This is long article but has some good info in it. I hope it is useful information.
https://warisboring.com/arrogant-u-s...9e9#.27ifilxhr
P-51 Article
This is long article but has some good info in it. I hope it is useful information.
https://warisboring.com/arrogant-u-s...9e9#.27ifilxhr
Interesting article.
Of course the Mustang was only fairly ordinary with the Allison engine but once fitted with the Merlin it was "Look out the Nazis!"
So true and when you hear a Merlin engine WOW. What a sound.
That is an interesting article, Bob. Thank you for posting the link.
The U.S. Army Air Force was not the only one to ignore the usefulness of drop tanks. If the Luftwaffe had fitted drop tanks to its Messerschmitt Bf-109's in the Battle of Britain, it might have changed the outcome and world history.
Drop tanks are only useful while they're attached to the airplane. IIRC, one tactic the Germans tried was to send a small group of fighters in to convince the US escorts to drop their tanks before they were completely empty, thus forcing the escorts to turn back that much earlier and leaving the bombers to the rest of the Luftwaffe.
As to the bombers themselves: Note that every single bomber designed after the War, as well as pre- or during-War designs which survived after the War, lost all defensive armaments save for a tail gun, in favor of increased speed. Had Chennault been paid the attention he was due, the bomber fleets of both sides would have resembled massed Mosquitos, with attendant lower loss rates for both acft. and crew (2-3 men lost when one is shot down, rather than 10-12).
very interesting. the usaacs failure to realize the jeopardy would be in early on is at least understandable in those pre radar days. when the b-17 first flew it was faster than any fighter in regular service and had more guns than most previous bombers. of course the speed advantage was eclipsed in very short order by soon to be famous fighters also then in development. one wonders though, at the "uninterceptable" attitude as, even with greater speed, a bomber flying towards an enemies homeland is liable to be intercepted for at least 1 pass bt fighters flying outbound from the target area. their belief that the bombers would be too high for flak guns seems entirely out of place.
The main reason the -17 was faster was that all the speed-enhancing measures applied to it (and the B-9 and -10 before it) had *NOT* been applied to *fighters* -- fighters were still mostly fixed-gear biplanes (with twin-0.30 armament not helping much). On the Civilian Side, tho', folks in air racing had already started applying the speed tricks to single-engine acft.; it came as a hell of shock to the USAAC when civilian racers started habitually whomping the Government Birds. The altitude problem was solved when supercharging of various forms was applied to single-engines; no longer did they "hit a wall" at 16,000'. But, as is ever the case, Hidebound Traditionalism reared its ugly head....Originally Posted by milcoll73
that and being more aerodynamic and having 4 big honkin engines. its not the 1st time the airforce (or any service for that matter) has been overly enamored (even despite initial resistance) of their latest and greatest hardware. nor is it likely to be the last time lol.
Excellent article, thanks for sharing it.
Number of engines wasn't that big a deal -- it was the amount of power they produced vs. the weight being pulled. Weight has ever been the enemy of flying machine, esp. warplanes; stuff keeps getting added, so weight increases, and power rarely keeps pace (for ex.: The -17D was able to make 300 MPH; the -17E and F using the same engines could barely crack 200).
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks