# How about a little flip-flop



## MikeGazdik (Apr 27, 2009)

Maybe a strange what if, but it may be fun. 

What Allied fighter, if put into use by the Luftwaffe, would have been most effective at stopping the daylight bombing campaign of the 8th AF.

And its a double edged sword, because if the Germans developed the plane in question, the allies would not have had the same aircraft.

I think the Thunderbolt would have been a very good bomber interceptor for the Luftwaffe. Slow to climb I think would be its worse attribute. Now take that from the hands of the USAAC, and what would they have used in that time period until the Mustang? Corsair as we have discussed? Or would they have been forced to use the P-38 in a large scale? P-40? Or maybe the U.S. would have produced Spitfires. 

I think the P-47 (or shoud I say the Re-47) would have been good at downing B-17's and B-24's. How they would have handled interception by the Lightnings and Spitfires would be interesting.


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 27, 2009)

U'd shoot a hellovalot of .50 cal rounds to drop a B-17.....


----------



## BombTaxi (Apr 27, 2009)

I don't think any of the US fighters would have made good bomber interceptors, TBH. As les has already pointed out, 6 or 8 .50s is nothing like a sufficient battery for the job - bear in mind that even the Fw190 had additional guns added to an already impressive weapons fit in order to give more firepower against bombers. Assuming the Germans 'designed' the P-47, I severely doubt the aircraft would have looked or performed anything like it's 'real' counterpart. The P-47 was the product of a very different design philosophy from German a/c, and it's layout would have left nowhere to put the kind armament required to down bombers, unless 4x 20mm and a substantial quantity of ammo could be located in the wing...


----------



## Waynos (Apr 27, 2009)

The 4 cannon Spitfire IX would be best, but we're not parting with it so tough luck! 

I think the argument for the P-47 in the OP rather shoots itself down, a poor time to height is the last thing you would want in an interceptor, apart from no guns, Interception was the Job that British fighters were designed for, in a way that US types never were, so that is my choice.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 27, 2009)

Hmmm.
How many decades (centuries?) would take it for Germans to install the cannons in the ultra-thin and weak wings of P-47?


----------



## davebender (Apr 27, 2009)

I agree. However the Spitfire, P-38, P-47 etc. are all expensive to produce compared to the Me-109 and Fw-190. So the Luftwaffe is further ahead with their historical aircraft.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 27, 2009)

P-47 was expensive, no doubt about it. 
Yet, the most expensive part of an air force is a trained pilot. And the P-47 excelled in preserving that expensive part.
The rate to altitude would've been sufficient, esp. with paddle-blade props. 

Therefore, P-47 (with souped-up armament) is the best choice.


----------



## renrich (Apr 27, 2009)

P38! It was designed as an interceptor. Good rate of climb. Impressive range and could stay up a long time. I believe you are all underrating the 50 BMG but that battery of one 20 mm and 4 50s all clustered in the nose would have put a lot of firepower in one spot on the target.


----------



## olbrat (Apr 27, 2009)

How would the P-38 have faired with 30mm cannons? It seemed the Germans put those in a number of aircraft. If I remember correctly, they would send their Me163 interceptors up about 10,000 ft above the bomber formation, scream down and take out a bomber use their speed to gain altitude and do it again. I would think if you could do that with a group of P-38's you would cause some significant damage. Would the P-38's been able to climb quickly enough? Would their structure be able to utilize multiple 30mm cannons?


----------



## timshatz (Apr 27, 2009)

Agree with Ren, the P38 was made for that job. Especially the way the weapons were set up. Bump it up to a 30MM and it works even better. But figure it could only handle one 30 (with .50Cals) or 2 30MMs in the nose and no MGs.


----------



## Amsel (Apr 27, 2009)

I wonder how a P-38 with Mk 108's would do. Or even Mg151. Didn't the F4U have a varient that was armed with 20mm?


----------



## evangilder (Apr 27, 2009)

IIRC, the original P-38 was tested with a 37mm cannon in the middle. That would do some pretty good damage, depending on the rate of fire and how many shells it could hold.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 27, 2009)

If the Packard Merlin had been available to the LW at the beginning, or the DB603 for the Mustang or P-38 I would be inclined to go with one or the other of these two. I would only pick these because of high altitude performance and range.

The Spitfire is a ready to go choice with 4x20mm cannon. I don't choose this marvelous interceptor because both the P-38 and P-51 have enormous range capability as well as stores hardpoints for 'other stuff'. 

The P-47 re-gunned to 20mm would be very good but all the others have better performance at middle to bomber altitude and more range (until the M and N appaear very late in the war).

The Mustang is easily converted back to 4x20mm and the German 20's would have made it devastaing - 

As E mentioned the 38 was capable of using a 37mm and I think either a prototype mod was made, or a proposal made, for the 38 to install 6 x 20mm.

I would have a hard time believeing at least a couple of 30mm Mk 108s would be difficult to install when one looks at the 262.

Additionally, while the P-51 and P-38 could intercept at long range, the P-47 and Spitfire could not escort at long range.

So, if you take the state of each of these in their development state by Dec1941, The only two that were combat ready would be the P-38D and the Spitfire.

If you assume Germany had the XP-38 in 1938 and installed the DB series engine and had production tooling in 1939 - I would pick the P-38 primarily because it would be an easier platform to add night fighting capability.

If Daylight Interception is the only criteria and you assume the P-51 was designed around the Merlin I consider picking it with possible consideration to DB engines which would have been better than Allison. The primary reason is cost and balanced performance at all altitudes.

If you start with both daylight and night interception as criteria and ready in 1941/1942 the the Mossie is tough to turn down. I would pick it over the Mustang or P-38 or P-47 or Spit.

It clearly is not best air superiority fighter and would have been vulnerable to all the other ships in the interceptor role... but so was the 109 and 190 and 110 and 410.

This Mustang would have been equivalent to P-51B but available in late 1941/early 1942.


----------



## Glider (Apr 27, 2009)

The Spit with 4 x 20mm is the obvious choice but if you want a big hitter initially operating outside the range of escorting fighters, then the Mossie with the 57mm.


----------



## timshatz (Apr 27, 2009)

Amsel said:


> I wonder how a P-38 with Mk 108's would do. Or even Mg151. Didn't the F4U have a varient that was armed with 20mm?



Think it was the "C". Not sure who they went to.


----------



## davebender (Apr 27, 2009)

It would require a fighter escort similiar to the Me-410.


----------



## MikeGazdik (Apr 27, 2009)

I like the Daimler powered P-38. With a mix of Germain armament, it would certainly be a very good bomber killer.

How would it deal with interception then by the Allied Spitfires, Thunderbolts and later on Mustangs?


----------



## Glider (Apr 27, 2009)

davebender said:


> It would require a fighter escort similiar to the Me-410.



True, but initially the escorts couldn't go all the way to the target which is the opportunity I was thinking of.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 27, 2009)

MikeGazdik said:


> I like the Daimler powered P-38. With a mix of Germain armament, it would certainly be a very good bomber killer.
> 
> How would it deal with interception then by the Allied Spitfires, Thunderbolts and later on Mustangs?



I believe the Germans would have solved the early issues with the P-38 in a shorter time. The late P-38J, if available in mid 1943 would have fared ok against the P-51/P-47 and Spit.

If your great bomber destroyer also has reasonable parity versus the other side's escort fighters at altitude all the way to the deck you move the P-38 roughly in the same envelope as the Fw 190D. 

The second main factor with this choice is there is no Long Range Escort until December 1943. The P-47D-25 with extra internal fuel and external wing racks doesn't show up until mid 1944 and the Mustang w/Merlin until Dec 1943.

That is a long time to have long range interception capability, far ranging,high performance, fighter sweeps all over England (or Africa or Russia) and the ability to intercept escort fighters well before daylight bombers have reached Germany - forcing even shorter range for escorts.

The reason I picked Mossie is only to combine night fighter capability with exceptional high altitude performance and heavy armament. For the same reasons it completely dominates skies over Germany versus the 47 - which can't penetrate deeply until last three months of 44..

If you pose the question and let me keep all other LW variants to provide inner barrier defense and night fighters, then I pick P-38 because it is 'good enough' over London as well as over Paris and Berlin versus Allied Escort fighters and capable of much greater firepower than the 47 and 51.


----------



## olbrat (Apr 27, 2009)

If there are no escort fighters for the bombers, how about the A26 invader? You could put jet-assist take-off packs to get it up to altitude, then, with its 350 mph speed, 10 x .50 cal. mg's and 14 x 5 inch rockets it could mess with a few bombers.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 27, 2009)

olbrat said:


> If there are no escort fighters for the bombers, how about the A26 invader? You could put jet-assist take-off packs to get it up to altitude, then, with its 350 mph speed, 10 x .50 cal. mg's and 14 x 5 inch rockets it could mess with a few bombers.



It would do fine (as well as A-70) for middle altitude British bombers but would struugle to get to 25K against B-17s. Its service ceiling was 22K. Also, it won't do near 350 with a load. Last - it didn't make it to combat until mid 1944, by which time Allied fighters had the range to intercept over Germany.


----------



## davebender (Apr 27, 2009)

> I believe the Germans would have solved the early issues with the P-38 in a shorter time.


I expect so. However if the Luftwaffe did not want the Fw-187 then I see no reason they would want the P-38 either.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 27, 2009)

In this scenario I think I would have to go with a P-38 armed with 108s.

Nothing against the .50s, it is a great weapon and against fighters perfectly suited, but for bombers I would rather have some cannons.


----------



## renrich (Apr 27, 2009)

There were 200 F4U1Cs with four 20 mms built for the Navy. I assume the Navy did not like them for their purposes as well as the ones with 50 BMGs. They would have had plenty of performance for bomber interceptors and had plenty of range also. Much more than the FW 190 or ME109.


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 27, 2009)

I wouldn't rule out the "Jug" for intercepting.

Sure it's time to altitude wasn't all that great, but with advanced warning, it would have enough time to get on station.

As far as cannons are concerned, sure you could stuff some 30mm in there. It was done with the Fw190's wings. Keep in mind that the 262 was packing 4 Mk108 cannon, and it could deliver horrific damage to it's target. Why not 2 or 4 internal Mk108 or Mk103 cannons and a couple wing pods with the same?

And with a little work, I'm sure you could place a couple MGs in the cowling. The Germans (and a good deal of other European nations) were masters of syncronized cowl weapons.

While the P-38 would be a good interceptor, nothing compares to the brutal punishment the P-47 could take and still dish it out. That is what you want for a bomber killer. Attacking a "heavy" was a task that many never returned from and the P-38 just didn't offer the pilot the same amount of protection.

But it's real hard to imagine a "Re47A1a" tearing through a box of B-24s!


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 27, 2009)

> But it's real hard to imagine a "Re47A1a" tearing through a box of B-24s!


 
Ja, unsere "Republik sieben-und-vierzich a-enins-a" ist ein uberfileger!!!


----------



## Glider (Apr 27, 2009)

drgondog said:


> I believe the Germans would have solved the early issues with the P-38 in a shorter time. The late P-38J, if available in mid 1943 would have fared ok against the P-51/P-47 and Spit.



Can I ask what make you think that the Germans would have sorted the P-38 issues more effectively than the USA? The US threw a lot of resources into resolving the issues and I cannot see how the Germans or anyone else would have done the job any quicker.


----------



## timshatz (Apr 27, 2009)

Often wondered if it were possible to put 6 of the 20MM cannon in the P47s wings. I could see 4 in there, no problem. But would there be space for 6? 

Failing that, can you put 4 of the 30MMs in the wings of a P47. Maybe have to lay them sideways. But that combination, P47 with 4 MK108s cannon, two in each wing, with the survivability of that aircraft, would be deadly against a bomber formation. 

That would be a world beater of a bomber killer for the period of WW2.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 27, 2009)

Well, latest (K-16?) version of the Bf-109 did have the MK 108 in each wing, and many British planes did have 4 x 20mm; F-4U also. So I see no trouble for 4 MK 108s in Jug's wings.


----------



## Colin1 (Apr 27, 2009)

tomo pauk said:


> How many decades (centuries?) would take it for Germans to install the cannons in the ultra-thin and weak wings of P-47?





tomo pauk said:


> ...I see no trouble for 4 MK 108s in Jug's wings.


You're just trying to confuse me, aren't you?


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 27, 2009)

Finally someone to react...


----------



## MikeGazdik (Apr 28, 2009)

I agree the Germans may have had the P-38 on line sooner the the U.S. I was going to bring that up but hoped someone else would. The Air Corps did a foolish thing with the P-38 prototype which ended up writing it off and delaying the aircraft by as much as a year.

I didn't think about the range of the Lightning letting it get to the escorts before the bombers were over target. That is quite the game changer. I know there are other twins made by Germany and the UK, but none of them can go fighter to fighter like the Lightning.

I think that makes an even better case for the Lockheed.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Apr 28, 2009)

I'd go with the Gloster Meteor with 6 x 20mm cannons.


----------



## davebender (Apr 28, 2009)

> there are other twins made by Germany and the UK, but none of them can go fighter to fighter like the Lightning.


The loaded weight of the P-38 was 50% greater then the loaded weight of the Fw-187. With similiar engines (DB605 in this scenerio) I think the Fw-187 would be faster, accelerate better and have a superior rate of climb. The Fw-187 also has a lower wing loading. It will likely be capable of tighter turns. The overall smaller size likely gives the Fw-187 a superior rate of roll.

Despite all these advantages the Luftwaffe elected not to procure the Fw-187. So I don't think the P-38 stands a chance to be mass produced in Germany.


----------



## davparlr (Apr 28, 2009)

MikeGazdik said:


> What Allied fighter, if put into use by the Luftwaffe, would have been most effective at stopping the daylight bombing campaign of the 8th AF.
> 
> And its a double edged sword, because if the Germans developed the plane in question, *the allies would not have had the same aircraft*.



The answer is obvious to me, the P-51. If the Allies did not have the P-51, daylight bombing over Germany would have most likely been stopped.


----------



## olbrat (Apr 28, 2009)

If I'm not mistaken, some versions of the P-38 also were also fitted with under-wing pods and under-fueselage pods. With this set-up, I imagine you could utilize almost any ordinance, or combination of weapons systems you wanted. With radar in one pod, you could even make yourself a nasty night-time bomber killer.


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 28, 2009)

vikingBerserker said:


> I'd go with the Gloster Meteor with 6 x 20mm cannons.


The Gloster Meteor was a jet, you have a Brewster Buffalo (F2) posted?


----------



## Glider (Apr 28, 2009)

davparlr said:


> The answer is obvious to me, the P-51. If the Allies did not have the P-51, daylight bombing over Germany would have most likely been stopped.



I like the thinking behind this, cheap, simple, and foolproof, just wish that I had thought of it first.


----------



## Amsel (Apr 28, 2009)

GrauGeist said:


> The Gloster Meteor was a jet, you have a Brewster Buffalo (F2) posted?


Looks like the Brewster is his sig. 

Nice sig btw.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 28, 2009)

davparlr said:


> The answer is obvious to me, the P-51. If the Allies did not have the P-51, daylight bombing over Germany would have most likely been stopped.



Dave - the fall back was the P-38 - just accept higher losses in 8th AF FC through May, and fewer scores against the LW.

But I agree based on the premise of the thread that Mustang is the best ship to take away from Allies. The argument for the P-38 ship design in 1937-1938, is that it would have been available to attack bombers in 1940 and do a better job of escort than the 110's (performance) and 109's (range with near performance) in BoB


----------



## drgondog (Apr 28, 2009)

Glider said:


> Can I ask what make you think that the Germans would have sorted the P-38 issues more effectively than the USA? The US threw a lot of resources into resolving the issues and I cannot see how the Germans or anyone else would have done the job any quicker.



The Germans would not have been so stupid as to lose the prototype on a publicity speed run and had a year more to study the issues with dive and high altitude intercooler issues.

The tragic problem with the P-38 is that it was built with only partial funding so the investment in production tooling was not made prior to prototype. 

When the XP-38 crashed in Jan 1941 it took another year to put another ship in the air - by that time the Army was in a huge hurry and production versions were ordered before flight test started. A lot of mistakes and solutions were discovered but the requirements for production over rode the insertion of airframe /tooling fixes.


----------



## Vincenzo (Apr 28, 2009)

I'm thinking on Spitfire or Hurricane. The US good fighters coming too late the path of war was already done. Need take something that can win the BoB at luftwaffe, something that can change the war.


p.s P-47 it's not good choice, what engine can put in it the Germans??


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 28, 2009)

Amsel said:


> Looks like the Brewster is his sig.
> 
> Nice sig btw.


Dang Amsel, you're right...it is his sig!  

My apologies to vikingBerserker...I shoulda had more coffee before I posted! 

And Vincenzo, why would the engine have to be German? If the Germans had come up with the P-47's airframe, then why not the engine too?


----------



## Vincenzo (Apr 28, 2009)

if we take out also the engine from allied side my choice it's simply merlin so no hurricane, spitfire, mustang. hard for raf fightning BoB with peregrine or mercury engined fighters


----------



## davparlr (Apr 28, 2009)

lesofprimus said:


> U'd shoot a hellovalot of .50 cal rounds to drop a B-17.....



Yes, but a P-47 throws out a lot of rounds per second. A two second burst of P-47 fire would deliver over 200 .50 caliber rounds. I suspect this is enough to decimate a crew, cut a wing off of any bomber, or blast a radial into smitereens, especially if it is focused fire. The car in the attached pix has about 50 30-06 and 45 cal rounds (at close range) shown. Multiply that by four, make the round 50 cal and I think you can get a feel for the destruction a two second burst from a P-47 would do to that car, probably totally destroy it, and it is made out of steel.


----------



## TheMustangRider (Apr 28, 2009)

Vincenzo, I must challenge your notion that the good American fighters came when the war in Europe was already done, when the P-38, P-47 and even the P-51 were introduced in the ETO, the war in Europe was reaching its climax but still was far from over. Even the P-51B which began to see action in late 1943 was present when the Allies turned the tide of the war against Nazi Germany; if the P-38 or P-51 would had been designed in Germany in the same period of time they were designed in the US, from the beginning they would had been matched with the Daimler-Benz engine and therefore would had been a threat to the allies bombers they historically defended.


----------



## renrich (Apr 28, 2009)

Is that Bonnie and Clyde's car?


----------



## Vincenzo (Apr 28, 2009)

TheMustangRider said:


> Vincenzo, I must challenge your notion that the good American fighters came when the war in Europe was already done, when the P-38, P-47 and even the P-51 were introduced in the ETO, the war in Europe was reaching its climax but still was far from over. Even the P-51B which began to see action in late 1943 was present when the Allies turned the tide of the war against Nazi Germany; if the P-38 or P-51 would had been designed in Germany in the same period of time they were designed in the US, from the beginning they would had been matched with the Daimler-Benz engine and therefore would had been a threat to the allies bombers they historically defended.



P-38, the first, come in very late '42 too late for change the war, need exchange course of war before, maybe in '40


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 28, 2009)

Even if we accept that the war in Europe was decided in 1942, the US planes did play a significant role in that:
P-36, P-39, P-40, A-20, B-25, B-26, Martin 167/Maryland Baltimore, C-47, AT-6, F-4F, P-51, Lockheed Hudson Ventura, PBY Catalina, B-17 ... 

Many were used even before Pearl Harbour.


----------



## Colin1 (Apr 28, 2009)

Vincenzo said:


> I'm thinking on Spitfire or Hurricane. The US good fighters coming too late the path of war was already done. Need take something that can win the BoB at luftwaffe, something that can change the war.
> 
> P-47 it's not good choice, what engine can put in it the Germans??


I don't think the Luftwaffe would thank you for flip-flopping the Hurricane...
The Spitfire will keep the Luftwaffe out of your back yard but with its inherent range issues you will have problems projecting force into his. However, flip-flopping the Spitfire means you've left the Allies with the P-38, 47 and 51 and merely given the Luftwaffe a capability that they already possess in the Bf109.

How can we flip-flop the P-47 airframe without the engine? If we're doing that then the airframe wouldn't have been designed to house the R28 and all of its associated turbo plumbing, it would have looked different to house a German engine ergo it wouldn't have been a P-47.



Vincenzo said:


> P-38, the first, come in very late '42 too late for change the war, need exchange course of war before, maybe in '40


Your 'path of war' was far from done in 1942 wrt to US fighters
Daylight strategic bombing still lacked a premier fighter in a version of the P-51 that could take the heavies deep into the Reich and engage the Luftwaffe on more or less equal terms. 

Ground attack missions had yet to benefit from the weight of fire and durability of the P-47, which was just as handy at high altitude.

The principal US fighters could be interpreted as having 'peaked late' wrt the UK's entry into WWII but the path of war was far from done, premier US fighters were in the thick of it when the Luftwaffe were still at the height of their capability.


----------



## TheMustangRider (Apr 28, 2009)

In all the history books I have read, it is widely accepted that it was 1943 the year when the Allies were gaining momentun against the Axis powers and 1944 the decisive year which marked the fate of the Axis nations with an important progress for the Allies in both Europe and the Pacific which was almost irreversible for the Third Reich and the Japanese empire and by this time the US had fully deployed its military force throughout both theaters.


----------



## HoHun (Apr 28, 2009)

Hi Davparlr,

>The answer is obvious to me, the P-51. If the Allies did not have the P-51, daylight bombing over Germany would have most likely been stopped.

At least, they would have had to continue without their best long-range escort fighter, so I agree with your choice!

The Mustang IA with a DB 605A instead of the less powerful and altitude-limited V-1710-39 and with MG 151/20 cannon instead of the Hispanos would have been a rather formidable bomber interceptor, especially if flown with a reduced fuel load giving it equivalent endurance to a Fw 190A. The DB 605 Mustang could have been available in 1942, early enough to give the P-38 and P-47 fighters of the 8th Air Force a really hard time ...

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## drgondog (Apr 28, 2009)

Vincenzo said:


> P-38, the first, come in very late '42 too late for change the war, need exchange course of war before, maybe in '40



V - here is the question posed for the thread

> What Allied fighter, if put into use by the Luftwaffe, would have been most effective at stopping the daylight bombing campaign of the 8th AF.<

First the Mustang in German hands ana DB 603/605 installed would have been ready before 8th (and 9th and 12th and 15th) BC started operations. As Dave said this is ideal because it also takes away the Mustang as a long rang escort in late 1943. Having said this the P-38 would have been ready before 8th AF started ops.

The first XP-38 crashed in Feb 1939. Because Lockheed did not build production tooling for the prototype, the next 13 YP-38s took another year due to a.) lack of tooling and b.) had to build another plant because their other contracts absorbed all the production capacity. The entire first run of P-38D's were scheduled for RAF and did not have caounter rotating prop/engine combos.

The first of the P-38D's were delivered in sep 1941 timeframe and first P-38E in October 1941. The P-38E had eliminated most of the flaws identified by the RAF and was truly combat ready. It was this version that went to PTO and Aleutians, in early 1942.

Despite all the issues and delays due to crash of prototype and delay of one year to obtain another test a/c the P-38 was ready to fight in late 1941 in squadron strength, deployed to combat in Group level strength in early April 1942.

The hypothesis that the P-38, in German hands and with assumption that this fighter would go into prduction - would have shortened the combat delivery cycle by at least 12 and maybe 18 months meaning early summer to fall 1940. Had the P-38 been available during BoB to fly Fighter Sweeps at both medium and low altitude 30 minutes before the Bombers crossed the Channel - a lot of Hurricanes and Spits would have been at risk at locations generally out of range of Me 109E's

If one further hypothesizes that the German engineers discovered compressibility issues sooner, the addition of dive flaps would have also occurred at least a year sooner - meaning Apr - Jul 1942 or earlier.. but compressibility dives would not have been a big issue in 1940 at 15,000 feet in BoB in contrast with Battle of Germany in late 1943.

There is no question the armament in 1941 would have been more effective as a bomber killer.

Simply stated the P-38 developed by Germany given the time the designs were completed at the same time in 1937 would have easily been in combat in summer of 1940, and much more capable on August 17 1942 when the 8th AF flew its first mission. It should have been more effective as a bomber destroyer than the Me 109F, equivalent or better that the FW 190A2, particularly at B-17 bombing altitudes, and been ideal for fighter bomber sweeps over England early in the morning to catch RAF bombers coming home and 8th AF bombers before take off.

Whether this is enough of a 'difference maker' or not is up to you - but 'late 1942 isn't the right answer - even for US deployment.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 28, 2009)

TheMustangRider said:


> In all the history books I have read, it is widely accepted that it was 1943 the year when the Allies were gaining momentun against the Axis powers and 1944 the decisive year which marked the fate of the Axis nations with an important progress for the Allies in both Europe and the Pacific which was almost irreversible for the Third Reich and the Japanese empire and by this time the US had fully deployed its military force throughout both theaters.



The 8th and 12th AF lost momentum in July - October 1943 when multiple ~25% losses occurred at Schweinfurt/Regensburg, Schweinfurt and Munster. The LW had achieved air superiority at the line where P-47 escort stopped - roughly the German/Holland border.

In the October to early January timeframe the 8th AF was re-grouping as 8th FC surged in deployed P-47 groups, the two P-38F groups became operational and the first Mustangs group was fully operational with two more following by Feb 11, 1945.

They didn't start serious attacks against central Germany again until January then really picked up steam in February, 1944. From Big Week forward the 8th AF kept building strength and attacking as deep as eastern Poland and Czechoslovakia until, with RAF, they ran out of targets in April 1945.


----------



## Vincenzo (Apr 28, 2009)

drgondog, i don't remembered of aleutians P-38, in your scenario P-38 maybe good choice if with is lw can win BoB. 
i'm not understand the flip-flop is only for airframe or also for engine?
if it's valid for engine take out merlin also give a net advantage on lw in BoB, RAF must use fighter with mercury or peregrine.

i try to explain my general position:
we can choice a plane for this flip-flop
surely first choice it's a plane that can do possible Axis win war (if there is a so plane).
If there isn't a so plane it's surely usefull a plane can stop, delayed, lighter, the bombing offensive.
It's hard tell last data for Axis victory but imho summer '42 (for some people it's already too late)


----------



## davparlr (Apr 28, 2009)

renrich said:


> Is that Bonnie and Clyde's car?



Yep! To avoid murder charges, I think the cops claimed it was an accidental gun discharge! 

It is interesting that the state cops laid an ambush and just just blasted them. There was no way they were going to survive to stand trial.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 28, 2009)

Vincenzo said:


> drgondog, i don't remembered of aleutians P-38, in your scenario P-38 maybe good choice if with is lw can win BoB.
> i'm not understand the flip-flop is only for airframe or also for engine?
> 
> *If I understood the question it was which plane (entire system) so if it is Mustang, then Merlin, if P-38 then Allison. What I suggested is take each airframe design and install German equipment if available and basically same performance.
> ...



Again the question wasn't about winning the war but about defeating the 8th AF. I just pointed out that the P-38 was early enough to influence even the BoB with German technology, better prototype management and earlier production tooling.


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 28, 2009)

Vincenzo said:


> It's hard tell last data for Axis victory but imho summer '42 (for some people it's already too late)


Germany was still very much in the game by '42


----------



## MikeGazdik (Apr 29, 2009)

Hey, its up to you all to make the argument of the engine. It can go either way you want. Take the whole plane and powerplant, or equip it with a German engine. Same goes for the weapons. The plane can be reequipped with a German cannon that was available.

I still think a German P-38 would be the most affective. Plus, it would change so much more of the allied strategy to defeat it.

As said, giving the Germans the Spitfire does little in my opinion. The Spit and Messerschmitt were very close equals in performance and RANGE.

Taking the Mustang from the allies would also be good. But I don't think that would stop the 8AF. They would have had to make the P-38 do the job and bring the P-47N on line sooner.

So, lets say the 8th AF bombers are protected by Thunderbolts and Spitfires. How are they to deal with Luftwaffe Lightnings attacking the bombers? The stand-off distance a P-38 can strike from is greater because of its central armament, so they may be able to break off their attacks on the bombers sooner than the FW or ME planes of reality. If the Lightning tries to dogfight with the Spit, it is in some real trouble. But the Lightning should be able to dogfight the Thunderbolt. I could see a dive flap equipped P-38 being able to dive away from a Spitfire, but I don't think it would dive away from the Thunderbolt. I'm thinking as I'm typing, but maybe let the Spits first engage the P-38's. Once they break off and try to run or dive away, send the P-47's after them?


----------



## Vincenzo (Apr 29, 2009)

My fault don't center question on 8th bombing campaign, but if axis wins the war there is no the bombing campaign. 
Back at the Mike question, 
so in hypotesis that both use the engine, P-38 it's also my choice, (but i'm agree that it's very hard that lw take in service, so need also a different idea on heavy fighter in lw) 
in hypotesis that like the airframe also the engine is to one side only i put my choice on Mustang/Merlin


----------



## Glider (Apr 29, 2009)

MikeGazdik said:


> As said, giving the Germans the Spitfire does little in my opinion. The Spit and Messerschmitt were very close equals in performance and RANGE.


In performance and range you are correct but the one advantage the Spit has is that it can be upgunned to 4 x 20mm with little difference in performance or handleing. So in effect you have an altitude performance of the 109 with the firpower of the 190, which by any standards is a good combination against B17's at altitude.




> So, lets say the 8th AF bombers are protected by Thunderbolts and Spitfires. How are they to deal with Luftwaffe Lightnings attacking the bombers? The stand-off distance a P-38 can strike from is greater because of its central armament, so they may be able to break off their attacks on the bombers sooner than the FW or ME planes of reality. If the Lightning tries to dogfight with the Spit, it is in some real trouble. But the Lightning should be able to dogfight the Thunderbolt. I could see a dive flap equipped P-38 being able to dive away from a Spitfire, but I don't think it would dive away from the Thunderbolt. I'm thinking as I'm typing, but maybe let the Spits first engage the P-38's. Once they break off and try to run or dive away, send the P-47's after them?



In this scenario I think the defenders have a significant advantage. The Lightnings will effectively have on initial pass and then the P47's can go down with the leaving tghe SPits to cover the bombers. The down side of course is that the P38's have to do is wait for the escort to turn back due to a lack of fuel


----------



## Hop (Apr 29, 2009)

> However the Spitfire, P-38, P-47 etc. are all expensive to produce compared to the Me-109 and Fw-190.



That's certainly true of the P-38 and P-47, but the Germans calculated the Spitfire would take less man hours to build than the 109.

I really don't think the Germans could afford either the P-47, or especially the P-38, as their major fighter type. Both took were expensive and took a lot of resources to build.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 29, 2009)

Hop said:


> That's certainly true of the P-38 and P-47, but the Germans calculated the Spitfire would take less man hours to build than the 109.
> 
> I really don't think the Germans could afford either the P-47, or especially the P-38, as their major fighter type. Both took were expensive and took a lot of resources to build.



The P-51D labor burden was 2000 hours. Out of curiosity what were the comparable numbers for the Spit and Me 109 in late 1944?


----------



## davebender (Apr 29, 2009)

During late 1944 A German Spitfire prototype would be competing against the Fw-190D9, Me-262, Me-109K, Do-335 and He-162. I don't see much chance to win the RLM competition.


----------



## TheMustangRider (Apr 29, 2009)

A German built P-38 with DB engines and four or even five 20 mm cannons would had been a deadly bomber killer in the hands of the Luftwaffe. And as Drgondog pointed out once the 8th Air Force was experiencing severe losses in late 1943 due to the lack of a long range escort fighter, the appearance of this menace in my opinion would had accelarated the termination of daylight bombing raids over Europe and therefore caused a reverse for the Allies morally and strategically.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 29, 2009)

davebender said:


> During late 1944 A German Spitfire prototype would be competing against the Fw-190D9, Me-262, Me-109K, Do-335 and He-162. I don't see much chance to win the RLM competition.



Dave - the Spit would be available in late 1939 -early 1940.

By the 'rules' of the poll - by definition it would not be available to RAF during BoB. That could be a game changer bigger than taking Mustangs away from escorting 8th AF in late 1943.


----------



## olbrat (Apr 29, 2009)

Good point MustangRider. Along the same lines of thought, german war production could have been more easily maintained or suffered less financial losses, allowing more output, or allowing more resources to put into special projects (like the jet aircraft etc.). I still think the P-38 would make a good night bomber killer as well, which would have had a similar effect against Britain's unescorted night bombing raids. Would it have been enough to cause stalemate on the western front (I don't think the Russians would have stopped), or push the allies to the negotiating table? Maybe. I don't think the allies could stand even an additional 10-25% (maybe more?) losses to the sometimes 30+% they were being hammered with.


----------



## davebender (Apr 29, 2009)

Where do you plan to put the radar operator and all his equipment? It would barely fit in the more roomy Me-110. Besides, WWII Germany did not need a different night fighter. They were winning the night air war until the Normandy invasion blew a massive hole in the Luftwaffe air defense system.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 29, 2009)

davebender said:


> Where do you plan to put the radar operator and all his equipment? It would barely fit in the more roomy Me-110. Besides, WWII Germany did not need a different night fighter. They were winning the night air war until the Normandy invasion blew a massive hole in the Luftwaffe air defense system.



I agree that the P-38 was not required as a front line Night Fighter. Ditto Mustang or Spit as the Me 110 did just fine.

Having said that I see no reason an extended two place fuelage mod version could not have been built for that purpose.


----------



## TheMustangRider (Apr 29, 2009)

The P-38M was the dedicated nightfighter version of the Lightning with a second cockpit behind the pilot which housed the radar operator and despite the added weight of radar and the second crewmember it was a fast and nimble nightfighter.


----------



## Colin1 (Apr 29, 2009)

drgondog said:


> Dave - the Spit would be available in late 1939 -early 1940.
> 
> By the 'rules' of the poll - by definition it would not be available to RAF during BoB. That could be a game changer bigger than taking Mustangs away from escorting 8th AF in late 1943.


Could have been
but I still think the most decisive factor in the BoB was the inability of the Jagdwaffe to loiter over even south-east England for more than 20 minutes; they could lure Fighter Command into the air, they just couldn't stick around long enough to destroy them.
I doubt the Spitfire would have changed the balance in that respect.


----------



## Hop (Apr 29, 2009)

> The P-51D labor burden was 2000 hours. Out of curiosity what were the comparable numbers for the Spit and Me 109 in late 1944?



No idea. But what's included in the hours? The P-51 cost just over $50,000 in 1944. That's an awful lot if 2000 was the total man hours. From memory the average wage in the US was about $1 an hour at the time.

Of course, if the 2,000 hours is only for the airframe, and excludes the engine, guns, radios, tyres etc, then it makes sense.

The problems with comparisons is you can end up comparing airframe only hours for one type against a fully fitted aircraft of another.

That's why the German comparison is so useful. It's a single German report comparing the man hours for their own aircraft and includes a calculation of how many hours it would take them to build Spitfires. 

Comparing by price has its own problems. Germany used a lot of slave labour, for example. 

Having said that, I know Spitfires were costing the RAF less than P-51s were costing the USAAF. Price was in the region of £5,000 - £8,000 for a Spitfire, and there were $4.5 to the pound.



> but I still think the most decisive factor in the BoB was the inability of the Jagdwaffe to loiter over even south-east England for more than 20 minutes; they could lure Fighter Command into the air, they just couldn't stick around long enough to destroy them.



I don't think range was the problem. Look at the casualty rates for the Luftwaffe, it wasn't a lack of combat that forced their fighter pilot and aircraft numbers down.

On 13 August the Luftwaffe had 976 SE fighters on hand, 853 serviceable. By 7 September they were down to 831 on hand, 658 serviceable.

SE pilot numbers fell from 906 fit for duty on 29 June to 676 on 28 September.

More combat isn't the answer for the Luftwaffe, they needed more successful combat.

Having said that, I don't think the Spitfire would get them much better results. They needed either a large technological lead or far more pilots and planes.


----------



## Colin1 (Apr 29, 2009)

Hop said:


> I don't think range was the problem. Look at the casualty rates for the Luftwaffe, it wasn't a lack of combat that forced their fighter pilot and aircraft numbers down.
> 
> On 13 August the Luftwaffe had 976 SE fighters on hand, 853 serviceable. By 7 September they were down to 831 on hand, 658 serviceable.
> 
> ...


You're talking BoB the way it unfolded
we're talking flip-flop - a straight swap of assets; if the Spitfire had swapped sides and Goering turned his attention away from the RAF airfields towards London (in the way that the BoB unfolded) how much difference do you think the Spitfire would have/could have made?
If Goering had chained his new Spitfire assets to the bombers (in the way that the BoB unfolded) how much more effective do you think they would have been than the Bf109s constrained by the same, useless tactics?

The Luftwaffe weren't going to get 'more successful combat' chained to bombers flying over London whether they were flying Spitfires or Bf109s, they'd been forced to relinquish the initiative; instead of hunting the RAF out over their own airfields, they had to sit and wait for them to turn up whilst chained to a bomber formation over the capital.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 29, 2009)

Hop said:


> No idea. But what's included in the hours? The P-51 cost just over $50,000 in 1944. That's an awful lot if 2000 was the total man hours. From memory the average wage in the US was about $1 an hour at the time.
> 
> Of course, if the 2,000 hours is only for the airframe, and excludes the engine, guns, radios, tyres etc, then it makes sense.
> 
> ...



I suspect that a combination of Me 109s, Me 110s and Spits against only Hurricanes would get the LW better results.


----------



## Colin1 (Apr 29, 2009)

drgondog said:


> I suspect that a combination of Me 109s, Me 110s and Spits against only Hurricanes would get the LW better results.


I'm pretty sure the beleaguered Hurricane squadrons would struggle against that combination but if the Air Ministry can roll out x Hurricane squadrons and y Spitfire squadrons by the time the BoB kicked off, then they could likely roll out x + y Hurricane squadrons just as easily, I think this is a reasonable assumption.
Attrition rates would be higher among Hurricane squadrons, both the Bf109 and Spitfire could break off the engagement at will and the Bf110C (prevalent during the BoB) could and did give the Hurricane a hard time if the Hurricane was trying to catch it. 
Hurricanes would need to attack the bomber streams to lure the escorts in to be attacked by more Hurricanes, a raiding party of all-Bf109s/Spitfires would present the Hurricanes with few opportunities for success.

The effect on history elsewhere would be felt just as keenly. Whatever Sydney Camm had on the drawing board (the Typhoon, eventually) would be accelerated as a program and it would be interesting to see what the new fate of the Westland Whirlwind would have been.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 29, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> Could have been
> but I still think the most decisive factor in the BoB was the inability of the Jagdwaffe to loiter over even south-east England for more than 20 minutes; they could lure Fighter Command into the air, they just couldn't stick around long enough to destroy them.
> I doubt the Spitfire would have changed the balance in that respect.



1. What were the comparable ranges of Spit I versus Me 109E?

2. What would the range of a Spit have been for a pure fighter sweep, unshackled from escort duties?

Having Spits (and removing from RAF inventory) has two effects, namely removing the best air superiority fighter from RAF and improving air superiority capability of LW over a Hurricane only air defense capability.

That alone would have placed more pressure on RAF during daylight raids over England, but to fully capitalize the LW would have to perform many more fighter sweeps out in front of bombers.

Colin - obviously this is pure speculation but I suspect RAF completely loses control of air during BoB - and permanently - absent the Spitfire.

If Britain loses control of air and bombers can get to ports to compliment U-Boat ravages over shipping, that in my opinion is enough to force Britain out in 1942..


----------



## Colin1 (Apr 29, 2009)

drgondog said:


> 1. What were the comparable ranges of Spit I versus Me 109E?
> 
> 2. What would the range of a Spit have been for a pure fighter sweep, unshackled from escort duties?
> 
> ...


1. Spitfire I - 400 miles; Bf109E - 350-450 miles (roughly true of all 109 versions)

2. I would say the Spitfire would suffer similar constraints to the Bf109, limiting it to action over SE England

3. Hurricane-only - maybe; I did point out that it would be interesting to speculate on the new fate of the Westland Whirlwind, as fast as a Spitfire and significantly more heavily armed. 
If the Air Ministry have finally been shaken out of their 'single-engined syndrome' then the Whirlwind is taking on bomber streams (quite effectively, with a nose-concentrated 20mm cannon armament), shooting up bandits in the Channel and having a pop at invasion barges in French ports, escorting Blenheims as they do.

If the Air Ministry haven't then I fear you're right - and we're in dead trouble.


----------



## Hop (Apr 29, 2009)

> Just the opposite -
> 
> the $53K/Mustang included all in PRICE to USAAF for airframe and GFE.



Yes, I know. $50,000 was the total price. But I don't believe 2,000 is the total man hours for a completed aircraft.

$50,000 for something that took a total of 2000 man hours in 1944 doesn't add up.



> Remember the original labor burden for the P-51A was 12,000 hours and mass production techniques plus a fully trained work force took the cost down - but not the Price.



The price did fall. The P-51 cost nearly $59,000 in 1942.

I don't believe even 12,000 is total man hours for a fully fitted aircraft. The price is simply too high. I suspect it includes a lot of bought in equipment, ie that the price is the final total but the man hours are only those expended by the aircraft manufacturer, and don't include the hours required to make the engine, guns, instruments etc.

The production gains, from 12,000 - 2,000 man hours in 2 years, are also too great. From Overy, The Air War:

Number of workers in airframe industry in US:
1942 - 471,000
1944 - 2,102,000

Number of aircraft produced
1942 - 47,836
1944 - 96,318

Weight of airframes produced (million lbs)
1942 - 275
1944 - 952

That means the number of aircraft per worker fell from 0.1 to 0.046 per year. Airframe weight fell from 584 lbs per worker per year to 453 lbs.

That doesn't square with the Mustang falling from 12,000 to 2,000 man hours.

What it does suggest is more outsourcing. It suggests that the price didn't fall anywhere near as much as the man hours because man hours were reduced by outsourcing, but of course the overall price included the money paid to the sub-contractors.



> I suspect that a combination of Me 109s, Me 110s and Spits against only Hurricanes would get the LW better results.



Oh yes. The RAF would have been in trouble with only the Hurricane.



> You're talking BoB the way it unfolded



I think it's applicable to any way it could unfold. The Germans had to defeat the RAF in the SE. There aren't many ways of doing that.



> if the Spitfire had swapped sides and Goering turned his attention away from the RAF airfields towards London (in the way that the BoB unfolded) how much difference do you think the Spitfire would have/could have made?



The lack of the Spitfire would be a big blow to the RAF, because it leaves them with only the Hurricane (this is of course assuming the RAF don't attempt to procure a different aircraft, which they would have done). The addition of the Spitfire isn't a huge benefit to the Luftwaffe, unless of course the Spitfires are in addition to the same number of 109s they actually had. 



> If Goering had chained his new Spitfire assets to the bombers (in the way that the BoB unfolded) how much more effective do you think they would have been than the Bf109s constrained by the same, useless tactics?



That's not really the way it happened. Goering told his Jagdwaffe commanders to develop their own escort tactics. It wasn't until quite late in the battle he ordered more close escort, and even then it was only for part of the fighter force.



> The Luftwaffe weren't going to get 'more successful combat' chained to bombers flying over London whether they were flying Spitfires or Bf109s, they'd been forced to relinquish the initiative; instead of hunting the RAF out over their own airfields, they had to sit and wait for them to turn up whilst chained to a bomber formation over the capital.



They were never much good at hitting the RAF over their own bases, the RAF simply ignored the fighter sweeps. That's why the bombers got so annoyed, they were being shot to pieces whilst the Luftwaffe were off "looking" for the RAF.

I know it's not what Galland would have you believe, but the Luftwaffe actually had a bit better kill/loss rate in the last phase over London than they'd had in the previous month against the RAF airfields.


----------



## Colin1 (Apr 29, 2009)

Hop said:


> The lack of the Spitfire would be a big blow to the RAF, because it leaves them with only the Hurricane (this is of course assuming the RAF don't attempt to procure a different aircraft, which they would have done).
> 
> They were never much good at hitting the RAF over their own bases, the RAF simply ignored the fighter sweeps. That's why the bombers got so annoyed, they were being shot to pieces whilst the Luftwaffe were off "looking" for the RAF.
> 
> I know it's not what Galland would have you believe, but the Luftwaffe actually had a bit better kill/loss rate in the last phase over London than they'd had in the previous month against the RAF airfields.


We seem keen to discount the presence of the Whirlwind in this fictional time-line, why is its potentially more prominent role so easy to overlook?

I have difficulty believing hostile enemy aircraft entered UK airspace and were ignored by the RAF, I've certainly not seen any written evidence of this.

Do you have any figures to support your claim that the Luftwaffe enjoyed a higher kill ratio over London than over their previous stategy? The RAF had finally got their Big Wing act together and were starting to hit bomber streams very effectively.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 29, 2009)

Hop said:


> Yes, I know. $50,000 was the total price. But I don't believe 2,000 is the total man hours for a completed aircraft.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Mustang - the Story of the P-51 Fighter by Gruenhagen

Pg 178
"NAA cost to produce the Mustang was $26,741. Profit and government furnished equipment raised the price to $58,698 in 1942. Mass Production techniques reduced the price to $50,985 by 1945. Cost was based on airframe weight of 4800 pounds at $3.58/pound. The Mustang structure was comprised of 36,000 parts. 25,000 rivets were used and three hundred additional units were furnished as government furnished equipment"

Pg 138
"In October 1941, 12,000 hours were required to assemble each Mustang. At the time of assembly of the last Mustang in August 1845 production techniques had reduced this figure to 2,077.

Gruenhagen's sources included complete disclosure and support from NAA as well as extensive interviews with Ed Schmeud and Ed Hockley.

Show me better references and we can talk?


----------



## Hop (Apr 29, 2009)

> I have difficulty believing hostile enemy aircraft entered UK airspace and were ignored by the RAF, I've certainly not seen any written evidence of this.



I'll try to find something, but RAF controllers were under orders to ignore the fighters where possible and go for the bombers. Of course this frequently wasn't possible.



> Do you have any figures to support your claim that the Luftwaffe enjoyed a higher kill ratio over London than over their previous stategy? The RAF had finally got their Big Wing act together and were starting to hit bomber streams very effectively.



ER Hooton, Eagle in Flames, details losses on a weekly basis. The weeks don't fit the phases exactly, but the trend is clear:

Main phase, 5th August - 1st Sept
Luftwaffe Bombers
Sorties 3850
Losses 303
Loss rate 7.9%

Luftwaffe Fighters
sorties 12,450
losses 359
loss rate 2.9%

Fighter sorties per bomber sortie 3.2
raf fighter losses 367
total luftwaffe/raf rate 1.8:1

Attack on London, 2nd Sept - 29th Sept
Luftwaffe Bombers
Sorties 4125
Losses 192
Loss rate 4.7%

Luftwaffe Fighters
sorties 8450
losses 280
loss rate 3.3%

Fighter sorties per bomber sortie 2
raf fighter losses 363
total luftwaffe/raf rate 1.3:1

So the loss rate went from 1.8 Luftwaffe aircraft lost per RAF fighter in August to 1.3 in September. I think that's more down to the change in tactics. I suspect the Luftwaffe found it easier to defend a few large bomber formations than lots of little ones.



> Gruenhagen's sources included complete disclosure and support from NAA as well as extensive interviews with Ed Schmeud and Ed Hockley.
> 
> Show me better references and we can talk?



I think we are talking at cross purposes here. I am not disputing the figures. 



> NAA cost to produce the Mustang was $26,741. Profit and government furnished equipment raised the price to $58,698 in 1942.





> "In October 1941, 12,000 hours were required to assemble each Mustang.



That reinforces the point I am trying to make. NAA took 12,000 hours to make a Mustang, which included fitting, but not making, some key parts (probably including the engine). 

12,000 hours is the time NAA required to make the plane. That does not include the time required to _make_ the "government furnished equipment". That was provided separately. It's included in the cost, but not the man hours.



> Mass Production techniques reduced the price to $50,985 by 1945





> At the time of assembly of the last Mustang in August 1845 production techniques had reduced this figure to 2,077.



Can't you see the disparity there? 12,000 hours cost $59,000 in 1942. 2,000 hours cost $51,000 in 1945. 

The answer is probably that NAA's man hours reduced because they subcontracted more work. 

Just as an example, suppose the wings took 2000 man hours to make in 1942. In 1943 NAA subcontract the manufacture of the wings to another company. Complete wings are delivered to NAA. NAA's hours would go down by $2000, but the cost would not go down much because the sub contractor has to be paid.

I'm not saying the P-51 wings were made by a subcontractor, but such things weren't uncommon. This about the NAA plant building B-25s in Kansas City:



> The Fairfax plant was designed as an assembly center for some one thousand subcontractors supplying parts. For instance, the gas tanks came from a Detroit producer, Fisher Body of Detroit built cowlings and bomb racks, and Fisher Body of Memphis produced the wings, stabilizers, and bomb bay doors. Because of the lack of available skilled workers, the plant followed a job simplification procedure whereby each worker performed one simple task that could be taught relatively easily to unskilled farm boys and girls. The 165,000 parts were held together by 150,000 rivets. All the parts were identical, and the final assemblies were identical Mitchell bombers. In 1944, the fantastic production of the North American Aviation plant won the coveted Army-Navy e Award.



Now if you examined NAA's man hours on the Mitchell, they would appear pretty low. If you add in Fisher Body and all the other sub contractors, the total would be much higher.

Just to sum up, I am not disputing the price of the P-51. I am not disputing how many man hours NAA required to build one. I am pointing out that unless you know how many man hours were required IN TOTAL, by not just NAA but Packard, the company that made the guns, the company that made the radio, etc, you don't know the TOTAL man hours required to make the plane.

And if you compare NAA's hours to Supermarine's, you have to be sure Supermarine were doing exactly the same amount of sub contracting, otherwise you do not have an accurate basis for comparison.


----------



## olbrat (Apr 29, 2009)

DaveBender - There were versions of the P-38 that allowed "pods" to be attached under the wings and fuselage (one was designed to transport a person inside of it, although I don't think they enjoyed the ride). You could install the radar in the fuselage or in a pod, install rockets or cannons in another, extra fuel in another and so on. You could have a squadron of these locate the bomber group with radar, fire a spread of rockets at the close group formation, then go in with cannons.


----------



## Glider (Apr 29, 2009)

Hop said:


> I'll try to find something, but RAF controllers were under orders to ignore the fighters where possible and go for the bombers. Of course this frequently wasn't possible.


There is no doubt that RAF controllers were under orders to ignore fighter only sweeps. This became more difficult when some of the 109 and 110 aircraft started to carry bombs but the basic principle of ignoring fighters is correct





> ER Hooton, Eagle in Flames, details losses on a weekly basis. The weeks don't fit the phases exactly, but the trend is clear:
> 
> Main phase, 5th August - 1st Sept
> Luftwaffe Bombers
> ...



I certainly don't dispute the figures but I believe that a good number of the German bomber sorties in September were night raids against which of course, Fighter Command was basically useless.
This probably goes some way to explaining the fall in loss rates. What I have never been able to find is a breakdown of the split between daylight and night raids/losses. If anyone could give me a pointer it would be appreciated.


----------



## BombTaxi (Apr 29, 2009)

Very interesting discussion here gents 8) The best aircraft to take away from the USAAF would undoubtedly be the P-51, as the 8th AF would either have to face the losses caused by unescorted raids deep into Germany, or avoid making those raids altogether. I think the latter would have been more likely, as Schwienfurt casualty rates would have been unsustainable in the long term. 

On another note, I'm not sure where the idea originates that the Whirlwind would have seen trouble-free development in the absence of the Spitfire. Regardless of whether the Spitfire existed or not,m the Whirlwind would still have suffered the developmental problems that it was plagued by historically, and would not have entered service any sooner or any more successfully. Nor would more resources have been available - I think it is safe to assume that any numerical deficit in Spitfires would have been made up in Hurricanes, meaning production rates for the Merlin would be essentially identical to those seen historically, at least until the Typhoon entered widespread service. Even then, the Hurri would have to soldier on (maybe in 'Mk V' form) until a superior high-altitude fighter was developed. There is also a possibility that in the absence of the Spit, some of the designs proposed by Boulton-Paul (P.94) and Miles (M.20) may have gone into series production to supplement Hurricane numbers. Either way, there would have been little or no extra resource available for the development of the Whirlwind...


----------



## Hop (Apr 29, 2009)

Those figures are for day bomber sorties only. Hooton splits the sorties and losses up in to day/night for the bombers.

Luftwaffe night bombers
5 Aug - 1 September
sorties 2150
losses 12

2 - 29 Sep
sorties 3650
losses 21


----------



## Colin1 (Apr 29, 2009)

BombTaxi said:


> On another note, I'm not sure where the idea originates that the Whirlwind would have seen trouble-free development in the absence of the Spitfire. Regardless of whether the Spitfire existed or not,m the Whirlwind would still have suffered the developmental problems that it was plagued by historically, and would not have entered service any sooner or any more successfully


BT
there were more strings to the Whirlwind's woes than developmental, in this alternate time-line it's not hard to imagine the Air Ministry attaching more urgency (funds), the RAF losing their 'single-engine syndrome' and Westlands, faced with a big contract, losing some of their apathy.

Well, put it this way, it's easier for me to imagine the above than it is to imagine Spitfires sweeping in over East Anglia shooting up Hurricanes sat at dispersal


----------



## drgondog (Apr 29, 2009)

Hop said:


> I think we are talking at cross purposes here. I am not disputing the figures.
> 
> 12,000 hours is the time NAA required to make the plane. That does not include the time required to _make_ the "government furnished equipment". That was provided separately. It's included in the cost, but not the man hours.
> 
> ...



Once again Hop - I am intimately familiar with past and recent DoD contractor costing and pricing practices for a wide range of DoD primes and subcontractors. I am intimately familiar with DoD 7000.1 and other assorted bibles thrust on the airframe business in the 60's.

I am not comparing the P-51 manufacturing practices or data against any other ship. I will stand by my sources and observations until you enlighten me with new facts.

Important items:
1. No subcontract
2. All GFE equipment was supplied to NAA, inventoried and drawn from inventory as reuired in the assembly stage.
3. The USAAF component of cost were

a. NAA complete airframe - fully burdened cost presumably $26, 742 in 1942. No subcontact sub assemblies, no subcontracts.
b. GFE - engines, guns, instruments, tires, radios, etc - government cost from supplier (Packard, etc)
c. NAA Profit (unknown)
d. no pass through subcontact cost for fuselage, tail, wing, etc sub assemblies which USAAF agreed to pay for in lieu of fabrication by NAA


----------



## Waynos (Apr 29, 2009)

The problems with the Whirlwinds engines were not serious but it was placed at a low priority and so never got fixed properly. I have read that even so, the Peregrine of the Whirlwind was less troublesome in service than the Napier Sabre was in its replacement. Given the absence of the Spitfire from this fictional arsenal I can quite easily imagine fixing the Whirlwind getting a higher priority.

also drgndog, I don't think he is disputing the dollar figures at all, but just looking for a way to determing the actual man hours expended in the entire manufacturing process, which those otherwise enlightnening figure do not include. You yanks, all you see is money


----------



## drgondog (Apr 29, 2009)

BombTaxi said:


> Very interesting discussion here gents 8) The best aircraft to take away from the USAAF would undoubtedly be the P-51, as the 8th AF would either have to face the losses caused by unescorted raids deep into Germany, or avoid making those raids altogether. I think the latter would have been more likely, as Schwienfurt casualty rates would have been unsustainable in the long term.
> 
> *The P-38 was less effective as an escort but was introduced earlier (and had longer gestation problems). Having said this, the P-38 could have been introduced to 8th FC at the same rate as the Mustang, had equivalent range, etc.
> 
> ...


----------



## Hop (Apr 29, 2009)

> I am not comparing the P-51 manufacturing practices or data against any other ship.



Then we are in agreement and have been from the start. My whole point is that you cannot compare the simple man hours figures without knowing exactly what is included, and what is excluded. 



> also drgndog, I don't think he is disputing the dollar figures at all, but just looking for a way to determing the actual man hours expended in the entire manufacturing process, which those otherwise enlightnening figure do not include.



Exactly. I really can't see what drgondog's problem is with what I wrote, which is basically exactly the same thing he is arguing in his last post.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 29, 2009)

Hop said:


> Then we are in agreement and have been from the start. My whole point is that you cannot compare the simple man hours figures without knowing exactly what is included, and what is excluded.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. I really can't see what drgondog's problem is with what I wrote, which is basically exactly the same thing he is arguing in his last post.



*I will walk you through my disconnect*

Hop>Can't you see the disparity there? 12,000 hours cost $59,000 in 1942. 2,000 hours cost $51,000 in 1945.

*Hop - what I said was - the Total cost, labor, GFE, materials, etc cost 59K in 1942 and 51K in 1945. 

I did not say that 12000 hours cost $59,000 in 1942 or that 2000 hours cost $51,000 in 1945

So, I did not see any unexplainable 'disparity' or incongruity between the fly away prices of 1942 and 1945 other than good old fashioned manufacturing learning curve to dramatically reduce the Labor hours in three years. 

It seemed very reasonable to me that automation, better manufacturing practices and better training and experience for the assembly line personnel could take the cost down.

This is also what I said -

"No. I don't have the contracts in hand but I am intimately familiar with airframe costing and pricing - both $59,000 and $51,000 includes profit. It is absolutely possible that NAA was permitted to take a larger profit margin but more likely that the reduction in hours accounted for the reduction in price *

Hop also said >"The answer is probably that NAA's man hours reduced because they subcontracted more work. Just as an example, suppose the wings took 2000 man hours to make in 1942. In 1943 NAA subcontract the manufacture of the wings to another company. Complete wings are delivered to NAA. NAA's hours would go down by $2000, but the cost would not go down much because the sub contractor has to be paid."

And then I said -

*"But they didn't subcontract anything on the airframe. They built a new plant in Dallas for the P-51C and the P-51K's but unlike the B-17 and many other airframes, NAA was prime and sole contractor.

Here is another example - suppose the labor rate was as you speculated - namely an average of ~ $1/hr and the labor burden was reduced by approximately 9000 hours. Do the math?"*

Waynos then said to the above >_also drgndog, I don't think he is disputing the dollar figures at all, but just looking for a way to determing the actual man hours expended in the entire manufacturing process, which those otherwise enlightnening figure do not include. You yanks, all you see is money_

*I got what he was saying Waynos. What I apparently failed to communicate, multiple times, is that the Labor hours for 1942 and 1945 are documented labor hours to fabricate, build and assemble the entire airframe, add the GFE equipment, perform quality checks and turn the finished Mustang over to the USAAF. All in pure NAA Labor.

The Price to USAAF in 1942 was approximately $8K less in 1945 than 1942. *

Where Hop and I did not agree at all was that the NAA figure of 2077 hours in 1945 was based on not accounting for subcontract hours, but in fact subcontracting large portions of the airframe - like the wing - and treating that as a 'finished assembly cost' and reducing the equivalent labor hours from the Total fabrication build up.

As I said before the plausible difference to me in reduced Price to USAAF, is primarily a function of stripping 9900 hours out of the NAA Labor burden per Mustang from 1942 to 1945. It is also possible that NAA took a little more profit on the final fly away Price - but I don't know that. 
Back to where Hop and I diverged from common ground

Hop said >_I'm not saying the P-51 wings were made by a subcontractor, but such things weren't uncommon. This about the NAA plant building B-25s in Kansas City: 

Now if you examined NAA's man hours on the Mitchell, they would appear pretty low. If you add in Fisher Body and all the other sub contractors, the total would be much higher.

Just to sum up, I am not disputing the price of the P-51. I am not disputing how many man hours NAA required to build one. I am pointing out that unless you know how many man hours were required IN TOTAL, by not just NAA but Packard, the company that made the guns, the company that made the radio, etc, you don't know the TOTAL man hours required to make the plane._

*You are certainly right about that- and your point is?*

Let me sum it up - Just because I cited the Total NAA labor hours, that is what I meant. I explained as well as I could that I was Not including any other costs than for the total airframe, including labor to install all GFE equipment - All In, Total - there are no other labor hours that apply in this discussion. Everything else is GFE and Profit.

But let's be fair. 

Do you have an example where any major multi vendor supplied airframe cost build up takes for example a Packard Merlin (or Rolls Royce) engine and rather than simply apply a unit cost of the engine, your example actually dives into the cost build up of that engine through price, to shipping, then to assembly and QA labor and packaging for shipment, to the labor build up to grind valves, forge or cast engine blocks, to the labor to rdeliver all the component parts from different suppliers, all the way to process ore into ingots, extract ore from earth, pay geologists to search for the quarry site, etc?

Then move on to the Gyro and apply the same rigor. 

If that what you really meant when you said is the following I must confess I am clueless 

>_I am pointing out that unless you know how many man hours were required IN TOTAL, by not just NAA but Packard, the company that made the guns, the company that made the radio, etc, you don't know the TOTAL man hours required to make the plane_."

If that is what you meant, could you please produce just a single example of a CLI/WBS cost build up that supports your requirement?

I do confess I may have been an airhead to proclaim that the total NAA labor hours to complete a Mustang did not include all the time that Browning or Frigidaire spent producing 50 caliber M3's or Firestone used to produce tires or Bendix used to make radios or Packard used to make the Merlin.. etc.. so I do Not in fact know the total hours required for every process to find, extract, forge, machine, assemble and deliver every GFE component.

But for the life of me why is that important to you in this debate?


----------



## Hop (Apr 29, 2009)

> I got what he was saying Waynos. What I apparently failed to communicate, multiple times, is that the Labor hours for 1942 and 1945 are documented labor hours to fabricate, build and assemble the entire airframe, add the GFE equipment, perform quality checks and turn the finished Mustang over to the USAAF. All in pure NAA Labor.



I never disputed that. All I disputed was that 2,000 hours was sufficient to make a complete aircraft, from scratch, including manufacturing the engine, guns, radios etc.

I was merely pointing out that simply saying the P-51 took 2,000 man hours in 1945 wasn't a basis for comparison without knowing what was included, and excluded, in that total. And that to then compare that to another aircraft, like a Spitfire, would mean you also have to know what was included and excluded in the Spitfire's man hours.



> Where Hop and I did not agree at all was that the NAA figure of 2077 hours in 1945 was based on not accounting for subcontract hours, but in fact subcontracting large portions of the airframe - like the wing - and treating that as a 'finished assembly cost' and reducing the equivalent labor hours from the Total fabrication build up.



That's not what I said at all. In fact I said:



> I'm not saying the P-51 wings were made by a subcontractor



I was just pointing out that without knowing exactly what was subcontracted you cannot compare 2 different aircraft. 



> As I said before the plausible difference to me in reduced Price to USAAF, is primarily a function of stripping 9900 hours out of the NAA Labor burden per Mustang from 1942 to 1945.



This is entirely a side issue to me, but the objection I have to this is that I would expect other parts, like guns, engines, radios, instruments etc to become cheaper as well. 

If NAA charged $26,000 for 12,000 man hours in 1942, and by 1945 took only 2000 man hours, then I would expect them to reduce their bill by more than $9,000. And even that assumes all the government supplied parts remain at the same price. 



> Just to sum up, I am not disputing the price of the P-51. I am not disputing how many man hours NAA required to build one. I am pointing out that unless you know how many man hours were required IN TOTAL, by not just NAA but Packard, the company that made the guns, the company that made the radio, etc, you don't know the TOTAL man hours required to make the plane.
> 
> You are certainly right about that- and your point is?



That is the point. That's what I said in the first place and you responded with 

_just the opposite_



> Let me sum it up - Just because I cited the Total NAA labor hours, that is what I meant.



I think this is perhaps where the confusion is coming from. Your initial post said:



> The P-51D labor burden was 2000 hours. Out of curiosity what were the comparable numbers for the Spit and Me 109 in late 1944?



You didn't say NAA, you just gave a figure of 2,000 hours. I responded with:



> No idea. But what's included in the hours? The P-51 cost just over $50,000 in 1944. That's an awful lot if 2000 was the total man hours. From memory the average wage in the US was about $1 an hour at the time.
> 
> Of course, if the 2,000 hours is only for the airframe, and excludes the engine, guns, radios, tyres etc, then it makes sense.



I still fail to see why you responded to my post with "just the opposite", when you now say the 2,000 hours figure included only NAA's hours, and excluded the time required to produce the engine, guns, radios etc.



> I explained as well as I could that I was Not including any other costs than for the total airframe, including labor to install all GFE equipment



You didn't until quite a few posts in to the discussion, which is where the confusion set in. For example your next post was:



> Just the opposite -
> 
> the $53K/Mustang included all in PRICE to USAAF for airframe and GFE.
> 
> Remember the original labor burden for the P-51A was 12,000 hours and mass production techniques plus a fully trained work force took the cost down - but not the Price. The Price includes Direct Labor, Indirect Labor, R&D amortization, Material Costs, Depreciation and profit. A lot more profit on the tail end when labor hours were reduced 10,000 hours per ship. I suspect the Indirect Costs (Engineering/Management/Procurement, etc) were also dramatically reduced on the P-51D in late 1944 as the R&D and large indirect costs were being applied to the P-51H and P-82 at that time.



Again you are not making clear that 12,000 hours excludes "GFE", and I wouldn't even have known what "GFE" stood for anyway. 

My next post made that pretty clear:



> I don't believe even 12,000 is total man hours for a fully fitted aircraft. The price is simply too high. *I suspect it includes a lot of bought in equipment, ie that the price is the final total but the man hours are only those expended by the aircraft manufacturer, and don't include the hours required to make the engine, guns, instruments etc.*





> But let's be fair.
> 
> Do you have an example where any major multi vendor supplied airframe cost build up takes for example a Packard Merlin (or Rolls Royce) engine and rather than simply apply a unit cost of the engine, your example actually dives into the cost build up of that engine through price, to shipping, then to assembly and QA labor and packaging for shipment, to the labor build up to grind valves, forge or cast engine blocks, to the labor to rdeliver all the component parts from different suppliers, all the way to process ore into ingots, extract ore from earth, pay geologists to search for the quarry site, etc?



No. And I think factoring man hours to quarry ore is taking it a bit too far. The British government categorised quarrying, metal industries separately from aircraft and parts production. All workers in the aircraft industry, whether making airframes or engines or guns came under the Ministry of Aircraft Production. 

I can see that a government comparison during war time, where labour was subject to government control and direction, could well include total man hours for all the components of the aircraft, whereas a manufacturer's figures might only include their own man hours.

I can also envisage some aircraft manufacturers contracting out the manufacture of internal fuel tanks, and another building them in house. Same for things like ailerons, control columns, landing gear components etc.



> I do confess I may have been an airhead to proclaim that the total NAA labor hours to complete a Mustang did not include all the time that Browning or Frigidaire spent producing 50 caliber M3's or Firestone used to produce tires or Bendix used to make radios or Packard used to make the Merlin.. etc.. so I do Not in fact know the total hours required for every process to find, extract, forge, machine, assemble and deliver every GFE component.



Perhaps if you'd said "NAA hours", and NOT said "just the opposite" when I DID say NAA hours, confusion might have been avoided.



> But for the life of me why is that important to you in this debate?



It's not. It never was. I merely made the point that without knowing what is included in an aircraft's man hours, you cannot make comparisons between them. You immediately disagreed with that, yet seem to be saying the same thing.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Apr 30, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> 1. Spitfire I - 400 miles; Bf109E - 350-450 miles (roughly true of all 109 versions)



Spitfire MK I range is officially (from data sheets) 575 miles, for "still air cruising", including an allowance for warming up and climb to 20,000 feet. Combat range would be about one third to 40% of this: 190-230 miles. 

Later Merlin engined marks, with more power, saw the range drop. Mk IX has about 435 miles range in internal fuel. By then they had drop tanks to compensate for the thirsty-er engines. Mk IX with 45 gal drop tank has about 685 miles range, or a combat radius of about 225-275 miles. 

More specialised marks, like the Mk VII/VIII had better range due to larger nose tanks and added wing tanks. Internal range was about 660 miles, or 935 miles with a 45 gal drop tank, or 1,180 miles with a 90 gal drop tank. This give a minimum combat radius of about 220-275 miles, and a maximum combat radius of 395-470 miles, although the 90 gal tank was rarely used on combat missions, most were conducted with the 30 or 35 gal tanks, or the less common 50 gal tank, which was developed in 1944.


Personally, I think a Mk VIII Spitfire fitted with 4 Hispano or a Tempest V would of been an exceptional aircraft for bomber interception, but I question whether any of them would of been any better in the role than the two existing single-seater day fighter types the Luftwaffe fielded.

I can't see Germany building large, heavy, long-ranged US type fighters either.Their aircraft don't need the range or endurance, and all that weight is an encumberance if you're trying to get to altitude quickly to get position on bombers and their escorts. The cost alone would sink them.


----------



## Colin1 (Apr 30, 2009)

Jabberwocky said:


> Spitfire MK I range is officially (from data sheets) 575 miles, for "still air cruising", including an allowance for warming up and climb to 20,000 feet. Combat range would be about one third to 40% of this: 190-230 miles.
> 
> Personally, I think a Mk VIII Spitfire fitted with 4 Hispano or a Tempest V would of been an exceptional aircraft for bomber interception,
> 
> but I question whether any of them would of been any better in the role than the two existing single-seater day fighter types the Luftwaffe fielded


OK
400 miles typical, 610 miles maximum  

Good choices but at the altitudes you could expect the 8 AF at, I'd be happier in the Spitfire

No, I'd be happier again in the Fw190D


----------



## davparlr (Apr 30, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> OK
> 
> 
> Good choices but at the altitudes you could expect the 8 AF at, I'd be happier in the Spitfire
> ...



At 20k, B-24 altitude, the Fw-190D was slightly inferior to the P-51B and D, about equal in climb but slower, much slower than the P-51B. At 25k, B-17 altitude, the Fw-190D was pretty well outclassed by both the P-51B and D in climb and airspeed. The Bf-109K was a much more formidable aircraft at these altitudes.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 30, 2009)

Hop - it is real simple now that you explain that a British airframe manufacturer must report to the British government that every labor hour must be accounted for and reported on from nuts and bolt assembly in an engine to gear and case assembly on instruments, to installation and assembly of gears in a prop.

I would believe that Rolls Royce would be accountable to the Brit government for the roll up for the Merlin if there were price controls, but once the engine was purchased, say by AVRO, they should not be required to account for those labor hours embedded in the engines that are purchased (by Government or AVRO). 

Were the airframe manufacturers liable in any way for mistakes in the labor roll ups made by equipment manufacturers?

What a concept.

It is inconceivable but I believe you and that explains the disconnect. 

No US company would EVER have to report or account for the labor hours imbedded in GFE equipment (Packard Merlin, Hamilton Standard, etc) supplied by the US Government (Government Furnished Equipment) or purchased separately from a component manufacturer by NAA. It would be charged to the Contract as 'purchased components' or set aside as a line item for GFE (with no charge to US Government other than labor to install). 

An audit system to account for all that detail through multi level/multi vendor bills of materials and labor would cost more labor hours than it took to build an airframe and assemble all the government supplied equipment.

Until large business computers and internal cost accounting processes and controls were applied as a requirement to conduct business with Department of Defense (late 60's/early 70's) that type of accounting for planning, costing and contract % completion was simply impossible... and still not being done very well.


----------



## MikeGazdik (Apr 30, 2009)

Jabberwocky said:


> I can't see Germany building large, heavy, long-ranged US type fighters either.*Their aircraft don't need the range or endurance*, and all that weight is an encumberance if you're trying to get to altitude quickly to get position on bombers and their escorts. The cost alone would sink them.



That was thier belief, but it has already been proved wrong by history. If they had fighters with range and endurance, the BoB may have had a much different outcome. Maybe.

This really plays into how ahead of its time the P-38 was. Nothing had the combination of speed and range like it did. I think most of it's teething problems were all related to its advanced technology. In the hands of the Germans, it would have been doing what it was in fact designed to do, take-off, climb hard, and attack bombers. Because of its endurance it could have made many passes if the attack commenced over target. Or because of its endurance, it could have met the bomber stream over the channel and made the allied fighter cover have even less escort range. ( much like an aggressive baseball pitcher that meets the batter half way to home plate for the fight )
And a big heavy fighter it was, but wasn't the Me110? I could see the "German" P- 38 have 2 cannons and 2 guns in the nose, and twin Daimler Benz engines.


----------



## Colin1 (Apr 30, 2009)

davparlr said:


> At 20k, B-24 altitude, the Fw-190D was slightly inferior to the P-51B and D, about equal in climb but slower, much slower than the P-51B. At 25k, B-17 altitude, the Fw-190D was pretty well outclassed by both the P-51B and D in climb and airspeed. The Bf-109K was a much more formidable aircraft at these altitudes.


Slightly inferior in what respect?
The speed differential wasn't nearly enough to be called decisive and doesn't take into account the rest of the Dora's box of tricks. ETO P-51 pilots are pretty unanimous in their estimate of the Fw190D - they regarded it as a dangerous opponent.

That said, you took my comment slightly out of context. I can't remember who but he stated (in the posts above) that with the Spitfire Mk VIII and the Tempest V you'd have two good fighters but wondered if they were enough to replace the two Luftwaffe mainstays; my response was directly to that post - no, I don't believe they would be and actually I'd rather have the Dora over the Spitfire in such circumstances.

I share your regard for the Bf109K, the K-4 was the only one to see serious production and the MK103 and 108-armed versions were let down substantially by jamming issues.


