe Hegedus) writes:
>>
>> >>>who made the engine for p-51 mustang? pratt & whitney? if true, i ask
>> >>>what happened to p&w?
>>
>> THe RAF did the original installation and modification. When the USAAC
>> decided they had a winner on their hands, they contracted Packard Motor
>> Commpany (yes, the builder of Packard automobiles) to built the Merlins'
>> under license.
>>
>were great ground attack aircraft and they were well liked as such, as
>long as they stayed under 20,000 feet. I believe the US Army Air Corp even
>had a few from that era. The Merlin stroke of inspiration came later (B
>model? any one help me here?), and was indeed a British experiment, but
>not without North American's help. The plane's high altitude performance,
>and range improved dramatically, and so the role changed into the plane
>you all know and love.
>
>Ironically along with the new engine, the radiator moved to the bottom of
>the plane, which along with the later bubble canopy greatly improved
>visibility. But when the plane was used in its original role as a ground
>attack craft in Korea, the radiator on the bottom of the fuselage proved a
>fatal flaw, it proved vulnerable to AA and small arms fire from the
>ground. Perhaps they would have been better with the old As. The Corsair,
>with a radial, faired much better in the role in Korea.
>
>My opinions are MINE,MINE,MINE!!!
I don't know who wrote that the FIRST mustangs were Merlin powered, but MY comment
was that the merlin was a V-12, not a V-16, and was snipped somewhere.
Now, to the current post, the A-model probably wouldn't have fared any better than
the D's in Korea, since the coolant radiator was still in the lower aft fuselage.
It did NOT move there with the switch to merlins, but the radiator intake under
the wing trailing edge was changed from a movable shutter to a fixed intake.
Maybe they should have used P-47's, good 'ol round engine like Corsairs?
Joe
John Wright
>>Is this a troll?? P&W never made any, to my knowledge, high performance
>>in-line/or Vee/or X/or H liquid-cooled engines in WWII era or afterwards!!
>>Rolls-Royce designed the MERLIN V-16 as one of a series of engines they
>>had been developing from the era of pioneer aviation! Packard, in the USA
>>[the only US engine builder with enough quality control and
>>craftsmanship], built these under licence from 1941/42 on-wards.
>
>Ah.....how about only 12 cylnders?
Merlins were also license built by the Ford Motor Co. in Manchester England
from about late 1940 onwards.
--
John Wright
Time is an illusion, lunchtime doubly so - Douglas Adams
David Lednicer
Joe Hegedus wrote:
> And, BTW, Pratt and Whitney are still around. They are building jet engines now.
It is NEVER, EVER, Pratt AND Whitney - the trademarked name is
Pratt & Whitney or P&W. Incidentally, there is also a company in
Hartford Connecticut, by the same name, that makes machine tools.
They provided the seed money for the engine company, and in return
Fred Rentschler, the founder of the engine company, used the same name.
BTW- all of this discussion as to the fastest WWII fighter is
academic. At different altitudes and gross weights you will get
different answers.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
David Lednicer | "Applied Computational Fluid Dynamics"
Analytical Methods, Inc. | email: da...@amiwest.com
2133 152nd Ave NE | tel: (206) 643-9090
Redmond, WA 98052 USA | fax: (206) 746-1299
David Lednicer
The first Mustangs (which were not even called P-51s - the USAAF
hadn't bought them yet), were powered by Allison V-1710s (V-12s), built
by the Allison Division of General Motors. The P-51B and most later
Mustangs were powered by Rolls-Royce V-1650s (V-12s), mostly built by
the Packard Motor Company in the US. There were just a few powered by
Rolls-Royce built V-1650s.
BTW - Rolls-Royce now owns Allison (as of a year or two ago).
Jerrold Goldblatt
In <Dr3xB...@cix.compulink.co.uk> niwr...@cix.compulink.co.uk
I agree perhaps the best climbing mass produced fighter of WWII with a
climb rate in the upper 4000s fpm. But not in the same class as the
F-2G-2 which was the last piston engined aircraft to win the coveted
Thomson Trophy
Regards, Jerry Goldblatt
MetaJohn
In article <4msm8j$4...@doc.zippo.com>,
HegedusJA%am6%pax...@mr.nawcad.navy.mil (Joe Hegedus) writes:
>Maybe they should have used P-47's, good 'ol round engine like Corsairs?
>
>
Yes, but they couldn't! Most T'bolts were a) parked in the desert, b)
already sold off to other (Latin American) AFs, or c) in just a few ANGs.
They were lucky the Navy had trouble developing jets for use on carriers,
and therfore had many good F4U, and F4Gs around! Thing of it -- nearly
90,000 comabt a/c of all types were produced in 1944! and perhaps 80,000
of those no longer existed by June 1950! In the scramble to de-mobbilize
new a/c were trucked from plants all over the USA to bone yards in late
1945! Ignorance is usu curable, stupidity is not!
Patrick Mayer
>>The 1st engine(s) in the very first P51
>
Allison V-1710-F3R or V-1710-81 for the P-51 A (also the A-36 and F-6A):
1150-1125 hp
Later models (B to H) were equipped with Packard built Merlins (V-1650-1 to
-9: RR Merlin 81 and later): from about 1450 hp to 2218 hp for the -9 variant.
Roger Wallsgrove
In article <318BBB...@pobox.com>, Dirk Lorek <DiL...@pobox.com> says:
>
>Strange that nobody in this very long thread has mentioned the Me 209
>(Mw 109 R if you wish).
>
practice! Bit like asking what is the fastest road car, and then
quoting the performance of an F1 (or Indy) racing car.
Roger Wallsgrove
Pepper Kay
In article <4msm8j$4...@doc.zippo.com>,
HegedusJA%am6%pax...@mr.nawcad.navy.mil (Joe Hegedus) writes:
>good 'ol round engine like Corsairs?
>
>
By that time, not enough P-47's to effectively use....didn't the Marines
use Corsairs in Korea and start fine tuning their concept of 'close air
support' ? Seems I've seen lots of film of Corsairs dropping napalm and
strafing, up close and personal ??
MetaJohn
>BTW- all of this discussion as to the fastest WWII fighter is
>academic. At different altitudes and gross weights you will get
>different answers.
Yeah, but we jus wanna have some fun!
I know it was mentioned earlier, and then seemed to drop off the
scope, but the P-51H model which did just get into the late European
Theater of Operations is listed in several sources as having a high speed
of 487 mph!!! That would seem to make it the fastest single engined,
single fan a/c to actually fly in WWII.
The Dornier "Pfeil" 335, which I have seen refs stating that 74
models were delivered before the end of the war is listed at 474 mph. That
would make it the fastest two engined, two fan a/c to actually fly in
WWII.
The XP47J "Superman" prototype set an absolute world's record of 504
mph before the end of the war. Until the ?RareBear? it was the fastest
single engined, single fan piston a/c of all time?
The XF-84H, a single engine (??) but combo turbojet-turboprop
development of the F-84 was reported in at least one ref to be the fastest
prop driven a/c of all time (although the data was still classified at
late as 1975) with a top speed est at well over over 600 mph. The Tu-95
"Bear" with stats that seem to be gargantuan (and someone's idea of a
joke) has been reported to reach either 575 or 585 mph (or was that
knots?) making it the fastest multi-engined multi-fan a/c of all time!
Several threads on the r.a.m. argued about it's design but seemed to agree
that it is, at least, a lineal descendant of the B-29 cum Tu-4 "Bull".
Are there any two-engined single fan a/c (Tiffies) that made notable
speeds?
Are there any other categories we missed?
Can anyone take us up for a ride in a F7F just for fun!
F. Janson
The ultimate version of the Mustang was the P-51H, which was the
fastest Mustang variant to see service and one of the fastest (if not
the
fastest) piston-engined fighters to enter production during the Second
World War. [Note from the editor: The fastest was the P-47M.]
The P-51H was an outgrowth of the experimental XP-51F and G
lightweight Mustang projects of early 1944. Rather than commit the F
or G
versions to production, the USAAF decided instead to produce a version
powered by the uprated Packard Merlin V-1659-9 engine. This
engine had the Simmons automatic boost control for constant manifold
pressure maintenance and was equipped with a water injection system
which made it possible to overboost the engine to achieve war
emergency powers in excess of 2000 hp for brief periods. North
American
Aviation gave the project the company designation NA 126, and it was
ordered into production as the P-51H in June of 1944 even before
much of the initial design work was done.
Joe Hegedus
In article <4mu1im$t...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, meta...@aol.com says...
>
>In article <4msm8j$4...@doc.zippo.com>,
>HegedusJA%am6%pax...@mr.nawcad.navy.mil (Joe Hegedus) writes:
>
>>
>>
>
>Yes, but they couldn't! Most T'bolts were a) parked in the desert, b)
>already sold off to other (Latin American) AFs, or c) in just a few ANGs.
>They were lucky the Navy had trouble developing jets for use on carriers,
>and therfore had many good F4U, and F4Gs around! Thing of it -- nearly
>90,000 comabt a/c of all types were produced in 1944! and perhaps 80,000
>of those no longer existed by June 1950! In the scramble to de-mobbilize
>new a/c were trucked from plants all over the USA to bone yards in late
>1945! Ignorance is usu curable, stupidity is not!
>
>precious we'd have many fewer of them!" -- Anon)
>meta...@aol.com aka John Barker, Alive @ NTC Great Lakes
No argument. But, didn't a lot of the '51's sent to Korea also come from the
Guard/Reserves, in exchange for P-51H's? Something about available numbers, or
spare parts, or something? BTW, what's an F4G? Do you mean FG-4? I don't believe
any FG-4's were delivered to the Navy, the few in production were scrapped (except
for one which allegedly hung in the hanger at Goodyear for many years, with all
the internal equipment stripped out).
Joe
James Linn
In article <4mvftk$d...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, meta...@aol.com (MetaJohn) w
The Tu-95
> "Bear" with stats that seem to be gargantuan (and someone's idea of a
> joke) has been reported to reach either 575 or 585 mph (or was that
> knots?) making it the fastest multi-engined multi-fan a/c of all time!
> Several threads on the r.a.m. argued about it's design but seemed to agree
> that it is, at least, a lineal descendant of the B-29 cum Tu-4 "Bull".
>
Wednesday night. Repeat Sunday at 6 P.M. It was in competetion with the
Badger for the same basic role, and as the Badger was a jet the Bear
designers had to increase its speed to compete, hence the changes from the
Bull (Turbo prop, 2 counter rotating propellers, more streamlined fuselage
etc). Of course the Badger never succeeded in achieveing the
intercontinental range that the Bear did, so both found their roles.
James Linn
Jerrold Goldblatt
In <4mvebe$d...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> pepp...@aol.com (Pepper Kay)
writes:
>In article <4msm8j$4...@doc.zippo.com>,
>HegedusJA%am6%pax...@mr.nawcad.navy.mil (Joe Hegedus) writes:
>
>>good 'ol round engine like Corsairs?
>>
>>
>
Marines
>use Corsairs in Korea and start fine tuning their concept of 'close
air
>support' ? Seems I've seen lots of film of Corsairs dropping napalm
and
>strafing, up close and personal ??
>
The Navy and Marine Corp began using Corsairs for strike aircraft early
in their Career. However, with introduction of the -4 in late 1944
both air components realized that they had aircraft that could carry a
large bomb load. The -4 carried 4000lbs of ordinance as far as it
could fly. It was structure rather than gross wieght limited. It
could carry rockets outboard of the wingfolds. The marines quickly
adapted it to close air support. After the war the navy decided to
continue useing the Corsair. Jet aircraft were still underpowered and
not very carrier suitable. After the war, Vought developed the -5
which had a performance envelope equivalent to the Ta-152 except for
altitude. When jets came along the Corsair became strictly a ground
attack machine. However, it can be considered the Navy's first strike
fighter. Unlike the Hornet, the Corsair, in its day, became the
dominant fighter of the Pacific with the strike capability of a medium
bomber.
Regards Jerry Goldblatt
Dirk Lorek
Well, The Me 209 (and the He 100) was a prototype for a possible successor
of the Bf 109 (and later as a competitor to the Fw 190 D), it was built accor-
ding to a RLM specification from 1937. I agree that it wasn't operational, but
a fighter it was (proposed armament MK 108 and 2 MG 17), though experimental.
Because US experimental fighters were mentioned in this thread before I think
it is fair to mention a German one too :-)
Dirk
_______________________________________________________________________
What am I, Life ? A thing of watery salt, held in cohesion by unresting
cells, which work they know not why, which never halt, myself unwitting
where their Master dwells. - John Masefield -
MetaJohn
In article <4mvc5r$3...@doc.zippo.com>,
HegedusJA%am6%pax...@mr.nawcac.navy.mil (Joe Hegedus) writes:
>No argument. But, didn't a lot of the '51's sent to Korea also come from
the
>Guard/Reserves, in exchange for P-51H's? Something about available
numbers,
Don't have a definitive answer, however my guesses are: most ANGs
wanted Mustangs (they had a cachet), so many were around, fewer wanted
"Jugs" as the maintenance bill was probably higher and, air-to-mud, its
main job, just wasn't ever very sexy, (still isn't) to career AF types.
USMC proabably would've liked the "Jug" but they had plenty of good
Corsairs already. We will probably need an old Sqn. Maint. type to tell us
the diff in cost, manpower and supply consideration between P-47 and P-51
>or spare parts, or something? BTW, what's an F4G? Do you mean FG-4?
>I don't believe any FG-4's were delivered to the Navy, the few in
production
>were scrapped (except for one which allegedly hung in the hanger at
Goodyear
>for many years, with all the internal equipment stripped out).
An F4G is what you get when you type as badly as I do and you can't
quite remember the type designation either! FGs or FG-1s was what I was
trying to make happen. You live near Goodyears old a/c operations
plant/facility? Tell about the "Inflata" planes some day!
"Though Love Repine, And Reason Chafe, ---"
There came a voice without reply,
"T'is Man's Perdition to be Safe,
When For the Truth He Ought To die."
***********************************************************
"Nymphs and Shepards dance no more," Milton
Bev Clark/Steve Gallacci
In article <3193E4...@pobox.com>, Dirk Lorek <DiL...@pobox.com> wrote:
>Roger Wallsgrove wrote:
>>
>> In article <318BBB...@pobox.com>, Dirk Lorek <DiL...@pobox.com> says:
>> >
>> >Strange that nobody in this very long thread has mentioned the Me 209
>> >(Mw 109 R if you wish).
>> >
>> For the very simple reason that it was not a fighter, by design or in
>> practice! Bit like asking what is the fastest road car, and then
>> quoting the performance of an F1 (or Indy) racing car.
>>
>> Roger Wallsgrove
>
>Well, The Me 209 (and the He 100) was a prototype for a possible successor
>of the Bf 109 (and later as a competitor to the Fw 190 D), it was built accor-
>ding to a RLM specification from 1937. I agree that it wasn't operational, but
>a fighter it was (proposed armament MK 108 and 2 MG 17), though experimental.
>Because US experimental fighters were mentioned in this thread before I think
>it is fair to mention a German one too :-)
any RLM spec. Though there was some small effort to weaponize a few of
them, it was primarily jsut a propaganda ploy.
Bruce J. Grayson
Laminar flow wings are not synonymous with thin cross-section. The idea of
laminar flow cross-section is to have the thickest part of the wing a lot
further aft. I think it's something like about 1/2 the chord, maybe 2/3 the
chord aft.
Bruce J. Grayson
The RAAF used Meteor F-8's for the ground attack role in Korea (after
conversion from CA-23 Mustangs, and a go at CAP's). The Meteors had no
radiators, and had two round engines, but not like the Corsair. It was,
however, about 200 mph faster. A lot of damage was still attributed to ground
fire.
Any plane flying close to the ground is going to cop a fair bit. MiG-17's,
Tornados, whatever. Sure, Mustangs had an extra vital system relative to the
Corsair, but was it really much more vulnerable? Don't forget that instead of
a cooling system underneath the pilot, the Corsair had a whopping great fuel
tank in front of him. Are there any real comparisons of combat ground-attack
missions from which it can be ascertained that the Corsair was significantly
better than the Mustang?
Joe Hegedus
In article <4n0jjk$o...@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>, aup...@ix.netcom.com says...
>The Navy and Marine Corp began using Corsairs for strike aircraft early
>in their Career. However, with introduction of the -4 in late 1944
>both air components realized that they had aircraft that could carry a
>large bomb load. The -4 carried 4000lbs of ordinance as far as it
>could fly.
>
Actually, the ability to carry the rockets and bombs came with the F4U/FG-1D.
(Except for the Brewster bomb racks and some field mods which were used on
-1A's) Also, Charles Lindberg, on his tours of the combat zones, did some work
for Vought with the Corsair. He used a -1D to deliver a 2,000 lb bomb and a
pair of 1,000 lb bombs to a Japanese position on one flight, around mid-1944
methinks. The Marines did a LOT of work in the Pacific with the Corsair, from
Peleliu to Okinawa and everywhere in between, with rockets, bombs and napalm.
Joe
Joe Hegedus
In article <4n269p$b...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, meta...@aol.com says...
No, I don't live anywhere near Akron. But we DO have one of the Inflataplanes
here at the Naval Aviation Test and Evaluation Museum, Patuxent River, MD, which
is on loan from the Smithsonian (I think). At least it was there the last time I
stopped in.
Joe
Matthew Saroff
Hi,
If I remember the stats in WW II, about 75% of the hits from
ground fire hit in the back half of the plane (under pressure,
few people do proper deflection shooting), so the radiator is
smack in the middle of ground zero.
Also remember that if a bullet of any size punctures the
radiator, the plane overheats and crashes in fairly short order.
With self-sealing tanks, the tank might not even lose much fuel.
--
Matthew Saroff
Does anyone else out there strongly feel that the folks at the TV
Networks who have censored out Daffy's beak getting blown off (Shoot
Me NOW!) deserve to be stripped naked, tied face down over a chair,
covered with moose musk, and set in the migratory path of a large
moose herd?
Comments to msa...@pobox.com
Check http://www.pobox.com/~msaroff, including The Bad Hair Web Page
STEVE ROGERS
PK>By that time, not enough P-47's to effectively use....didn't the Marines
>use Corsairs in Korea and start fine tuning their concept of 'close air
>support' ? Seems I've seen lots of film of Corsairs dropping napalm and
>strafing, up close and personal ??
You sure you haven't seen a Corsair dropping napalm on a Korean
hillside - many times? That and the classic footage of a Corsair
dropping napalm on a hill in Okinawa (or was it Iwo?) have been used
to illustrate everything from Pearl Harbor to VJ day, esp. on the
Discovery channel... ;)
Joe Claffey Jr.
In article <257156700...@ieaust.org.au>,
Bruce_J....@ieaust.org.au wrote:
>Any plane flying close to the ground is going to cop a fair bit. MiG-17's,
>Tornados, whatever. Sure, Mustangs had an extra vital system relative to the
>Corsair, but was it really much more vulnerable? Don't forget that instead of
>a cooling system underneath the pilot, the Corsair had a whopping great fuel
>tank in front of him. Are there any real comparisons of combat ground-attack
>missions from which it can be ascertained that the Corsair was significantly
>better than the Mustang?
No real data (sorry!), but you can armor a fuel tank and make it
self-sealing. I don't think those are options for a radiator.
I have read Joe Baugher's excellent series on fighter aircraft, and the
vulnerability of radiators to enemy fire is mentioned in many different
places (referring both to the Mustang and to other aircraft). Conversely,
radial (air-cooled) engines are mentioned as being relatively resistant to
damage.
--
Joe Claffey | "In the end, everything is a gag."
j...@nai.net | - Charlie Chaplin
Bruce Felger
Packard was licensed by Rolls Royce to build the engines that powered
the P-51.
MetaJohn
In article <4n8ums$l...@what.why.net>, msa...@pobox.com (Matthew Saroff)
writes:
> If I remember the stats in WW II, about 75% of the hits from
>ground fire hit in the back half of the plane (under pressure,
>few people do proper deflection shooting), so the radiator is
>smack in the middle of ground zero.
> Also remember that if a bullet of any size punctures the
>radiator, the plane overheats and crashes in fairly short order.
What are we talking about here? P-51s had no business down low in the
ground attack role, except at the end of WW II when the Allied air
superiority was so overwhelming that "targets of opportunity' were
virtually the only targets!
Every a/c, ground vehicle, hanger, barracks, etc. you destroyed in
straffing, rocket, or bomb drops on the other guys airforce was one less
dogfight you might lose to him! That was the only way to justify the risks
of exposing yourself to enemy groundfire -- that and the fact that every
hot-dog in a canopy wanted to "win his peice of the war" and paint some
"kills" on his a/c before it all ended.
In general though why use up air-superiority assests like the -51
when the "Jug" drivers could carry so much more ordnance (gawd! --ever see
the rockets lined up under the -47s wings?!) and go down low without any
Glycol cooler to risk! "Stupid is as stupid does" -- Forrest Gump wasn't
it?
********************************************************
"Though Love Repine, And Reason Chafe, ---"
There came a voice without reply,
"T'is Man's Perdition to be Safe,
When For the Truth He Ought To die."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Nymphs and Shepards dance no more," Milton
***********************************************************
Bruce J. Grayson
I may be stating the obvious, but with reference to Mustang v Corsair in g/a
missions:
The radiator and cooling system occupies a relatively small part of the
aeroplane. The biggest parts of the Mustang and Corsair were the wings. What
do you think would be more likely to get hit - the radiator of the Mustang,
the cockpit of the Corsair or the wing of either? I think it would be the
wing of either, no matter how good or poor the deflection shooting
was.Unless, of course, we are talking about head-on shots, in which case
deflection does not enter the equation, and the wing offers least profile.
BTW, if it is considered that radial-engined aeroplanes are a better
alternative to in-lined engined aeroplanes for g/a, then the same would also
be applicable for CAP and bombing, wouldn't it? It doesn't really matter
where the threat of damage comes from, just the intensity.
The Sturmovik powered by an in-line engine. It was regarded as difficult to
shoot down. Did it have armoured radiators? I read somewhere that the Germans
aimed for the ailerons.
John Shinal
HegedusJA%am6%pax...@mr.nawcad.navy.mil (Joe Hegedus) wrote:
>In article <4n0jjk$o...@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>, aup...@ix.netcom.com says...
>>The Navy and Marine Corp began using Corsairs for strike aircraft early
>>in their Career.
>Actually, the ability to carry the rockets and bombs came with the F4U/FG-1D.
>(Except for the Brewster bomb racks and some field mods which were used on
>-1A's)
Those field mods were unauthorized pipe and metal plate bomb racks
developed by the ordnance guys serving with VF-17. Blackburn had
someone make up five sets, and they were tested in combat, until one
of the higher ups put a stop to it, due to safety concerns.
Development of fully engineered bomb racks began immediately
afterward.
John S. Shinal
jsh...@nando.net
STEVEN KOBERNICK
In article <257156700...@ieaust.org.au>,
Bruce J. Grayson <Bruce_J....@ieaust.org.au> wrote:
>I may be stating the obvious, but with reference to Mustang v Corsair in g/a
>missions:
>
>The radiator and cooling system occupies a relatively small part of the
>aeroplane. The biggest parts of the Mustang and Corsair were the wings. What
>do you think would be more likely to get hit - the radiator of the Mustang,
>the cockpit of the Corsair or the wing of either? I think it would be the
>wing of either, no matter how good or poor the deflection shooting
>was.Unless, of course, we are talking about head-on shots, in which case
>deflection does not enter the equation, and the wing offers least profile.
Most likely the ground fire will be aiming for the fuselage. Aiming for
the wings will only give a small 'target window' to shoot at, unless the wing
is as wide as the fuselage in which case we have a flying wing :)
Anyway, a prvevious post stated that poor delfection shooting would result
in hits in the center to rear of the aircraft, and what takes up that space
in the P-51 - the radiator.
Head-on shots?!!! The only way that may happen if is someone is brave
and/or stupid enough to stand directly in the Strafing path of the
plane (Sgt. Rock anyone?)
>
>BTW, if it is considered that radial-engined aeroplanes are a better
>alternative to in-lined engined aeroplanes for g/a, then the same would also
>be applicable for CAP and bombing, wouldn't it? It doesn't really matter
>where the threat of damage comes from, just the intensity.
You should look up stories on the P-47 then. There are severval occassions
where several cylinders and pieces of the engine were blown off or damaged
and the plane still made it back under its own power. That is one tough
plane!
>
>The Sturmovik powered by an in-line engine. It was regarded as difficult to
>shoot down. Did it have armoured radiators? I read somewhere that the Germans
>aimed for the ailerons.
1) I think the radiator is on top of the engine (fire would be coming
from below)
2) The plane was a bloodly armoured shell! The engine and cockpit at least
was surrounded by armour, that is why it was difficult to shoot down.
--
Steven Kobernick
s_k...@alcor.concordia.ca
Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Fitz Walker III
Mike Dale (mike...@ozemail.com.au) wrote:
: According to the article in "Air Enthusiast" No. 59, September/October
: 1995 on "MARTIN-BAKER'S AEROPLANES", the Martin-Baker MB.5 had a maximum
: speed of 460mph/740km/h. which would make it not quite as fast as some
: other aircraft mentioned in this thread. BTW, this is a very interesting
: and informative article for anyone interested in these somewhat
: mysterious aircraft, including a great cutaway of the MB.5.
: Mike
I allways read that the DO-335 was the fastest piston engined fighter of
WWII.
Dan Ford
According to Richard Hallion in Test Pilots, the fastest piston-driven
plane of WWII was a modified Spitfire Mark XI which dove at March 0.9 at
29,000 feet, about 610 mph.
Evidently it was the elliptical wings that gave it an edge over the
Mustang for high-speed work.
- Dan
Jerrold Goldblatt
In <Pine.OSF.3.91a.96051...@christa.unh.edu> Dan Ford
I recall reading somewhere that Kelly Johnson got a modified P-38L real
close to if not equal to Mach 1. Also the P-47, which also had an
eliptical wing, probably also exceeded 610 mph. Whether the pilot
could recover the aircraft in denser air was problematic.
Regards Jerry Goldblatt
Bruce J. Grayson
STEVEN KOBERNICK,s_k...@alcor.concordia.ca,Internet writes:
You should look up stories on the P-47 then. There are severval occassions
where several cylinders and pieces of the engine were blown off or damaged
and the plane still made it back under its own power. That is one tough
plane!
I'd love to hear of some in this forum!
Bruce J. Grayson
Dan Ford,d...@christa.unh.edu,Internet writes:
According to Richard Hallion in Test Pilots, the fastest piston-driven
plane of WWII was a modified Spitfire Mark XI which dove at March 0.9 at
29,000 feet, about 610 mph.
Evidently it was the elliptical wings that gave it an edge over the
Mustang for high-speed work.
I read somewhere that the Spitfire could dive faster than the Me 262. I don't
think that it was the elliptical planform that was responsible for its
high-mach capability however, rather the thickness to chord ratio, which was
better than others such as the Typhoon (obviously) Tempest, Hunter and
Attacker to name but a few. The trouble with the original Spitfire wing,
however, was "aileron reversal". This was because it lacked torsional
rigidity, as it only had the one "D" section spar at the leading edge from
which to gain its strength. The later Spitfrire wing developed by Joe Smith
was a pealer. It was used on the 20 series spitfires and the 40 series
Seafires. These should have been named differently, as they were completely
different to the Mk I - IX Spitfires:
The Seafire 47 was about twice the weight of the Spitfire I. It had twice the
power, and could loose off about twice the weight of shot. I think it was
also about 25% faster.
Bruce J. Grayson
: Mike
Sorry to end your fantasy. Read this:
The P-51H was the fastest at 487 mph. And it saw (limited) service. It was
not a P-51D. And, it is not my favourite plane of the period, so there is no
bias.
The P47-J was the fastest piston-engined fighter prototype at 504 - 507 mph.
Again, I am not biased, I am just confirming what others have posted with
what I have referenced.
For the record, my favourite contender would be the Supermarine Spiteful. But
it falls short of the mark of the P-47-J, although it was faster than the
P-51 H, and was armed with the standard 4x20mm
--- Internet Message Header Follows ---
Path:
warrane.connect.com.au!news.syd.connect.com.au!news.mel.connect.com.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!nntp.coast.net!sgigate.sgi.com!news.msfc.nasa.gov!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.internetMCI.com!darwin.sura.net!news.db.erau.edu!walkerf
From: wal...@news.db.erau.edu (Fitz Walker III)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Fastest Piston Fighter WWII
Date: 17 May 1996 16:32:14 GMT
Organization: Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University
Lines: 14
Message-ID: <4ni9me$l...@deadbird.db.erau.edu>
References: <4mdkaj$5...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>
<318DB0...@ozemail.com.au>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 155.31.1.1
NNTP-Posting-User: walkerf
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
STEVE ROGERS
CK>Correct, that's what "unhanded" means.
>Most of the Brit order was taken over by the USAAF (or should I say USAAC)
>and were used as trainers or converted to P-38F's (reaching into deap
>memory for model number). Now that you mention it, I do recall the three
>digit P number and that some may have gone to SWPac: I'ld have to look it
>up.
>The number wasn't P-400 though ("What's a P-400? A P-40 with a Zero on its
>tail"), those were the P-39s that weren't going to England. The main
>difference being the 20mm Hispanio in the nose instead of the 37mm.
Yes, you're right about the P-400. It was the "castrated 'Cobra",
which is almost redundant... ;) Now it seems that P-322 or P-422 seems
to be coming back to me as the unhanded Lightnings. Could be wrong,
though.
CK>>
>>CK>I've often wondered what the result would have been if Lockheed had
>> >redesigned the wing with a P-51 like laminar flow airfoil (post P-38
>> >design research).?
>>
>> And Merlins! Sounds an awful lot like a P-82, doesn't it?
CK>Not much at all, the P-82 used Allisons after all.
Well, I'll be danged. When I first saw that I thought you must have
slipped. Sure enough, although the first two P-82s were Merlin
powered, the P-82E, F,& G were all powered by 1600 HP Allison
V-1710-143/145s. So why weren't any of these Allisons used on P-51s?
BTW, does anyone have any info on the YP-49 (I think). It was
Lockheed's P-38 upgrade, but never entered service.
STEVE ROGERS
DA>What was the logic behind the USA's production of both the -17 and -24 in
>WWII? I would assume one was better, so why didn't we just make one
>kind? (although I'm sure anyone cliaming oneplane is better than another
>will elicit all sorts of comments here) Was it a matter of retooling a
>production, and the time lost = planes not built doing that was just not
>worth it? I guess this sort of applies to the P-47, too. Or is it the
>P-49? The Thunderbolt, whatever it's number was...
Eek! It was the P-47 (the XP-49 was a "Super P-38", which never went
into service). The AAF had several cases of concurrent development in
the war. One reason was that at design time it was impossible to
foresee problems which may have occurred down the line (as in the
B-35's yaw problem, or the Navy's reluctance to land Corsairs on
carriers). Therefore it made sense to produce two designs to solve the
same problem and provide a backup design (B-17 & B-24, B-29 & B-32,
Hellcat & Corsair, P-38, P-47, & P-51, etc.). Tooling costs were a
factor as well, of course, although I bet politics played a more
important role, as they do today. Remember that the decision of what
planes to build ultimately lies with the congress critters.
It's interesting to note how these planes' missions changed such that
their roles became more unique. The P-47 and P-38 were designed to be
high altitude interceptors while the P-51 was intended, at least by
the AAF, to be a ground attack plane. Eventually the Merlin powered
P-51s took over the escort duties, freeing the P-47 and P-38 for
fighter sweeps and ground attack.
While the B-17 and B-24 were both designed to be long range strategic
bombers, the 24's longer range and capacity made it better suited to
the Pacific whereas the 17 was prime for bombing Germany. Of course
both types were used in both theaters in many roles, but I think my
generalizations are valid.
STEVE ROGERS
PAU>In article <8BFE1E4.0212...@swsbbs.com>,
> steve....@swsbbs.com (STEVE ROGERS) wrote:
>>
>>BC>Concerning WWII : Where does Pappy Boyington fit into the WWII Aces?
>>
>> Between anyone with 29 kills and anyone with 27?
>Boyington wrote about his ww2 experiences if you want to read it . Its calle
>'Black Sheep Squadron' also there was a tv series of the same name a while
>back which was based on him although what happened in the series was mostly
>fictional.
Boyington's autobiography was entitled "Baa Baa Black Sheep". The TV
series upheld the medium's usual high standards for accuracy (I think
Ross Martin as the crew chief would have been a nice touch). I
particularly enjoyed seeing Boyington & Co. shooting down ME-109s and
FW-190s in some of the gun camera footage. And of course the Zeke
that dips three times in flames before it hits the waves. I think the
academy should find that pilot's family and give it some kind of
longevity award.
STEVE ROGERS
MD>But why were the logistics of the event so crap compared to, say,
>Mildenhall, where the Yanks are running it?
Shows the difference between an event paid for by receipts as opposed
to one paid for by unwitting US taxpayers... ;)
STEVE ROGERS
JZ>I have seen data on the amount of horsepower produced by the various piston
>engines that powered American fighters in WWII. What I'm curious about, but
>have never seen, is the size of the engines' displacement (in cubic inches,
>or liters.)
You should be able to derive it from the model. A P&W R2800 would be
about 2800 cid.
Jim Herring
One important issue is what happens if you select one fighter and one
bomber only. Then discover a year later a major weakness (wings fall
off, landing gear that breaks, metal fatigue, falling apart when
shot at, whatever) that cannot be fixed quickly. Now you have to develope
another plane and still use the defected one until you get the
replacement in operation.
Buying different aircraft for the same mission is partly an insurance
policy against this.
Another is that if you have two good planes for the same mission,
designed, built, and testing, you don't have to create tooling for a
second factory as you have that already with the second plane. You've
essentially doubled production. If you need more aircraft, you still need
more tooling, but, your still ahead of the game.
Erik Shilling
In <8C0F1EA.0212...@swsbbs.com> steve....@swsbbs.com (STEVE
ROGERS) writes:
>
>PAU>In article <8BFE1E4.0212...@swsbbs.com>,
> > steve....@swsbbs.com (STEVE ROGERS) wrote:
> >>
> >>BC>Concerning WWII : Where does Pappy Boyington fit into the
WWII Aces?
Right under Joe Foss since one of the Japanese aircraft claimed by Greg
boyington was denighed by the conformation boad of the Flying Tigers.
One of whom, on the confirmation board at the time happend to be Jim
Howard, medal of honor winner, and the only fighter pilot to be awarded
the medal of honor in the European theater.
Erik Shilling
Flt Lder 3rd Sqdn
Flying Tigers
--
Erik Shilling Author; Destiny: A Flying Tiger's
Flight Leader Rendezvous With Fate.
3rd Squadron AVG
Flying Tigers
Bruce J. Grayson
STEVE ROGERS,steve....@swsbbs.com,Internet writes:
RW>If the B-17 was so much better, as people seem to be claiming, how
>come the US built so many more B-24s? Can't just be because the RAF
>much preferred them, for night bombing, Coastal Command and other duties.
If the Chevy Corvette is so great, why are there so many Luminas?
The B-24 was easier and cheaper to build. This doesn't make a better
flying airplane.
Nonononono
The B-24 was extremely complicated and expensive. It was the most expensive
aeroplane built to that time. Every system was electrical, I think. But it
was either easy to mass produce and/or a lot of industry was put into its
production. It was produced by Ford, Convair, Douglas and North American.
True, but which one would you rather fly in combat?
I'm chicken..neither.
--- Internet Message Header Follows ---
Path:
warrane.connect.com.au!news.syd.connect.com.au!news.mel.connect.com.au!munnari.OZ.AU!spool.mu.edu!news.sol.net!uwm.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!newsreader.sprintlink.net!metro.atlanta.com!news.swsbbs.com!sws!steve.rogers
From: steve....@swsbbs.com (STEVE ROGERS)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: B17 vs. B24
Message-ID: <8C0F1E9.0212...@swsbbs.com>
Date: Mon, 20 May 96 08:09:00 -0500
Distribution: world
Organization: ShareWare South Decatur, GA 30030
Reply-To: steve....@swsbbs.com (STEVE ROGERS)
References: <4n71te$v...@is.bbsrc.ac.uk>
X-Mailer: PCBoard/UUOUT Version 1.20
Lines: 16
Charles K. Scott
In article <257156700...@ieaust.org.au>
Bruce_J....@ieaust.org.au (Bruce J. Grayson) writes:
> The Sturmovik powered by an in-line engine. It was regarded as difficult to
> shoot down. Did it have armoured radiators? I read somewhere that the Germans
> aimed for the ailerons.
I'm only half joking when I say that the Sturmovik had armoured
everything. Anything that was vital was protected. Readings of German
accounts indicate that the German pilots did not like attacking them
because they had to basically park their airplane right up the tail of
the Sturmovik and blast away with their cannon until enough had been
destroyed on the airplane that it went down. Again, I'm only half
joking, they were really tough to bring down.
Corky Scott
Bill Garnett
In article <>, pepp...@aol.com (Pepper Kay) writes:
> The 1st engine(s) in the very first P51 models were Merlin built V-12's.
> THe RAF did the original installation and modification. When the
> USAAC decided they had a winner on their hands, they contracted
> Packard Motor Commpany (yes, the builder of Packard automobiles) to
> built the Merlins' under license.
Close but no cigar!
Bill Garnett
Air Race Fanatic
bew...@chevron.com
P-51, Cadillac of the sky!
Bill Garnett
In article <>, meta...@aol.com (MetaJohn) writes:
>
> The XP47J "Superman" prototype set an absolute world's record
> of 504 mph before the end of the war. Until the ?RareBear? it was
> the fastest single engined, single fan piston a/c of all time?
>
I'm a bit puzzeled by this. My understanding was that the "official" unlimited
(prop, piston) speed record was held by the a one off German fighter from WWII
up until Darryl Greenameyer broke it with a speed of 499 mph in the "Conquest
I" F8F-1 Bearcat in the mid sixties. Since then I know Dego Red (P-51) had it
at 517 mph for a while and Rare Bear is the current record holder at 528 mph.
Strega had to drop plans for an attempt in 95 for lack of funds.
Can you lead me to reference material that documents the P-47 record?
Bruce J. Grayson
Jim Herring,mus...@bga.com,Internet writes:
STEVE ROGERS wrote:
>
One important issue is what happens if you select one fighter and one
bomber only. Then discover a year later a major weakness (wings fall
off, landing gear that breaks, metal fatigue, falling apart when
shot at, whatever) that cannot be fixed quickly. Now you have to develope
another plane and still use the defected one until you get the
replacement in operation.
Buying different aircraft for the same mission is partly an insurance
policy against this.
Another is that if you have two good planes for the same mission,
designed, built, and testing, you don't have to create tooling for a
second factory as you have that already with the second plane. You've
essentially doubled production. If you need more aircraft, you still need
more tooling, but, your still ahead of the game.
This was the fallacious policy that the British adopted in their pursuit of
a strategic jet bomber in the 1950's. Instead of ordering either the Vulcan
or the Victor, they ordered small numbers of each (as well as the Valiant,
which wasn't in the same class). The result was relatively high unit price.
Thus, they weren't ahead of the game. In fact, they fell much further behind.
They could have regained the lead with the TSR-2, but the Martians in
Whitehall put an end to that.
One feature of Brithsh aviation post WW2 is how their lead in technology
(whenever briefly established) was often ruined by politics (eg the TSR2, the
supersonic VTOL, and the sale of jet engines to the USSR) or crashes (eg the
Comet and the DH -110).
Lars.U....@telia.se
Hi!
Regarding info on a P-38 upgrade, YP-49 (?) I have found
something about a XP-49 by looking into the "Aircraft locator".
You can find this piece of info at the URL
http://www.brooklyn.cuny.edu/rec/air/aircraft/xp49.html
BTW, does anybody know of good bookshop, that sells the
original pilot's manual for the P-38?
- And if so, are there any different versions of it?
/Lars "P-38" Hensfelt
Mark E. Young, Jr.
Lars.U....@telia.se wrote:
>Hi!
>http://www.brooklyn.cuny.edu/rec/air/aircraft/xp49.html
>/Lars "P-38" Hensfelt
Don't forget the XP-58 Chain Lightning. Powered by two Allison
V-3420-11/13 engines, it had a four-gun turret in addition to an
interchangeable nose amament of one 75-mm cannon or two 20-mm and four
0.50 inch guns. Span 70 feet, gross weith 43,000 lb and max speed 430
mph. Single prototype (41-2670) built and flown in June 1944.
Check with the USAF Museum Book Store. They carry a number of
aircraft flight manual reprint/replica type books.
Mark E. Young, Jr.
IPMS/USA 5494
KC-135A - Built when man thought he could burn water.
Emmanuel.Gustin
Bruce J. Grayson (Bruce_J....@ieaust.org.au) wrote:
: The Sturmovik powered by an in-line engine. It was regarded as difficult
: to shoot down. Did it have armoured radiators? I read somewhere that the
: Germans aimed for the ailerons.
The radiator was installed behind the engine, in a well-protected
position. A duct on top of the engine cowling guided air downwards and
backwards to the radiator. Not very efficient, I assume.
Emmanuel Gustin
Thomas K. Wallenius
In article <960521131...@146.27.33.145>, bew...@chevron.com (Bill
Garnett) wrote:
> In article <>, pepp...@aol.com (Pepper Kay) writes:
>
> > The 1st engine(s) in the very first P51 models were Merlin built V-12's.
> > THe RAF did the original installation and modification. When the
> > USAAC decided they had a winner on their hands, they contracted
> > Packard Motor Commpany (yes, the builder of Packard automobiles) to
> > built the Merlins' under license.
I saw an inline engine at the Smithsonin's Restoration Center. It was
identified by the guide as a P-51 engine. The engine was clearly stamped
"Maytag". I think that should settle this thread.
Rick DeNatale
I can't imagine why there is so much confusion over such a well documented
subject!
In article <wallentk-220...@ffx58.laser.net>,
wall...@mailffx.laser.net (Thomas K. Wallenius) wrote:
>In article <960521131...@146.27.33.145>, bew...@chevron.com (Bill
>Garnett) wrote:
>
>> In article <>, pepp...@aol.com (Pepper Kay) writes:
>>
>> > The 1st engine(s) in the very first P51 models were Merlin built V-12's.
First, Merlin was not a manufacturer. Merlin was the name of the engine
which was designed and first manufactured by Rolls-Royce. The name merlin
came not from the wizard of Arthurian legend but from the name of a small
bird of prey. Rolls-Royce used the names of birds of prey for their
engines at that time.
Second, the very first P-51s did not use Merlin engines at all, they used
Allison V-1710s. The planes were designed by North American Aviation in
response to a British request to supply Britain with P-40s to be built
under license from Curtiss. Instead NAA countered with the proposal to
design a new plane. The Mustang I, P-51 (Mustang IA), P-51A (Mustang II),
and the A36A all used the Allison.
The first production P-51 to use the Merlin was the P-51B, although the
initial fitting trials were done by the Brits using early Mustang Is in
1942.
>> > THe RAF did the original installation and modification. When the
>> > USAAC decided they had a winner on their hands, they contracted
>> > Packard Motor Commpany (yes, the builder of Packard automobiles) to
>> > built the Merlins' under license.
It wasn't the acceptance by the USAAC of the P-51B that led to manufacture
by Packard, since they started working on Merlins under license from
Rolls-Royce in 1940, before anyone had installed a Merlin in a Mustang.
Merlins were also built by Ford of England starting in June 1941.
Negotiations with Henry Ford to build them in America fell through. Ford
ended up first trying to design their own V-12 aircraft engine having had
access to the engineering drawings of the Merlin. They gave up on that,
but a V-8 based on the same design ended up in things like Sherman tanks.
Packard ended up with the contract.
Continental Motors also built Merlins in Muskegon Michigan in a factory
that was built to produce Pratt&Whitney R-1340s. They converted this to
Merlin production using some of Packard's subcontractors for major
castings like the head, cylinder bank, and crankcase.
>
> I saw an inline engine at the Smithsonin's Restoration Center. It was
>identified by the guide as a P-51 engine. The engine was clearly stamped
>"Maytag". I think that should settle this thread.
The Maytag Washing Machine Company was one of these subcontractors. They
had obtained experience in large complex aluminum castings which found
extensive use in prewar washing machines. The engine in the Garber
facility was no doubt either made by Packard or Continental, only the
castings being produced by Maytag.
The Maytag casting marks led to one of the nicknames of the P-51 the
"Maytag Messerschmitt", as well as nose-art names like "Woody's Maytag".
As I said at the outset this is all well documented. The sources that I
used for this article are:
Allied Piston Aircraft Engines of World War II, by Graham White, SAE
1995, ISBN 1-56091-655-9
P-51 Mustang, by Robert Grinnell, 1980, reprinted as part of The Great
Book of WW2 Airplanes, 1984,
Bonanza Books, ISBN 0-517-459930
--
Rick DeNatale
http://www.webbuild.com/~denatale/
Still looking for a cool signature ;-)
Jukka O Kauppinen
: > The Sturmovik powered by an in-line engine. It was regarded as difficult to
: > shoot down. Did it have armoured radiators? I read somewhere that the Germans
: > aimed for the ailerons.
: I'm only half joking when I say that the Sturmovik had armoured
: everything. Anything that was vital was protected. Readings of German
: accounts indicate that the German pilots did not like attacking them
: because they had to basically park their airplane right up the tail of
: the Sturmovik and blast away with their cannon until enough had been
: destroyed on the airplane that it went down. Again, I'm only half
: joking, they were really tough to bring down.
Finnish pilots found that by shooting with cannon to wing, as
near canopy as possible, was best way to shoot IL-10 down,
since this was "rather" unprotected (on Sturmovik scale) and
losing wing means naturally there's only one way to go anymore....
But they were still a hard egg to crack. Especially
since skies were usually swarming with disgusting big
amounts of Soviet fighters escorting IL-10s.
jok
--
Jukka O. Kauppinen Mail: Sankarinkatu 9A3,74100 IISALMI,FINLAND
Journalist E-Mail: jkau...@muikku.jmp.fi
MikroBITTI Tel/fax +358-77-24225
Byterapers Inc. Amiga 500/1200(030),PC486,CD32,C64,Spectrum
STEVE ROGERS
BC>Concerning WWII : Where does Pappy Boyington fit into the
>WWII Aces?
ES>Right under Joe Foss since one of the Japanese aircraft claimed by Greg
>boyington was denighed by the conformation boad of the Flying Tigers.
>One of whom, on the confirmation board at the time happend to be Jim
>Howard, medal of honor winner, and the only fighter pilot to be awarded
>the medal of honor in the European theater.
I wasn't aware that there was only one. There should have been more.
BTW, Mr. Shilling, thanks to you and your companions for going over
there... ;)
Pepper Kay
In article <8C131C4.0212...@swsbbs.com>, steve....@swsbbs.com
(STEVE ROGERS) writes:
...>BC>Concerning WWII : Where does Pappy Boyington fit into the WWII
Aces?
>
...>ES>Right under Joe Foss since one of the Japanese aircraft claimed by
Greg
boyington was denighed by the conformation boad of the Flying Tigers. One
of whom, on the confirmation board at the time happend to be Jim Howard,
medal of honor winner, and the only fighter pilot to be awarded the medal
of honor in the European theater.
>
Were there some politics involved on the part of Howard and Boyington ?
Greg wasn't a 'choir boy' while he was in China...
Pepper Kay
"P-51's or SD-45's + bluegrass music = heaven !! "
pepp...@aol.com
pk...@sprynet.com
Bruce J. Grayson
Thomas K. Wallenius,wall...@mailffx.laser.net,Internet writes:
In article <960521131...@146.27.33.145>, bew...@chevron.com (Bill
Garnett) wrote:
> In article <>, pepp...@aol.com (Pepper Kay) writes:
>
> > The 1st engine(s) in the very first P51 models were Merlin built V-12's.
> > THe RAF did the original installation and modification. When the
> > USAAC decided they had a winner on their hands, they contracted
> > Packard Motor Commpany (yes, the builder of Packard automobiles) to
> > built the Merlins' under license.
I saw an inline engine at the Smithsonin's Restoration Center. It was
identified by the guide as a P-51 engine. The engine was clearly stamped
"Maytag". I think that should settle this thread.
I bet not. Who knows what "Maytag" means, then?
David Menere
Maytag merlins are just a product of the military industrial complex-
Maytag's maingame as far as i recall is making washing machines- but
mostly robust, commercial quality stuff, for hotels, laundries etc.
I recall once seeing some US assault craft in a disposals yard with
"Made by Food Machinery Corp" manufacturers' plates. No harm in a
machinery manufacturer putting in a tender, and if they get it, good
luck.
Henry Hillbrath
David Menere <dme...@dpie.gov.au> writes:
Well, Food Machinery Corp. (which later changed their to "FMC.") made a
lot of stuff that was not "Food Machinery." In fact, for many years, they
have been the leading producer of Armored Personnel Carriers in the U. S.
And, at one time, they were the only producer of UDMH rocket propellant,
and produced most, if not all, the UDMH for the Titan program, among
others.
I have no idea what else they may have built. But, they have a plant just
by the airport in San Jose, and I don't think they make any food
machinery there.
Henry Hillbrath
Mary Shafer
On Tue, 28 May 1996 01:30:39 GMT, sou...@netcom.com (Henry Hillbrath) said:
H> David Menere <dme...@dpie.gov.au> writes:
>Maytag merlins are just a product of the military industrial complex-
>Maytag's maingame as far as i recall is making washing machines- but
>mostly robust, commercial quality stuff, for hotels, laundries etc.
>I recall once seeing some US assault craft in a disposals yard with
>"Made by Food Machinery Corp" manufacturers' plates. No harm in a
>machinery manufacturer putting in a tender, and if they get it, good
>luck.
H> Well, Food Machinery Corp. (which later changed their to "FMC.")
H> made a lot of stuff that was not "Food Machinery." In fact, for
H> many years, they have been the leading producer of Armored
H> Personnel Carriers in the U. S.
Until a few years ago, portable generators, airplane start carts and
other AGE, and my KitchenAid heavy-duty mixer were made by Hobart.
They still make the big stuff but they sold off the home-sized mixer
line a few years ago (keeping the huge industrial ones that you see in
bakeries, though). I suspect they got tired of fussing around with
the consumer distribution, etc. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that
they still manufactured the mixers under contract, either.
And TRW makes automobile brakes and other parts in addition to all
those satellites and space probes.
Rockwell makes power tools as well as B-1Bs.
--
Mary Shafer NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA
SR-71 Flying Qualities Lead Engineer Of course I don't speak for NASA
sha...@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov DoD #362 KotFR
URL http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/People/Shafer/mary.html
Joe Hegedus
In article <8C131C4.0212...@swsbbs.com>, steve....@swsbbs.com says...
>
>BC>Concerning WWII : Where does Pappy Boyington fit into the
> >WWII Aces?
>
> >boyington was denighed by the conformation boad of the Flying Tigers.
> >One of whom, on the confirmation board at the time happend to be Jim
> >Howard, medal of honor winner, and the only fighter pilot to be awarded
> >the medal of honor in the European theater.
>
>
> BTW, Mr. Shilling, thanks to you and your companions for going over
> there... ;)
I thought that, in his book "Roar of the Tiger", Jim Howard stated that THREE
of Boyington's AVG claims were suspect.
Joe
Chris E. Becht
Paul J. Adam (pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: In article <SHAFER.96M...@ferhino.dfrf.nasa.gov>, Mary Shafer
: <sha...@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov> writes
: >Until a few years ago, portable generators, airplane start carts and
: >other AGE, and my KitchenAid heavy-duty mixer were made by Hobart.
: >And TRW makes automobile brakes and other parts in addition to all
: >those satellites and space probes.
: >
: >Rockwell makes power tools as well as B-1Bs.
: Check out GEC's product line sometime. I do PDS for their torpedoes, I
: have a Hotpoint fridge-freezer and dishwasher, they do everything from
: hydroelectric power to petrol pumps :)
: Segregated by division, of course, for sanity's sake...
Check out Daewoo for an amazingly broad product line. They're
almost as huge as the pre-war Japanese Zaibatsu (Y'know - the Imperial
Japanese Navy - a wholly owned subsidiary of the Mitsubishi Corporation)
--
Life is like a cow.
You get out of it what you put in. cali...@crl.com
But, umm... different somehow.
Paul J. Adam
In article <SHAFER.96M...@ferhino.dfrf.nasa.gov>, Mary Shafer
<sha...@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov> writes
>Until a few years ago, portable generators, airplane start carts and
>other AGE, and my KitchenAid heavy-duty mixer were made by Hobart.
>line a few years ago (keeping the huge industrial ones that you see in
>bakeries, though). I suspect they got tired of fussing around with
>the consumer distribution, etc. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that
>they still manufactured the mixers under contract, either.
Someone had to explain to me what "bringing up the Hobarts" meant in the
context of aircraft operations (Chris Petersen? It was while we were
talking about CASS, anyway). Didn't realise how broad their product base
was, though.
>And TRW makes automobile brakes and other parts in addition to all
>those satellites and space probes.
>
>Rockwell makes power tools as well as B-1Bs.
Check out GEC's product line sometime. I do PDS for their torpedoes, I
have a Hotpoint fridge-freezer and dishwasher, they do everything from
hydroelectric power to petrol pumps :)
Segregated by division, of course, for sanity's sake...
--
"There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy."
Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
Paul J. Adam pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk
Iskandar Taib
In article <960521132...@146.27.33.145>,
There is one thing you need to take into account here. Altitude.
When comparing speeds of (blown, piston-engine) fighters, note that
they usually fly a lot faster at 25,000 feet than they do at 5,000 feet.
Racing is done "on the deck", so the speeds they reach are even more
amazing, when you think of it.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iskandar Taib | The only thing worse than Peach ala
Internet: nt...@silver.ucs.indiana.edu | Frog is Frog ala Peach
Home page: http://bigwig.geology.indiana.edu/iskandar/isk2.html
STEVE ROGERS
BJG> I saw an inline engine at the Smithsonin's Restoration Center. It was
>identified by the guide as a P-51 engine. The engine was clearly stamped
>"Maytag". I think that should settle this thread.
BJG>I bet not. Who knows what "Maytag" means, then?
Isn't that German for "I have a Mustang on my tail"?
Dan Ford
Actually, it's quite the other way around. Boyington seems to have been
credited with at least one and perhaps two more victories in the defense
of Rangoon than he was paid bonus money for.
On the other hand, a couple of Boyington's "official" victories were
air-to-ground (in the strafing of the 64th Sentai at Chiang Mai) so maybe
it all come out even in the end.
There exists a furious and funny letter from Boyington to the Marine
Corps historian explaining that a woman on Chennault's staff, whom he
bedded twice, claimed that the $1,000 was owed her by Boyington, and that
Chennault obligingly transferred the money to her. If he'd known what the
price was, he wrote, he would have stayed in his own room. (Supposedly he
climbed the outside wall of the hostel with a whiskey bottle under his
arm. Perhaps Erik Shilling could tell us how much faith to put in this
story.)
- Dan
military aviation homepage at www.cris.com/~danford
On 28 May 1996, Joe Hegedus wrote:
> I thought that, in his book "Roar of the Tiger", Jim Howard stated that THREE
> of Boyington's AVG claims were suspect.
(By the way, Howard's book is a very good read. No romance, lots of grit.
- Dan)
Ken Devlin
sou...@netcom.com (Henry Hillbrath) wrote:
>David Menere <dme...@dpie.gov.au> writes:
>>Maytag merlins are just a product of the military industrial complex-
>>Maytag's maingame as far as i recall is making washing machines- but
>>mostly robust, commercial quality stuff, for hotels, laundries etc.
>>I recall once seeing some US assault craft in a disposals yard with
>>"Made by Food Machinery Corp" manufacturers' plates. No harm in a
>>machinery manufacturer putting in a tender, and if they get it, good
>>luck.
>Well, Food Machinery Corp. (which later changed their to "FMC.") made a
>lot of stuff that was not "Food Machinery." In fact, for many years, they
>have been the leading producer of Armored Personnel Carriers in the U. S.
>And, at one time, they were the only producer of UDMH rocket propellant,
>and produced most, if not all, the UDMH for the Titan program, among
>others.
>I have no idea what else they may have built. But, they have a plant just
>by the airport in San Jose, and I don't think they make any food
>machinery there.
FMC also makes A/C cargo handling equip. of the like that you around
passenger A/C at an airport. Have a plant that makes equipment like
that here in Orlando Fla.
kbd
>Henry Hillbrath
just my 2-cents
STEVE ROGERS
CDB100620
I don't believe any piston-engined fighter could reach Mach 1 in a dive.
A much more "Mach friendly" aircraft, the F-86E, would not exceed Mach
0.97 in a 30-degree dive. To reach--not exceed--Mach 1.0, the plane had
to be dived at 90 degrees from at least 35,000 feet. The indicated
airspeed would not exceed 600 knots (TAS around 700 knots) and the
Machmeter would not exceed 0.99, terminal velocity. This speed would
have been reached by the time the plane reached 20,000 feet. Since at
that point the plane is racing toward the earth at something like 1,000
feet a second, it's time to pull up. You could acomplish this merely by
popping the speed brakes, which would snap the plane into a 3g pull-up.
Les S.
Laurence Maller
>>>I don't believe any piston-engined fighter could reach Mach 1 in
a dive<<<
Absolutely correct. If the prop didn't shear off first, the wings'd
snap clean. They're just too fat and present way too much frontal
area - the drag force near mach 1 would be gigantic. If I recall
correctly, the fastest speed ever reached by a pilot who lived to
tell was around 525mph in a P-38. Anyone know for sure?
Emmanuel.Gustin
: Absolutely correct. If the prop didn't shear off first, the wings'd
: snap clean. They're just too fat and present way too much frontal
: area - the drag force near mach 1 would be gigantic. If I recall
: correctly, the fastest speed ever reached by a pilot who lived to
: tell was around 525mph in a P-38. Anyone know for sure?
Mach 0.96 I believe, achieved in an out-of-control dive by a weather
reconnaissance Spitfire over Hongkong. Basically, the pilot took the
Spitfire up to the highest possible altitude, then lost control. He landed
the aircraft intact, but quit flying soon after that --- the damage to his
nerves had been considerable!
At the RAE British test pilots did 'compressibility' research with
Spitfires, achieving Mach 0.92 in dives under controlled conditions. The
Spitfire was probably the most suitable aircraft for those tests, because
of its thin wings.
Emmanuel Gustin
MetaJohn
In article <4p0bap$4ni$4...@mhafn.production.compuserve.com>, Laurence Maller
<72722...@CompuServe.COM> writes:
>Absolutely correct. If the prop didn't shear off first, the wings'd
>snap clean. They're just too fat and present way too much frontal
>area - the drag force near mach 1 would be gigantic. If I recall
>correctly, the fastest speed ever reached by a pilot who lived to
>tell was around 525mph in a P-38. Anyone know for sure?
Then explain the Ryan, XF2R "Darkshark" which had a max level speed
over 500 mph!; the Russian Tu-95 "Bear", turboprop at (est) 575 mph!; and
the XF-84H, turboprop version of F-84, with (classified??) top speed
thought to be "in excess" of 600 mph!!
I also remember at least one MD-80 with wierd Turbofan/turboprop aft
fuselague mounted engines which must've been in the 580 knt/hr speed
range.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"[Meta]Reality . . . What a Concept!" Robin Williams
********************************************************
There is an old belief
that on some distant shore
far from despair and grief
old friends shall meet once more.
***********************************************************
meta...@aol.com aka John Barker, in un-ease @ NTC Great Lakes