----------



## Vincenzo (Apr 30, 2009)

three little observations

"Pg 138
"In October 1941, 12,000 hours were required to assemble each Mustang. At the time of assembly of the last Mustang in August 1845 production techniques had reduced this figure to 2,077"

assembly is not build

what's is source for operating altitude for B-24 and B-17?

what's source of 109E range?


----------



## airboiy (Apr 30, 2009)

Glider said:


> Can I ask what make you think that the Germans would have sorted the P-38 issues more effectively than the USA? The US threw a lot of resources into resolving the issues and I cannot see how the Germans or anyone else would have done the job any quicker.



Lets not forget that the Germans had extensive R&D capabilities during the war. After all, they invented rocket propulsion and jet propulsion, while inventing stehlhegrantes (stick grenades/potato mashers) and SMGs. The German Werhmact and Luftwaffe were both technologcly advanced ( like the modern US military). They would have been able to design, build, and field a more potent version of the P-38 (or any other Allied plane for that matter!)

I personally think that the P-47 with 108's would pose a serious threat to Allied daylight bombing. The P-38 would have mopped up the remains that the P-47 missed


----------



## Colin1 (Apr 30, 2009)

airboiy said:


> Lets not forget that the Germans had extensive R&D capabilities during the war. After all, they invented rocket propulsion and jet propulsion, while inventing stehlhegrantes (stick grenades/potato mashers) and SMGs. The German Werhmact and Luftwaffe were both technologcly advanced ( like the modern US military). They would have been able to design, build, and field a more potent version of the P-38 (or any other Allied plane for that matter!)


Well
I think the Chinese invented rocketry, the Germans merely considered it a viable interceptor propulsion system though I bet one or two Komet drivers disagreed... 
Jet propulsion research was ongoing behind the scenes of at least three of the principal combatants of WWII.
Everyone had SMGs, the Sten was an SMG, so was the Thompson, the MP40 and PPSH; the Germans gave us the world's first full-calibre assault rifle in the StG44.
What do you get if you lash a Mills bomb to a stick - a cheaper stick grenade...
Give us a few more details on this 'more potent P-38'


----------



## BombTaxi (Apr 30, 2009)

The Germans did invent SMGs in the modern sense, and also invented stick grenades - in WWI.

Nor were they the first European users of artillery rockets - the British were using Congreve rockets in the Napoleonic wars. In terms of rocket propulsion for heavier-than-air craft, the Opel RAK-1 flew in 1929 - the principle was established a decade and a half prior to the Me163 seeing service:

Opel RAK.1 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As Colin has pointed out, jet development was ongoing in other countries beside Germany - they were just the first to get jets into the air then into combat. How else would you account for the Meteor going into squadron service before war's end?

While German R&D capacity was indeed prodigious, this doesn't meant that they could have designed a 'better' P-38. As we have discussed several times in this thread, the RLM operated on very different design philosophies to the Allied manufacturers. My argument can be encapsulated in this - if the Germans had needed a 'better' P-38, they would have built one. It wouldn't have looked or performed like a P-38 though - _because the requirement that drove P-38 development did not exist within the LW_.


----------



## Colin1 (Apr 30, 2009)

BombTaxi said:


> The Germans did invent SMGs in the modern sense, and also invented stick grenades - in WWI.
> 
> In terms of rocket propulsion for heavier-than-air craft, the Opel RAK-1 flew in 1929 - the principle was established a decade and a half prior to the Me163 seeing service


but they weren't an innovation by WWII standards by virtue of the fact that everybody had them, you can argue that one was better than the other (PPSh springs to mind) but none were a tactical quantum leap ahead of their peers. That's where the StG44 re-wrote the rule book, less reliance on a dedicated support weapon with automatic-full-calibre-everywhere in the section vs opponents still popping away with 9mm.

The Germans definitely gave us the stick grenade, my point was you can turn a Mills Bomb into a stick grenade more cheaply than the Germans can; you can also leave the stick off and carry more ordnance, chancing to luck you'll find more sticks when you get where you are headed. No real deal if you don't, unless you're lobbing them into deep snow.

So the Germans _definitely_ considered rocketry as a viable propulsion system then?


----------



## HoHun (Apr 30, 2009)

Hi Colin,

>The speed differential wasn't nearly enough to be called decisive and doesn't take into account the rest of the Dora's box of tricks. ETO P-51 pilots are pretty unanimous in their estimate of the Fw190D - they regarded it as a dangerous opponent.

It certainly was, but Davparlr is right that the Fw 190D (and I assume we're all talking about the most numerous variant of the Dora, the Fw 190D-9) was not up to the P-51D's performance at 25000 ft.

The Fw 190D-9 was not a high-altitude fighter, even though it's often addressed as such in popular books. I suspect the use of the Fw 190D-9 as top cover for Fw 190A units gave rise to this notion, but while the D-9 outperforms the A-8 and even the A-9, it's not a high-altitude plane like the D-12 or the Ta 152H for lack of a high-altitude engine. The Jumo 213A really was a medium-altitude engine, undoubtly a great design but not competitive with the V-1650-7 at higher altitudes. The Jumo 213E/F engines were, but there relatively few aircraft thus powered saw combat before the end of the war.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## drgondog (Apr 30, 2009)

Vincenzo said:


> three little observations
> 
> "Pg 138
> "In October 1941, 12,000 hours were required to assemble each Mustang. At the time of assembly of the last Mustang in August 1845 production techniques had reduced this figure to 2,077"
> ...


Here is what defines 'assemble' for NAA direct production Costs, including labor, for the labor hours cited above.

The North American Aviation Cost figures and Labor hours cited multiple times above include but are not limited to"

Draw aluminum and steel (sheet, bar and tube stock) as required and direct to the manufacturing work cell (stamping, machining, heat treating, etc) to fabricate a part to a design specification.

Move the part (skin, extruded or machined beam cap, engine mount, fitting, clevis, control tube, etc) to the appropriate next stage on manufacturing (stamping, bending, heat treating, etc) to make ribs, bulkhead formers, aileron skins, gun mount fittings, wing skins, etc.

Move the finished parts to the next stage of the process plan (i.e a particular assembly point in the assembly line where panels and stiffeners and webs are riveted together into bulheads, wing/rudder and vertical stabilzer spars are fabricated, then riveted together and staged for the fuselage jigs where the longerons, bulkheads are assembled - where the wing spars and ribs are assembled - where the stabilzer frames are assembled

Assemble all the cockpit formers and supports, engine mounts, lower radiatior -oil cooler attach mounts, control linkages, hydraulic and coolant lines and internal equipment mounts, fuel cell mounts, etc..

Assemble wiring harnesses and cockpit windscreen assembly, the canopy, etc

Rivet skins to wings on the wing assmbly jigs, stabilizer skins, fuselage skins, etc..

Assemble the instrument panel, the removable cowlings and panels, the landing gear

etc, etc, and etc

until the airframe is completely fabricated and ready to install all Government Furnished Equipment.

Install the Engines, connect fuel and coolant lines, wiring harnesses, radios, control switches, cockpit equipment, attach ailerons, elevators and rudder

Install the GFE instruments, radiator, oil cooler, landing gear and gear doors, oxygen bottle, landing lights, propeller.

This is Most of what 'Assemble' means for the NAA labor build up.

Is this clearer?


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 30, 2009)

In automotive terms, the actual assembly of a vehicle begins when the work order for a particular vehicle reaches the plant, and an ID tag is generated along with the pick tickets. At that moment, the vehicle is "born" and the building begins.

Building means placing the ID tag on the frame and sending it on down to the line to have all of the parts and pre-assembled components installed, all the way to the point of delivery prep.

Wouldn't this be along the same lines for an aircraft, Bill?


----------



## drgondog (Apr 30, 2009)

GrauGeist said:


> In automotive terms, the actual assembly of a vehicle begins when the work order for a particular vehicle reaches the plant, and an ID tag is generated along with the pick tickets. At that moment, the vehicle is "born" and the building begins.
> 
> Building means placing the ID tag on the frame and sending it on down to the line to have all of the parts and pre-assembled components installed, all the way to the point of delivery prep.
> 
> Wouldn't this be along the same lines for an aircraft, Bill?



Close Dave - the aircraft begins with a contract number for a specified number of units. The aircraft serial numbers are defined within a 'block'. 

Change Orders within that block have Effectivities to differentiate those that receive the modification as a retrofit, and those that will have the package of Engineering Change Orders pacakaged together and become part of the Production sequence w/o requirement for retrofit.

An early dash number/serial number may have a number of ECO applied to it as it goes down the line - and maybe the last sequence in the same line have all the ECO's incorporated in the manufacturing process plan (as well as update the contract costing/pricing) to reflect the 'new' additions/mods.

For it to be an agreed CLI/WBS (Contract Line Item/Work Breakdown Structure) change by the contractor, the changes need to be negotiated and contract updated.

It is the latter 'stuff' that makes an airframe assembly line different from a Mass Production Automobile Battery Production line.


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 30, 2009)

Ok, that gives me a much better idea of how the process works.

The only thing I know about thier assembly (and the steps involved), to be honest, is from what I've seen in photos and small bits of information gathered from research.

Thanks for the info, Bill!


----------



## Demetrious (May 1, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> We seem keen to discount the presence of the Whirlwind in this fictional time-line, why is its potentially more prominent role so easy to overlook?



I think this is a very good point.

Assuming that this theoretical "flip-flop" of aircraft posits that one air force developed a given fighter rather then another, it's only fair to assume that the development time that went into the fighter that was "taken" went towards another ship. I ask this- if the obsolescence of the Hurricane was evident even by the late 1930s, and the Spitfire wasn't developed, then just what were those Brits working on? 

The Hurricane has a lot of good features; ease of maintainance, good durability, stable gun platform, fairly nimble- but it has a poor time-to-altitude, which makes it a horrible interceptor, and interceptors were what the British needed. Assuming that the Brits produced X number of Hurricanes in place of Y number of Spitfires, the only other fighter the Brits really had available in numbers was the P-40. The only way a P-40 is going to get to altitude in time is in pieces; after you set off a bomb under it. Besides, they were badly needed in Africa, anyway. Given all this, the incentive to develop a new interceptor would have been strong, and lacking the Spitfire, the Westwind would be a strong contender (given it's potential as a bomber-destroyer.)

How well the Whirlwind would have _performed_ in that role is another matter. I've seen knowledgeable people on this very forum speaking of how it "would" have been faster then the Mosquito, (which itself was an early-war speed demon,) but my brief internet googling says the Whirlwind was slower then the Spitfire. I assume this has something to do with the promised rather then actual performance of the troubled Perigine engines. The success of the Whirlwind in this alternate time-line would depend largely on what the Whirlwind could do with properly developed engines.


----------



## Colin1 (May 1, 2009)

Demetrious said:


> How well the Whirlwind would have _performed_ in that role is another matter. I've seen knowledgeable people on this very forum speaking of how it "would" have been faster then the Mosquito, (which itself was an early-war speed demon,) but my brief internet googling says the Whirlwind was slower then the Spitfire. I assume this has something to do with the promised rather then actual performance of the troubled Perigine engines. The success of the Whirlwind in this alternate time-line would depend largely on what the Whirlwind could do with properly developed engines.


The Rolls-Royce Peregrine's problems were as nothing compared to the growing pains of the Napier Sabre. The Sabre passed its 100-hour Type test with a few snags but it wasn't until production tests that it really began to unravel - 'ovalling' of the piston sleeves, Coffman starter system that shock-loaded the gear train too highly (and often failed to start it), sleeve drive shafts that failed frequently. Engines off the production line often failed 2-hour testing and the Sabre had to be withdrawn for modification and further testing.

Sleeving issues continued to plague the engine and warping within 20-30 hours running time led to unacceptable oil consumption.

The Ministry of Supply approached Bristol Aero-engine Division to produce sleeves that would allow a full engine run with a Sabre. By this time, Napier themselves were just about ready to throw in the towel, being kept in it by Air Ministry authorisation; Bristol Taurus sleeves were close to Sabre dimensions and were machined down for the job. Supplying sleeves to a rival manufacturer didn't exactly delight Bristol, especially with their 2,000hp Centaurus waiting in the wings.
The Bristol sleeves carried the day and full-life testing revealed oil consumption still within spec limits but all in all, hugely expensive to rectify. 

i. The Sabre eventually became a reliable engine in its Sabre V version - a long way down the line. 
ii. Production costs (minus development costs) were in the region of 4-5 times greater than for a Merlin.
iii. TBO started at 25 hours
iv. Performance fell off at 18,000ft so was of little use in combatting the Fw190 at 20,000ft or above.
v. It was, by the standards of its peers, a hugely complex engine.
vi. Typhoon losses with the Sabre were roughly 1 aircraft per sortie due to engine malfunction.


The Peregrine was a geared supercharged version of the RR Kestrel developing 885hp using 87 octane at a rated altitude of 15,000ft. On commencement of development work, Rolls-Royce were warned that they might be asked to produce no less than 1,600 Peregrines, on 23Mar39 the Air Ministry authorised the production of 440 units, asking RR to scale for a program of 1,960 engines.

At the commencement of trials on 10Nov38 they (pre-production engines) were found to run hot though with satisfactory performance. The starboard engine suffered seized bearings and was removed.

By Dec38 the engines were continuing to 'steam', often running above temp limits. During one test flight, the port engine temp did indeed run far too high. On switching off this engine and heading back the remaining engine began to do the same (this caused an emergency diversion to a nearer airfield and to the test pilot's credit this aerodrome was only rated for Gladiators and Harts).

The Air Ministry became impatient and demanded a handling and performance assessment and on 31Dec38 L6844 was flown to RAE Farnborough where Westland were notified that the outcome of this briefest of trials would be the decider for a contract for 200 aircraft. This was in complete contravention of a recommendation passed in 1935, stating that orders for aircraft must be placed before the prototype was tested.

In Feb39 a conference was held to settle queries from Westland which would affect production. Items on the agenda included

i. propeller clearances
ii. undercarriage
iii. types of pipes and joints
iv. oil tank capacity
v. flap controls
vi. tropical equipment

The Air Ministry wanted flaps and undercart controls moved from the right side of the cockpit to the left side, Petter felt this was unnecessary as it would cause congestion of controls on that side of the aircraft. As regards the tropical equipment, Petter was exasperated as these were not part of the original specification. Westland never wanted to make the changes until the trial installations were approved whereas the Air Ministry would not accept this view. One of their letters replying to Petter's criticisms and difficulties over the Air Ministry's stance stated 'I feel that the difficulties envisaged by you at Yeovil would not have been so great had there been that willingness to cooperate with the Air Ministry which we normally experience with aircraft firms.'

By Mar39, Westland were becoming disturbed by the increasing demands for changes in design and equipment that were being called for. Petter pointed out that these could only be introduced gradually if production was not to be held up; due to the rapid nature of requirement changes, the first 9 aircraft were already rolled off the production line non-standard, aircraft 1-24 inclusive would have some major operational features missing; clearly the first 24 aircraft would not be suitable for overseas operations.

Jun39 and RR were still experiencing problems with the Peregrine, with the priming pump and fuel pump, others with engine cut-out in flight and on take-off, very little was consistent. L6845, on a repeat climb test for radiator suitability had a cut-out at 20,000ft, power setting 2,400rpm and -1lb boost. This was put down to the pump running at too high a temp so a cooling duct was built in, to try and prevent the vapour lock.

It was not enough, production was concurrent with the Merlin and the Peregrine's days were numbered, both it and the Griffon were given a back seat from which the Peregrine was not to return.

It seems strange to me that the Air Ministry were prepared to wade through the enormous technical problems of the Sabre when the Merlin was already in service and providing both sufficient performance and development potential, yet the Peregrine was maligned and eventually abandoned before the Merlin was even fully developed, let alone deployed - before the RAF had something they could put in the air and call a winner. 
The demands of the Air Ministry on Westland seemed childishly unrealistic and really came across as an engineered failure; with more commitment and not least, will, the Peregrine's bugs may well have been solved more quickly and with considerably less difficulty than those of the Sabre.


----------



## MikeGazdik (May 1, 2009)

I know very little of the British "system". But it sounds like politics and the military command meddling with the design. The Luftwaffe / Germans had it, and so did the U.S. and the Air Corps.


----------



## airboiy (May 4, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> Well
> I think the Chinese invented rocketry, the Germans merely considered it a viable interceptor propulsion system though I bet one or two Komet drivers disagreed...
> Jet propulsion research was ongoing behind the scenes of at least three of the principal combatants of WWII.
> Everyone had SMGs, the Sten was an SMG, so was the Thompson, the MP40 and PPSH; the Germans gave us the world's first full-calibre assault rifle in the StG44.
> ...



I simply meant that the Germans would have solved the problem with steep dives. The P-38's tail and wings would shear off in mid-flight during a ~87 degree dive. The allies, with all their might, couldn't solve this "small problem";
the Germans solved this problem on their BF-110 heavy fighter/destroyer.
They also first used rockets as weapons *DURING * ww2.


----------



## drgondog (May 4, 2009)

airboiy said:


> I simply meant that the Germans would have solved the problem with steep dives. The P-38's tail and wings would shear off in mid-flight during a ~87 degree dive. The allies, with all their might, couldn't solve this "small problem";



The problem was complicated, and the solution was delayed by the loss of the XP-38 for test purposes until the YP-38 was available a year later.

The first issue (flutter) masked the second issue (compressibility) as trans sonic flow was not well understood by anyone at the time. The P-38 entered a compressibilty state extremely quickly and the first solution of the tuck down problem was boosted elevator - which indeed caused structural failures.

The P-47 also experienced the nose down tuck as the Me 262. Of the front line US fighters the Mustang was the most successful at NOT exhibiting tuck down due primarily to the Laminar flow airfoil which produced a center of lift close to 35-40% chord - at approximately where the flow would separate on a conventional (P-38/P-47) wing.. 

It (compressibility dive solution of dive flap/brake) was then further delayed when the dive brake introduction was delayed a year because USAAF demanded that no slow down of production would be allowed to incorporate both manuevering flap and dive brakes into the production P-38J-25.

I believe Germany would have solved it quicker simply because the Germans would have been a.) careful with the prototype and b.) would have had production tooling readier (or not at all) earlier based on their procurement practices... but not because they 'were smarter'.


----------



## airboiy (May 5, 2009)

drgondog said:


> I believe Germany would have solved it quicker simply because the Germans would have been a.) careful with the prototype and b.) would have had production tooling readier (or not at all) earlier based on their procurement practices... but not because they 'were smarter'.



I didn't mean that they were smarter...I simply meant that the German R&D would have acess to better resources than the Allies, as well as being more careful with their prototypes of aircraft. The Allies were pretty rough with aircraft, as well as impatient with the production time.

I am sorry if I offend anyone with my statements.


----------



## drgondog (May 5, 2009)

airboiy said:


> I didn't mean that they were smarter...I simply meant that the German R&D would have acess to better resources than the Allies, as well as being more careful with their prototypes of aircraft. The Allies were pretty rough with aircraft, as well as impatient with the production time.
> 
> I am sorry if I offend anyone with my statements.



You didn't offend me - 

Just out of curiosity why do you think Germany had better access to resources than the US?

What does 'rough and impatient' mean - in contrast to 'gentle and patient'


----------



## airboiy (May 5, 2009)

drgondog said:


> You didn't offend me -
> 
> Just out of curiosity why do you think Germany had better access to resources than the US?
> 
> What does 'rough and impatient' mean - in contrast to 'gentle and patient'



 Well, the Germans did put a priority on technology ( be it aeroplanes, tanks, guns, etc.) that would win the war. Plus, Germany did invade other countries and siphoned a lot of those countries' natural resources to fuel it's war effort, including scientists, engineers, and skilled workers.

I considered the Allies "rough" with their planes because they put unfinished aircraft in the air for "flight testing". The Germans put their planes through rigorous "ground tests" (i.e. wind tunnels, engine/airframe stress tests) before the prospective planes even graced the sky. Thus, the Allies lost a lot of money, time, and prototypes due to the limited (or lack thereof) of "ground tests".


----------



## drgondog (May 5, 2009)

airboiy said:


> Well, the Germans did put a priority on technology ( be it aeroplanes, tanks, guns, etc.) that would win the war. Plus, Germany did invade other countries and siphoned a lot of those countries' natural resources to fuel it's war effort, including scientists, engineers, and skilled workers.
> 
> *But the Allies de-emphasized technology and were determined to build equipment (aircraft, carriers, subs, rifles, trucks, atomic bombs, etc) that would fail?
> 
> ...



I suggest you go to the library and research a variety of books on WWII aircraft. All the good ones will spend a lot of time regarding the development of your favorite aircraft and you will find that you are 100% wrong regarding your perspective of American and Brit development/test processes.

Certain US aircraft (notably the B-29 and P-38) experienced a variety of gestation problems - both in aerodynamics (P-38 for flutter and transonic flow/separation) as well as large scale systems integration of complex fire control systems, buggy advanced powerplants, etc. (B-29).

If you feel that is typical and that the Germans moved advanced technology smoothly into production I would draw your attention to the study of the FW 190, the He 219, the Ta 154, the Me 262, etc

Welcome to the forum. I'm not gonna pick on you regarding your lack of knowledge about the three or four subjects you have discussed - but you may have a lot to learn - and this is a good place to do just that.

You will find a variety of folks with great knowledge regarding all aspects of WWII. This is a great opportunity to be armed with thoughtful research and facts when expressing opinions on a variety of topics.


----------



## airboiy (May 5, 2009)

Thanks, didn't mean to mess up like that...my great-grandfather was a scientistand professor of aeronautics from Warsaw who was conscripted by the Nazi's (not Germans!) to design and test new aircraft designs. I just assumed all he said was true-obviously now I see my error. He told me what it was like from his perspective. I was very interested in planes when I was young and therefore asked him questions about planes every time I saw him before he died ten years ago...may he rest in peace.

I hope I can learn a thing or two here, as well as not look like an idiot on the forum. Sorry for the mistake!


----------



## drgondog (May 5, 2009)

airboiy said:


> Thanks, didn't mean to mess up like that...my great-grandfather was a scientistand professor of aeronautics from Warsaw who was conscripted by the Nazi's (not Germans!) to design and test new aircraft designs. I just assumed all he said was true-obviously now I see my error. He told me what it was like from his perspective. I was very interested in planes when I was young and therefore asked him questions about planes every time I saw him before he died ten years ago...may he rest in peace.
> 
> I hope I can learn a thing or two here, as well as not look like an idiot on the forum. Sorry for the mistake!



Don't be so humble, you didn't offend me in any way and I seemed overy critical I apologise to you. There are far bigger idiots on this forum and I like to think I am one of those..


----------



## MikeGazdik (May 5, 2009)

I think, perhaps, what "airboiy" was getting at is the famous German craftmanship. Though sometimes over-hyped, they do have a reputation of fine craftsmanship.

And I think he was agreeing with most of us, in that possibly losing a valuable weapon like the XP-38, in a grandstanding stunt, would likely not have happened in Germany pre-war.

Though it may seem you were chastized by drgondog, you were not. He was giving helpful suggestions. In my very short time on this forum, I have learned an incredible amount from him alone, and many many other here!


----------



## airboiy (May 6, 2009)

It's alright Drgondog..."we're all a shade of idiot..I'm a darker shade of idiot than most people!" as my great-grandpa used to say. MikeGazdik is right; I was talking about the engineering and craftsmanship of the Germans. I'm sorry I posted it wrongly.  

I must add (because I just read it!) it was a German scientist who solved the P-38's (in)famous flutter and transonic flow/separation problems. 

BTW...By priority on tech, I was thinking of the planes you mentioned (and the "black projects" you didn't).
 
Thanks, MikeGazdik-I hope I learn from every one on the forum!


----------



## drgondog (May 6, 2009)

airboiy said:


> It's alright Drgondog..."we're all a shade of idiot..I'm a darker shade of idiot than most people!" as my great-grandpa used to say. MikeGazdik is right; I was talking about the engineering and craftsmanship of the Germans. I'm sorry I posted it wrongly.
> 
> *Germans have always had excellent engineers and craftsmen. They didn't have a monopoly on engineers and surely could not compete with US production capability - all by itself, much less keep up with Allies*
> 
> ...



What was your source (book, webpage) for the German scientist at Lockheed? Or Ames where Lockheed did large scale wind tunnel tests?


----------



## TheMustangRider (May 7, 2009)

You can make that double MikeGazdik, for us the guys in a learning process, knowledgeable gentlemen like Drgondog, Erich and others here in the forum are a treasure of knowledge which have help me and many of us I'm sure to understand many aspects of military aviation in WWII.


----------

